Thief on the cross means faith alone?

[Miriam1947]

Mark,

First lets look at what Jesus said to the good thief
(Luke 23:43) He replied to him, Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.

I have read discussions about the comma.

First lets look at what Jesus said to the good thief
(Luke 23:43) He replied to him, Amen, I say to you today, you will be with me in Paradise.

Since Jesus didn’t ascend immediately then the thief may have gone to Purgatory but was guaranteed Heaven.

There were no commas in the originals.

 

[rdscheirer]

The question should be moot. Martin Luther changed the Protestant bible to edit the Letter of James so that he could say that only Grace could save where James says “Grace without works is dead” He also said that sin is forgiven by the death of Jesus so"therfore sin and sin abundantly".

 

[TimothyH]

So when Jesus uses the word paradise he is not referring to heaven, but to the realm of the dead also so referd to as hades, hell or shoal. So where is the “paradise Jesus is talking about” I refer you to Luke Chapter 16…

This explanation will usually get you some pretty good results when talking about the good thief and faith alone. We really don’t know the status of the good thief. I do however accept the above explanation based on scripture and I don’t believe it goes against Catholic doctrine.

Mark, this is pretty good from an apologetic standpoint.

So the word paradise may not have referred to Heaven per se, but to something else which devout Jews would have immediately recognized - the Jewish view of Sheol or “The Pit”. Is this a correct summary of your statement? Can you point to where one might learn more about the Jewish view of Hades, Sheol, the Netherworld, the Pit, etc. in light of Luke 16?

I find this type of argument quite effective in illustrating the Catholic position on a variety of doctrines, that there is much that Jesus said which would have been immediately reconized by the Jews in Jesus’ time but that we do not reconize because we don’t have the social, political and economic perspective of how they lived.

Keys to the kingdom was a political appointment by a king of a prime minister

Redeemed vs Saved as a reference to how debtors prisions operated

etc.

-Tim-

 

[Mark01]

Timothy

I haven’t had much time this weekend to look further into your questions. I had a very good article that I had read on the subject of the “bosom of Abraham”. I wish I could find the article and I thought it was from CA “This Rock” magazine but have not been able to find it.

If you do a search on the “bosom of Abraham” you will find some interesting reading. The Jewish people of Jesus day did believe in an afterlife, it is unclear to me from what little research I have done on it as to how widespread these beliefs were and just exactly what those beliefs entailed. The Pharisees taught that there was a resurrection and the Sadducee’s did not, so the Jewish faith was differing on it’s views of what happened to a person when they died.

Sheol is mentioned in the Old testament in Psalms as well as other books. The Maccabees literature speaks of the solders praying for the dead. I just don’t know enough at this point to speak with any certainty on the Jewish beliefs.

 

[BerhaneSelassie]

The phrase “faith alone” is not heretical to Catholicism, in fact some of the early Church Fathers and Doctors of the Church used it, a person can be justified by faith alone. The heresy of Luther and many Protestants is saying that it is faith ALONE that justifies, meaning that NO works done after receiving the faith justify. Clearly James 2 tells us to the contrary.

The thief at the Cross did do good works at the cross, he defended Christ against the unrepentant thief.

If the thief was baptized or not is very debatable. St Ephraim the Syrian seems to say the thief was baptized while on the cross when the Roman soldier pierced Christ in the side and water shed out, but this may perhaps be imagery by St Ephraim, and there are of course fathers that say he was baptized before. If this is the case then the thief committed apostasy briefly before repenting on the cross, since one of the other gospels (not Luke’s) tells us that the 2 thieves were mocking Jesus, then again some this does not mean that both were doing it somehow. Mark 1:5 tells us St John the Baptist baptized “all” of Judea and Jerusalem, John 3 tells us similar, and John 4:2 tells us Jesus had more baptized than St John did, perhaps the good thief was among them.

You should also notice that the good thief died before Jesus died according to the Gospels.

If the thief did not receive a sacramental baptism, then he is an example of the baptism of desire or “desire for baptism” (called “baptism of the Holy Spirit” once in the ECF’s). A few times when the Doctors of the Church said a person was justified by faith alone they were referring to the baptism of desire.

For instance 12th Century Doctor of the Church St Bernard says:

“We adduce only the opinions and words of the Fathers and not our own; for we are not wiser than our fathers …Believe me, it will be difficult to separate me from these two pillars, by which I refer to Augustine and Ambrose. I confess that with them I am either right or wrong in believing that people** can be saved by faith alone** and the desire to receive the sacrament, even if untimely death or some insuperable force keep them from fulfilling their pious desire” (Letter 77, 1, 8).

Concerning paradise, before the Cross it was the abode of the righteous dead or Abraham’s Bosom, rabbinical scholar and Christian (Lutheran i think) says:

“By Paradise the rabbis understand the “good department” of Sheol, as Jesus too with his familiar words to the thief. In these words too we can see strongly the eternal perspective.”—Risto Santala, On Paul

However, AFTER the Cross paradise refers to HEAVEN (2 Cor 12, Rev 3 )

 

[rinnie]

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. I responded that since he died before Jesus, they were still under the Old Law. Is this the correct approach?

Here is something you must remember. Paradise. Where was paradise then? Was it not where Abraham was?

I believe that the Good thief did indeed go to heaven because he did indeed repent his sins. He was sorry and asked for fogiveness.

But I believe then as I still believe now that the good thief did have to go to purgatory. It is one thing to be forgiven for your sins but another to be completely cleansed from them.

There is no such thing as faith alone. Faith cannot save you. Only if you live your faith. Many people believe in Jesus, look at the devil. To believe is one thing to follow is another.

When we are forgiven for us sins we must also repent and quit the sin, and what is harder then quiting the sin is loosing the desire to repeat that sin.

Like say gambeling, say it is a sin for someone because they got out of control with it, so they quit. That is one thing, but they must lose that urge to want to do it again, and forget the fun that they had in doing it. That is what is harder to me. Because unfortunately alot of sin you had fun doing it. That whats hard forgetting completely the fun and not seeing the fun anymore.

 

[dreath]

The “Theif on the Cross” argument used by Protestant’s is very shallow, as if all the guy did was say “Jesus, I love you” or something.

The other, however, rebuking him, said in reply, "Have you no fear of God, for you are subject to the same condemnation? And indeed, we have been condemned justly, for the sentence we received corresponds to our crimes, but this man has done nothing criminal." (Luke 23:40-41)

The thief made an public “Act” of faith. He made an oral confession of guilt. He humbled himself before God as he acknowledged and accepted his just sentance. He defended Christ. He did something concrete. It actually sounds a little like confession, pennance and reconcilliation if you ask me.

The problem with the modern notion of “Faith alone” is that it does not correspond to the reality of what faith meant to the ancients. To modern man in western society, professing “Faith in Jesus” might get you, at worst, a few strange looks. Where I live in the deep south, people are likely to give you a high-five and invite you to their Friday night fellowship group. But Roman subjects were required to take an oath of allegiance to the Emperor and breaking that oath was punishable by death. Faith in Jesus for the ancients meant renunciation of the oath of allegiance to the Emperor and that is why so many were martyred. At a minimum, your family was likely to ostracize you, merchants would not do business with you, etc. “Faith” nowadays is very far removed from the reality of what faith meant for the ancients. For the followers of Christ, “Faith” was something very real, something that was likely to get you killed.

Yes, all through the Bible is says that faith in Jesus saves. This is certainly undeniable. But nowhere does it say that faith alone saves. The Bible in fact, explicitly states that faith alone does not save. The second Chapter of James says:

• Faith without works is dead
• Faith without works is useless
• Faith must be active
• Faith is completed by works
• A person is justified by works and not by faith alone

James even says that those who believe that faith without works is of any value is an “Ignoramus.”

The Bible uses the phrase “Faith alone” exactly once, in James 2 and it says that a person is NOT justified by faith alone.

Ask the Protestant to explain Matthew 7:21 in the context of Faith alone

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

That should be enough to invoke the “I’ll speak with my Pastor and get back to you on that” escape clause.

-Tim-

This is terrible argument. ughhhh

 

[Randy_Carson]

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. I responded that since he died before Jesus, they were still under the Old Law. Is this the correct approach?

Not sure where I got this…probably from Catholic Answers years ago…

Luke 23:39-43 – The Good Thief

Q: Is the story of the good thief in Luke 23:39–43 proof that baptism isn’t necessary?

A: First, it isn’t clear that baptism had yet been mandated by Jesus before he met the thief. If it had been, we do not know for certain that the thief hadn’t already been baptized. In any case, the thief clearly underwent a conversion at some point during his crucifixion, and it seems evident that he would have desired baptism before his death had he known of its necessity. That would have been sufficient, because the Church recognizes that, in such a case, the desire for baptism brings about the fruits of baptism (CCC 1258).

Simply having water poured over one’s head with the Trinitarian formula does not mean a person is instantly saved forever. Baptism incorporates the individual into the Body of Christ, and within the whole life of the Church an individual’s baptism must be accompanied by faith. The developing faith of the individual is empowered by the grace of baptism, and nurtured by the whole Church, but if the Christian faith is rejected or never positively affirmed, the baptism is not magically effective.

For difficult cases such as the good thief, it should be explained that the Catholic Church has always taught that there is a “baptism of blood” and a “baptism of desire.” The baptism of blood refers to those who were not baptized but were martyred for Christ. They are incorporated, through their own death, into the mystical body of Christ through a mystical sharing in his sacrificial death.

The baptism of desire refers to those individuals with faith in Christ who would be baptized if they had the opportunity and if they truly understood what baptism means. It applies to those who, due to extraordinary circumstances, do not have access to water for baptism. But the New Testament indicates that what we call “baptism of desire” is the case for the Old Testament saints. Noah and his family were “saved through water” in the flood, (2 Pet. 2:5) and the Hebrew children were baptized “into Moses in the cloud and the Red Sea” (1 Cor. 10:2). This suggests that baptism of desire may also extend to those who have pre-Christian faith or to non-Christians who have faith according to the level of their knowledge, but have never heard the Christian gospel.

It may also apply to those who have faith in Christ, but have not been baptized because they truly and sincerely (because of false teaching received in goodwill) do not believe that baptism is necessary. Even in these cases, however, it should be understood that the Church teaches that such individuals “may” be saved, not that they are saved.

+++

And there is this:

Did the thief on the cross do any good works? Of course he did.

In Luke 23:40-42, we see that the good thief:

• rebuked the bad thief who reviled Jesus (Lk 23:40)
• feared the judgment of God and repented over his sins (Lk 23:40-41)
• professed his faith in Jesus and expressed his desire to be with Jesus in heaven (Lk 23:42)

Thus, the good thief showed sorrow and repentence for his sins and desired salvation. In other words, the good thief persevered in both faith and works to his death, and Jesus rewarded him with eternal life (Lk 23:43).

 

[fhansen]

"From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." Luke 12:48

Read the Parable of the Talents to see how this principle plays itself out. The thief on the cross did the very best he could with what [little] opportunities he had or was given.

 

[fhansen]

“From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.” Luke 12:48

Read the Parable of the Talents to see how this principle plays itself out. The thief on the cross did the very best he could with what [little] opportunities he had or was given. Had he been given more: more time, more grace, more revelation, etc, more would’ve been expected of him. God is infinitely just.

 

[ericc]

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. I responded that since he died before Jesus, they were still under the Old Law. Is this the correct approach?

We don’t know what faiths the 2 thieves subscribed to. We don’t know whether they are Jewish or Gentiles. Crucifixion is a Roman punishment and not Jewish.

Faith alone stance is presumptuous that these men are Jews and that is not known based upon the little written.

1. God can elect anyone to heaven and that is his prerogative.
   2)The good thief acknowledges his sins to Jesus. He believed that Jesus is God by reason of the words he uttered. Presumably Jesus forgave him and thus pronounced heaven. Unless after confession the good thief commit other sins while hanging up there which is unlikely, he would have a clean slate. The fate of the other thief is not known or whether he persist in his sinful state.

The sequence is that the good thief initiated the dialog in asking Jesus to remember him when he is in his kingdom. And Jesus affirmed. Contrast the case of Abraham (Protestants like to quote this example) where God initiated and Abraham believed. So it couldn’t be a matter of faith but a matter of pure unsolicited belief by the good thief that Jesus is God even though Jesus was in such a bad state then, so far from being godly. For Abraham, he knows that it is God he is speaking to in the circumstances. Having a measure of faith for him is therefore not so remarkable. Compared to Abraham, the good thief only knows that Jesus is God and probably not particularly knowledgeable about what religion of the Jews is all about if he is not Jewish.

 

[PJM]

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. I responded that since he died before Jesus, they were still under the Old Law. Is this the correct approach?

Yes, but this distinction might be:shrug: too sublime for all to comprehend.

ALSO the GT was granted a Baptism of Desire [John 3:5 ; Mt 28:18-19]

Salvation begins with Faith THROUGH Grace

Well done!

GB

 

[PJM]

As an alternate explanation to the “faith alone” argument concerning the good thief one can look at some key scripture passages concerning what Jesus meant by the word paradise and what occurred before Jesus’ resurrection on Easter Sunday.

First lets look at what Jesus said to the good thief
(Luke 23:43) He replied to him, Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.

I highlight the word today, because Jesus died on Good Friday and after His death he went to preach to the spirits in prison. He did not ascend to heaven until after His resurrection.

(1Pe 3:18-19) For Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the sake of the unrighteous, that he might lead you to God. Put to death in the flesh, he was brought to life in the spirit. In it he also went to preach to the spirits in prison,

When one recites the Apostles Creed one says: “was crucified, died, and was buried;
he descended to the dead.On the third day he rose again;he ascended into heaven,”

So when Jesus uses the word paradise he is not referring to heaven, but to the realm of the dead also so referd to as hades, hell or shoal. So where is the “paradise Jesus is talking about” I refer you to Luke Chapter 16

(Luk 16:19-26)
*There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day. And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Dogs even used to come and lick his sores. When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham. The rich man also died and was buried, and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he cried out, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me. Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.’ Abraham replied, ‘My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented. Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.’ *

The paradise Jesus was referring to is the same paradise that Lazarus the poor beggar went to when he died. Hades was a divided realm separated by a great chasm one side being a side of torment and the other side being a paradise of peace and comfort.

This explanation will usually get you some pretty good results when talking about the good thief and faith alone. We really don’t know the status of the good thief. I do however accept the above explanation based on scripture and I don’t believe it goes against Catholic doctrine.

Well done, thank you!

 

[BobCatholic]

I have a little different approach myself that includes the possibility that the thief was baptized. But even if he wasn’t.

He not only had faith but it was actualized. The good thief:

*1. Made a public profession of faith.
2. Repented of his sins, admitting his guilt.
3. Preached the truth of Christ (which also was obedience to the 8th commandment about not bearing false witness) *

And let’s add to this:

It was TREMENDOUSLY PAINFUL to talk on the cross. The crucified one had to push down on their feet to get air to breathe lest they suffocate. That was painful. Then speaking took great strength and effort to do. All while making tons of effort and pain to do this, and trying to keep breathing.
​

​

 

[fbl9]

In St.John 20:17, Christ states that He has yet to ascend to the Father.

 

[Daniel_J]

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

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

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. I responded that since he died before Jesus, they were still under the Old Law. Is this the correct approach?

Well, you are on the right track,

You can look up the word “Paradise” that jesus used in the original greek. It is not the same word for “Heaven” as in the dwelling place of God. For example; when Jesus says that nobody gets married in Heaven. It is a different word completely.

Yes, they were still under the old law and Heaven was not opened up yet. You can read in First Peter 3: 18-20 that Jesus decended into the holding place for the dead after death. He did not go to Heaven. The good thief would have gone to this holding place too. Also called “Paradise” in the old days. In John 20:17 Jesus even tells Mary Magdeline after he appeared to her when he rose to the dead that he has not yet ascended to His Father.

They were living in the old covenant at the time when heaven was not opened up yet and the word “paradise” was used at the time to describe a completely different place than heaven and this is proven by reading the passage in the original greek. The good thief certainly went to heaven but not until after a pit stop in “paradise” where Jesus went to preach as written in 1st Peter 18-20.

Your friend chose one of the worst ways to try to validate the false doctrine of Faith alone. Any elementary level apologist (Like me ) can refute the “The good thief went straight to heaven” argument.

 

[Daniel_J]

But still, you have to watch out for what people think that “Faith” is.

For example, most people think that “Faith” means ‘belief’.

Faith is a gift from God, a supernatural grace; whereas

“belief” on-the-other-hand is just common every-day subjective.

Everyone from Hindus to Mormons to Islam to Jews to Catholics have belief,
so really who cares ? It is like talking politics. I really wouldn’t have any energy to debate some protestants subjective that he or she wrongly labels “Faith”.

I personally have one belief and that is I believe in Truth, and simplicity. I think that I can define Faith more simple than the more ascended description above.

Faith is connection.

What if God looked down from heaven, and saw you. He then leaned over and extended out His right arm and reached down and grabbed ahold of you ? Then, this connection, is the gift of Faith.

I was in discussion with a protestant lately regarding Faith and had a chance to propose my definition, and he replied with his own definition.

He said he thought Faith to be “understanding”.

(yeah, that got me thinking even further, thanks my protestant friend)

dj

 

[Daniel_J]

Just some comment:

Your friend chose one of the worst ways to try to validate the false doctrine of Faith alone. Any elementary level apologist (Like me ) can refute the “The good thief went straight to heaven” argument. posted by LaughingBoy1503

Yeah, I appreciate that and got a good ol chuckle. Kind of weird though my experience is different as I got into a little trouble with this.

I was sitting in the pew listening to Sunday Homily as the priest mentioned the Gospel reference of TGT being with Jesus in heaven so I was a little dismayed that he went a little extra-biblical and I mentioned this to him and so now he wont talk to me.

Oops.

Hey I gotta say I love this forum because you guys are so engaging !

love, Dan

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

Just some comment:

Yeah, I appreciate that and got a good ol chuckle. Kind of weird though my experience is different as I got into a little trouble with this.

I was sitting in the pew listening to Sunday Homily as the priest mentioned the Gospel reference of TGT being with Jesus in heaven so I was a little dismayed that he went a little extra-biblical and I mentioned this to him and so now he wont talk to me.

Oops.

Hey I gotta say I love this forum because you guys are so engaging !

love, Dan

Well,the story of The good thief can be used for different purposes. We can use the story as it is written originally in The Original Greek for apologetics and to refute the claim that the story confirms Sola Fide (faith alone) or we can simply use it as showing Gods mercy by His promising a condemned criminal that he will be saved. it is easier to just say “The good thief went to heaven by Gods mercy and grace” then explaining the former and 90%of the people in the pews would probably not even understand it if Father did explain the former way. I would simply tell kids that the good thief went to heaven too.