Thief on the cross means faith alone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter aball1035
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
aball1035 said:
I’m debating a Protestant and he says that since the good thief on the cross died and went to Heaven, this is an argument for faith alone.
Click to expand...
I think what it is is an argument for: if you become a Christian and die almost immediately, then you go to heaven.

Other than that, it’s pretty much stretching it to extrapolate to any other doctrines.
 
Daniel_J said:
Mark01 and PJM I do not believe that Abraham’s bosom is “Paradise” mentioned by Jesus to the good thief. Because of 2 aspects regarding the soul being subject to gravity so-to-speak and being naturally pulled down to the lower parts of the earth.

Namely, number one our creed refers to this as “hell”. And, number two Jacob refers to this as “hell”. see Gen.37:35

Let’s see now, Jesus mentions “this day”, “you shall be with me in paradise” then he descends into hell for three days.

I’m thinking that we got ourselves one great mystery here in this verse. Personally I would apply the rule that the answer has to be simple with no reaching or long talked explanation. I would also look to the passage for the answer.

Our Gospel schedule lists this Easter verse on King of the Universe Sunday so we need recognize homiletically that the Kingdom of God commenced when Jesus mentioned that the crucifixion part, “It is finished” on the Cross.

Now, other than the “Kingdom” theme we can ask what “paradise” in hell ?

Maybe take your pencil and circle “paradise” and see that the Greek here does not mention “heaven”. But at the same time the Gospel does know “heaven” because this is mentioned in Luke 2:15.

I am now thinking we take our pencil again and circle the words “with me” and the draw an ‘equals’ sign between the two circles.

I say “paradise” is a “Person”.

dj
Click to expand...
THANKS

Not exactly sure why I"M included in this?

And WELCOME TO CAF!👍

Because Jesus had YET to “ascend to the Father” John 20:17; the Gate of Heven had yet to be reopened; hence, the GT could NOT have YET gained access to heaven; and therefore went to the “Limbo of the Fathers”; which you may wish to GOOGLE

God Bless you and welcome aboard

Patrick
 
dreath said:
This is terrible argument. ughhhh
Click to expand...
Isn’t it curious that the Apostle Paul used the word “faith” and related terms more than 200 times in the New Testament, yet he never once used the phrase “faith alone”?

This seems strange considering how concerned Paul was with passing on the faith accurately. The means to justification would be among the most important truths he would preach. In fact, throughout all of his works, he goes to great lengths to choose his words with precision, so it seems odd that “faith alone” does not appear once in all of his writings.

This is even more surprising given the fact that Paul also used the words “alone” and “only” more than any other New Testament author. Clearly, Paul was well-accustomed to using these powerful qualifiers.

Could it be that the Holy Spirit prevented Paul from ever writing “faith alone” to describe the process of justification? And that same check prevented any of the gospel writers from ascribing “faith alone” to Jesus, either.

In fact, the only time that the Holy Spirit allowed any author to use that infamous phrase is when He inspired James to write, “You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)

Therefore, for those who propose that Paul taught justification by faith alone, a very haunting question remains: Why didn’t Paul use the specific phrase “faith alone” anywhere in his New Testament writings?
 
After I left my Evangelical roots, I realized how weak the “faith alone” argument is. Let’s forget for the moment that Scripture clearly emphasizes the necessity of works again and again. If one’s position is that Christ’s work on the cross is all that is necessary and that there is nothing we can “do” to be saved, then logically all men should be saved. Yet Evangelicals do require action on the part of the sinner. They believe that one must, by a deliberate act of the will, repent and accept Christ, usually in the form of the “sinner’s prayer” ritual. This by definition is a work. It is an act of the will. It is something one must DO.
The thief on the cross likewise accepted Christ. He DID something. All our good works, including conversion and faith, flow from the grace of Christ working within us.
 
Well its not just faith that Jesus is going to ask about - I can give all sorts of examples from the Gospels where what you do with that faith is going to matter - Shall we start with the parable of the talents or should we go right to the goats and the sheep parable.
 
twf quote
If one’s position is that Christ’s work on the cross is all that is necessary and that there is nothing we can “do”
Click to expand...
People forget that this is not to be abstracted but rather this eternal event needs be contacted, moreover “touched” by the sinner in order to be saved.

This salvation is Sacrament.

dj
 
Todd_Easton said:
The good thief admonished the other thief, “Have you no fear of God…” Admonishing a sinner is considered a good work.
Click to expand...
That’s true. Great point. He was not without a work. 👍

But also, faith restricted from completing it’s work is not to be blamed.
 
hu324b said:
I disagree - it is a gift from God that is given to us - if we accept it or not and what we do with it is a work but that also only by Gods grace.
Click to expand...
I’m no semi-Pelagian. But the act of faith requires the activity of one’s will.
 
e_c said:
I’m no semi-Pelagian. But the act of faith requires the activity of one’s will.
Click to expand...
Yes, it’s* both. *Both a gift of grace and a gift that can always be rejected. Grace is resistible in Catholic theology; God does not force His will upon us; man can say “no”.
 
fhansen said:
Yes, it’s* both. *Both a gift of grace and a gift that can always be rejected. Grace is resistible in Catholic theology; God does not force His will upon us; man can say “no”.
Click to expand...
Yep. Egg-zactly.

That’s what’s the fodder for oh-so-many heresies–demanding an either/or when a both/and will do just fine.

Since being on the CAFs I’ve compiled a list of some ONLYs that are so peculiar to me. Why, oh why, should someone create a dichotomy when one is not required?

We have:
  • The Bible ONLY folks.
  • The Faith ONLY folks.
  • The King James Version of the Bible ONLY folks.
  • The Latin ONLY folks
  • The Communion Should Be In The Hands ONLY folks
  • The Science ONLY folks.
  • The English ONLY folks.
  • The Intercessory Prayer should be done in Private ONLY folks
  • The Jesus is Man ONLY folks.
  • The Jesus is God ONLY folks.
  • The We should follow the words of Jesus ONLY folks
  • The We should follow the words of Paul ONLY folks.
 
fhansen said:
Yes, it’s* both. *Both a gift of grace and a gift that can always be rejected. Grace is resistible in Catholic theology; God does not force His will upon us; man can say “no”.
Click to expand...
Catholic theology allows that there is irresistible grace as well. Such as in the case of Saul`s conversion.?
Or as usual i am mistaken.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top