Thief on the cross means faith alone?

[aball1035]

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?

 

[Pete_Holter]

Praise God for St. Augustine!

“[T]here is the circumstance, which is not incredibly reported, that the thief who then believed as he hung by the side of the crucified Lord was sprinkled, as in a most sacred baptism, with the water which issued from the wound of the Saviour’s side. I say nothing of the fact that nobody can prove, since none of us knows, that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation. However, let every man take this in the sense he may prefer; only let no rule about baptism affecting the Saviour’s own precept be taken from this example of the thief… what if he had been baptized in prison, as in after times some under persecution were enabled privately to obtain? Or what if he had been baptized previous to his imprisonment? If, indeed, he had been, the remission of his sins which he would have received in that case from God would not have protected him from the sentence of public law, so far as appertained to the death of the body. What if, being already baptized, he had committed the crime and incurred the punishment of robbery and lawlessness, but yet received, by virtue of repentance added to his baptism, forgiveness of the sins which, though baptized, he had committed? For beyond doubt his faith and piety appeared to the Lord clearly in his heart, as they do to us in his words. If, indeed, we were to conclude that all those who have quitted life without a record of their baptism died unbaptized, we should calumniate the very apostles themselves; for we are ignorant when they were, any of them, baptized, except the Apostle Paul (cf. Acts 9:18). If, however, we could regard as an evidence that they were really baptized the circumstance of the Lord’s saying to St. Peter, ‘He that is washed needs not save to wash his feet’ (John 13:10), what are we to think of the others, of whom we do not read even so much as this—Barnabas, Timothy, Titus, Silas, Philemon, the very evangelists Mark and Luke, and innumerable others, about whose baptism God forbid that we should entertain any doubt, although we read no record of it?” (On the Soul and its Origin, Bk. 1, Ch. 11 & Bk. 3, Ch. 12)

Augustine’s conjecture that the thief was already a baptized follower of Christ prior to his crucifixion has a lot of merit. If he didn’t already know Jesus, how could he be convinced that Jesus “had done nothing wrong” (Luke 22:41)? And how could he know that Jesus, being crucified, would thereby enter into a kingdom (cf. Luke 22:42)? And how could he think anything but that the accusations against Him were true, that Jesus really had threatened to destroy the temple and was simply a blasphemer claiming to be God (cf. Matthew 26:40; John 19:7)? His death on the cross could only signify that He was most certainly “cursed by God” (Deuteronomy 21:23).

No. This man knew Jesus.

I’m going with Augustine. And whether we agree with him on this, his larger point remains insurmountable: “nobody can prove, since none of us knows, that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation.”

In Christ,
Pete

 

[TimothyH]

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-

 

[Della]

With all due respect to St. Augustine, the Church has come to understand that there is more than one form of baptism that saves. The normal, usual way is water baptism, and in a nod to St. Augustine, his point that the good thief was sprinkled with the water and blood of Christ himself would certainly be the most sacred of baptisms. But, having said that, there is also baptism by blood–a martyr’s baptism and baptism of desire–in which one is not able to be baptized or may never even have heard of it, but would have been baptized if given the opportunity.

The good thief certainly had a baptism of desire, if being sprinkled with the very water and blood of Christ would not have served as the proper form. These other two forms are derived from what we know of the mercy of God who desires that none be lost but all be saved. The depth of God’s mercy is bottomless so that anyone who has the faintest hope of salvation or desire for it may be saved. We know this because God will not break a bent reed or extinguish a smoldering wick–IOW he won’t kill anyone’s longing for him no matter how feeble it may seem to us who only see the exterior and not the interior of anyone’s heart.

 

[ProVobis]

If we can extend this thought a little, this is what I read once on a university chapel banner:

“We assume the one thief went to heaven; can we presume the other one didn’t?”

 

[MarcoPolo]

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)
3. Embraced suffering in union with Christ. (Rm 8:17)
4. Followed Christ to the best of his abilities for the remainder of his life.*Shouldn’t we do the same?

 

[Pete_Holter]

With all due respect to St. Augustine, the Church has come to understand that there is more than one form of baptism that saves. The normal, usual way is water baptism, and in a nod to St. Augustine, his point that the good thief was sprinkled with the water and blood of Christ himself would certainly be the most sacred of baptisms. But, having said that, there is also baptism by blood–a martyr’s baptism and baptism of desire–in which one is not able to be baptized or may never even have heard of it, but would have been baptized if given the opportunity.

The good thief certainly had a baptism of desire, if being sprinkled with the very water and blood of Christ would not have served as the proper form. These other two forms are derived from what we know of the mercy of God who desires that none be lost but all be saved. The depth of God’s mercy is bottomless so that anyone who has the faintest hope of salvation or desire for it may be saved. We know this because God will not break a bent reed or extinguish a smoldering wick–IOW he won’t kill anyone’s longing for him no matter how feeble it may seem to us who only see the exterior and not the interior of anyone’s heart.

Hi Della!

One of the reasons the Church has been able to come to understand the threefold manifestation of the “one baptism” that we confess is, again, thanks to Augustine:

“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, ‘To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise.’ On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.’ But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment” (, Bk. 4, Ch. 22On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

“Whatever you will and canst not, for done God does count it” (Exposition on Psalm 58).

“[W]hen we read that certain ones in the Body of Christ, which is the Church, belong to the kingdom of heaven, we must understand that this applies only to the baptized, unless it happens that the pressure of persecution has come upon those who refused to deny Christ and they have been put to death before they were baptized, in which case the shedding of their blood substitutes for baptism” (Letter 265).

You seem to want to assert that the thief was not already baptized, but Augustine’s point remains: although you are free to believe this, you cannot prove it. And as you can see, Augustine had previously held the same view.

I also want to clarify that it is not true that a person is saved just because they hope to be saved. We need to be united with Christ by the grace of God through faith, hope, and love to be saved.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

 

[runningdude]

Wow, I’d never read St. Augustine’s take on the repentant thief. If the thief were in fact baptized previously, then the cross episode could be seen as the prototype for the Sacrament of Reconciliation!

The baptized thief confesses and expresses contrition, and the Christ the High Priest gives him absolution.

Any defect in form could be explained by A) “sloppy” reporting, or B) the awkward grammatical situation of Christ reciting something like “I absolve you of your sins in the name of the Father, Myself, and the Holy Spirit” .

Of course, even if the thief were not baptized, its not as though Christ were going to tell the man to go away and get baptized. It’d be pretty impotent of Christ, if the thief’s salvation could not be rendered at point blank, just a few hours before the thief’s own death.

 

[MusicforMovies]

No. This man knew Jesus.

I’m going with Augustine. And whether we agree with him on this, his larger point remains insurmountable: “nobody can prove, since none of us knows, that he had not been baptized previous to his condemnation.”

In Christ,
Pete

Here is an additional thought? What about the Baptism of Desire?

I always assumed that the Good Thief desired to be with Christ, he accepted Christ, and even though he couldn’t receive Baptism - due to his execution being carried out - he would have desired it had he been able to physically receive it.

At least that is how I looked at it. :twocents:

and… good points MarcoPolo

Peace in Christ,
Joel :harp:

 

[Della]

Hi Della!

One of the reasons the Church has been able to come to understand the threefold manifestation of the “one baptism” that we confess is, again, thanks to Augustine:

“That the place of baptism is sometimes supplied by martyrdom is supported by an argument by no means trivial, which the blessed Cyprian adduces from the thief, to whom, though he was not baptized, it was yet said, ‘To-day shall thou be with me in Paradise.’ On considering which, again and again, I find that not only martyrdom for the sake of Christ may supply what was wanting of baptism, but also faith and conversion of heart, if recourse may not be had to the celebration of the mystery of baptism for want of time. For neither was that thief crucified for the name of Christ, but as the reward of his own deeds; nor did he suffer because he believed, but he believed while suffering. It was shown, therefore, in the case of that thief, how great is the power, even without the visible sacrament of baptism, of what the apostle says, ‘With the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.’ But the want is supplied invisibly only when the administration of baptism is prevented, not by contempt for religion, but by the necessity of the moment” (On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Bk. 4, Ch. 22).

“Whatever you will and canst not, for done God does count it” (Exposition on Psalm 58).

“[W]hen we read that certain ones in the Body of Christ, which is the Church, belong to the kingdom of heaven, we must understand that this applies only to the baptized, unless it happens that the pressure of persecution has come upon those who refused to deny Christ and they have been put to death before they were baptized, in which case the shedding of their blood substitutes for baptism” (Letter 265).

You seem to want to assert that the thief was not already baptized, but Augustine’s point remains: although you are free to believe this, you cannot prove it. And as you can see, Augustine had previously held the same view.

I also want to clarify that it is not true that a person is saved just because they hope to be saved. We need to be united with Christ by the grace of God through faith, hope, and love to be saved.

Your brother in Christ,
Pete

I’m afraid I wasn’t clear enough. As you pointed out, we cannot know if the thief was previously baptized. The Gospel writers don’t tell us, so it can’t be assumed. So, what other means might there be? The baptism of desire. And not having read anything by St. Augustine, I felt the point should be made in case St. Augustine hadn’t done so.

 

[Todd_Easton]

The good thief admonished the other thief, “Have you no fear of God…” Admonishing a sinner is considered a good work.

 

[Alan55]

The story of the conversion of the good thief (or for that matter, any deathbed convert) has no bearing on the vast majority of people who have plenty of time to act virtuously or sinfully after they come to faith. It is pretty poor logic (and terrible pastoral practice) to take the extreme corner case and make that the model for all.

 

[bluelake]

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?

What did Jesus say to the man? “Today you will be with me in paradise.”
The thief repented of his sins. See Lu.23:39-43
Wonderful Savior.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[bluelake]

If we can extend this thought a little, this is what I read once on a university chapel banner:

“We assume the one thief went to heaven; can we presume the other one didn’t?”

The life of the thief wasn’t on of belief.
We, on the other hand have had the privilage of knowing our Savior , Jesus Christ.
Read Ps. 103 and be blessed.

bluelake

 

[runningdude]

This is a bit of an aside, but I dislike the term “Faith Alone” as (in addition to its errors of doctrine), when used improperly describes the act of salvation as something passive.

Even certain usages of “Baptism by blood” and “Baptism by desire”, though of sound doctrine, have this passivity issue.

A martyr who dies out of love of Christ isn’t just saved - he is actively embraced by our Risen Lord who has promised to vanquish every tear.

An earthly pagan who never knew the Lord isn’t saved simply by an implied desire, but because Christ was actively calling the man’s heart in a mysterious manner, and the man responded to this calling.

I think then that in the absence of evidence that the thief on the cross were baptized at some point, that the message of these events is that this thief repented directly in the presence of Christ, and Christ actively responded with abundant grace.

This isn’t evidence that we shouldn’t baptize as Christ clearly instructed us to baptize, or that baptism doesn’t erase sin and punishment and permanently change one’s soul for the better. It is a reminder that faith is an active relationship. We turn to God in even the most trying or impossible of circumstances, and Christ will respond.

It is a reminder that it is the active grace of God that saves!

 

[bluelake]

This is a bit of an aside, but I dislike the term “Faith Alone” as (in addition to its errors of doctrine), when used improperly describes the act of salvation as something passive.

Even certain usages of “Baptism by blood” and “Baptism by desire”, though of sound doctrine, have this passivity issue.

A martyr who dies out of love of Christ isn’t just saved - he is actively embraced by our Risen Lord who has promised to vanquish every tear.

An earthly pagan who never knew the Lord isn’t saved simply by an implied desire, but because Christ was actively calling the man’s heart in a mysterious manner, and the man responded to this calling.

I think then that in the absence of evidence that the thief on the cross were baptized at some point, that the message of these events is that this thief repented directly in the presence of Christ, and Christ actively responded with abundant grace.

This isn’t evidence that we shouldn’t baptize as Christ clearly instructed us to baptize, or that baptism doesn’t erase sin and punishment and permanently change one’s soul for the better. It is a reminder that faith is an active relationship. We turn to God in even the most trying or impossible of circumstances, and Christ will respond.

It is a reminder that it is the active grace of God that saves!

How do catholics view ‘faith alone?’
What kind of faith?
Just believe and you are saved? I don’t think so.
look up ‘faith’ in a concordance.

Faith alone?
See Mt.22:37-40 this is the first step of our faith.
Walk worthy according to His word.

God bless,
bluelake

 

[ConstantineTG]

If we can extend this thought a little, this is what I read once on a university chapel banner:

“We assume the one thief went to heaven; can we presume the other one didn’t?”

One should look no further than the Byzantine cross. One of the popular explanations for the tilted third bar (the foot bar) is that the side that points up is for the side where the good or repentant thief is, and the side that points down is where the unrepentant thief is. It points to where they went…

 

[runningdude]

How do catholics view ‘faith alone?’
What kind of faith?
Just believe and you are saved? I don’t think so.
look up ‘faith’ in a concordance.

Faith alone?
See Mt.22:37-40 this is the first step of our faith.
Walk worthy according to His word.

God bless,
bluelake

What I meant was that I don’t like how “Faith Alone” is used in common speech. It makes salvation sounds too mechanical.

I of course whole heartedly disagree with it as doctrine , but want to stress God’s active and loving role in salvation/justification, regardless how one understands salvation.

 

[Mark01]

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.

 

[Pete_Holter]

My first post should have referenced Luke 23 instead of Luke 22. Whooops!

We also have Origen’s opinion:

“It is incumbent upon us, therefore, as those who are attempting to defend the harmoniousness of the Apostle’s writings and to establish that they are entirely consistent in their arrangement, that we should ask: Who has been justified by faith alone without works of the law? Thus, in my opinion, that thief who was crucified with Christ should suffice for a suitable example. He called out to him from the cross, ‘Lord Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom!’ In the Gospels nothing else is recorded about his good works, but for the sake of this faith alone Jesus said to him, ‘Truly I say to you: Today you will be with me in paradise’ ” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 9Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans)

You may want to share this with your friend too because “Luther’s phrase: ‘faith alone’ is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love” (Pope Benedict XVI, The Doctrine of Justification: From Works to Faith).

I’m afraid I wasn’t clear enough. As you pointed out, we cannot know if the thief was previously baptized. The Gospel writers don’t tell us, so it can’t be assumed. So, what other means might there be? The baptism of desire. And not having read anything by St. Augustine, I felt the point should be made in case St. Augustine hadn’t done so.

Blessings for you, Della!