PDA

View Full Version : Why wasn't it necessary for the thief on the cross to be baptized?


Kutless
04-12-2007, 07:34 AM
A question came up in class last night. I haven't heard it asked for some time.

Why wasn't it necessary for the thief on the cross to be baptized?

freeatlast
04-12-2007, 07:37 AM
A question came up in class last night. I haven't heard it asked for some time.

Why wasn't it necessary for the thief on the cross to be baptized?

Jesus did not give the intructions to make disciples and to baptize them, till AFTER his death burial and resurection.

Kutless
04-12-2007, 07:47 AM
Jesus did not give the intructions to make disciples and to baptize them, till AFTER his death burial and resurection.Thanks Free. This is such a simple answer. And for someone to have the knowledge of the cross scenario but then not be able to answer this floors me.

Nahum
04-12-2007, 08:24 AM
Jesus did not give the intructions to make disciples and to baptize them, till AFTER his death burial and resurection.

And the New Covenant wasn't activated until the death of the testator -Jesus Christ.

BoredOutOfMyMind
04-12-2007, 09:03 AM
And the New Covenant wasn't activated until the death of the testator -Jesus Christ.

Jesus died before the two thieves.

They broke their legs, and not his, because he was already dead.

Nahum
04-12-2007, 09:06 AM
Jesus died before the two thieves.

They broke their legs, and not his, because he was already dead.

But were the terms of the covenant set at that point?

What is your answer to Kutless' question, oh mighty and learned one?

OGIA
04-12-2007, 09:08 AM
Jesus died before the two thieves.

They broke their legs, and not his, because he was already dead.I had that one thrown at me a couple of years ago while having this same discussion.

I was like ":eek: :hmmm ..........you're right!"

ILG
04-12-2007, 09:10 AM
A question came up in class last night. I haven't heard it asked for some time.

Why wasn't it necessary for the thief on the cross to be baptized?

Because he was saved by faith. ;)

Kutless
04-12-2007, 09:13 AM
Because he was saved by faith. ;)Which is where this fellow student will lead us next class. Thank God for faith!

"He that believeth"

ILG
04-12-2007, 09:16 AM
Which is where this fellow student will lead us next class. Thank God for faith!

"He that believeth"

They say that he was saved by faith because baptism and Holy Ghost infilling hadn't been instituted yet, but sacrificing on the altar sure had been instituted and he wasn't required to do that either. And the law was more strict than grace, right? ;)

OGIA
04-12-2007, 09:22 AM
Which is where this fellow student will lead us next class. Thank God for faith!

"He that believeth"
I am in a group study that includes mostly current or ex-Methodists. In my flesh, I want to jump to Acts 2:38 and Oneness so bad that it hurts me! But, I remember one night after leaving and weeping over these 6 souls God "telling" me to help them understand faith first. Once they come to know what faith is (not just mental work, but action), they will then be able to make a choice. Right now, they don't even know they NEED TO make a choice.

God bless you in your efforts, Kutless! :thumbsup

Neck
04-12-2007, 10:55 AM
And the New Covenant wasn't activated until the death of the testator -Jesus Christ.

Until the day of Pentecost was fully come...

Neck
04-12-2007, 10:58 AM
Jesus died before the two thieves.

They broke their legs, and not his, because he was already dead.

The day of Pentecost was not fully come. It took the death and the resurrection of Jesus. He needed to assend to heaven.

As he told Mary at the tomb.

Do not touch me I have not yet assended.

Also he was to appear to them on the day of Pentecost.

Then Peter preached....

ILG
04-12-2007, 11:02 AM
Are there more requirements for salvation in the NT than in the Old? Thief saved by faith in the OT, but if he had been crucified a few months later and cried to God in the same way God would have said "Too bad. You should have been crucified last year when I let people like you into heaven!" This doesn't make any sense.

OGIA
04-12-2007, 11:06 AM
Are there more requirements for salvation in the NT than in the Old? Nope. It's still "by grace through faith", no matter what time period one lived in. :tiphat

ILG
04-12-2007, 11:08 AM
Nope. It's still "by grace through faith", no matter what time period one lived in. :tiphat

Right....and the thief didn't have to come down from the cross and make a blood sacrifice....neither would he have to come down and be baptized.

OGIA
04-12-2007, 11:13 AM
Right....and the thief didn't have to come down from the cross and make a blood sacrifice....neither would he have to come down and be baptized.But......I wouldn't base my belief on this biblical account. We see no other "saved" like this man. I believe it was a one-time deal. Plus, we really don't know what kind of life this man led pre-crucifixion. He may have just made one stupid mistake.

There are too many variables to use this to support a stance on much at all, other than God's sovereignty, mercy and grace.

ILG
04-12-2007, 11:15 AM
But......I wouldn't base my belief on this biblical account. We see no other "saved" like this man. I believe it was a one-time deal. Plus, we really don't know what kind of life this man led pre-crucifixion. He may have just made one stupid mistake.

There are too many variables to use this to support a stance on much at all, other than God's sovereignty, mercy and grace.

Okay, I can go along with that. I believe that anyone rejecting baptism is not going to be on the happy side of God. But, the truth is that we do have an example here of being saved by faith alone.....so, it does happen. I think that should make folks think a lot less narrowly..

I should say I can go along with that somewhat. There is a lot in Romans etc. that talks about being saved by faith.

Hoovie
04-12-2007, 11:15 AM
Salvation, being received through the heart, is ultimately only known by one who can read and see in the heart.

Jesus said the time was coming, and now is, when they that worship God must do so with the inner man and without pretension. If Jesus saw the heart of the thief he knew his intent and depth of his faith.

No doubt, had his life not ended there, the thief would have been among the Christian number after the institution of the New Testament church.

I think everyone would agree there was somewhat of a transitional era. Paul delt with this in the Jews when they continued sacrifice and ritual in spite of the ultimate sacrifice having been made.

Kutless
04-12-2007, 11:19 AM
But......I wouldn't base my belief on this biblical account. We see no other "saved" like this man. I believe it was a one-time deal. Plus, we really don't know what kind of life this man led pre-crucifixion. He may have just made one stupid mistake.

There are too many variables to use this to support a stance on much at all, other than God's sovereignty, mercy and grace.so is it a case by case basis?

OGIA
04-12-2007, 11:21 AM
But, the truth is that we do have an example here of being saved by faith alone.....so, it does happen.

There is a lot in Romans etc. that talks about being saved by faith.Everyone that stands with God in eternity will have been saved by "faith alone".

I can say that because I believe that "faith alone" encompasses much more than belief. It requires action....or it is not faith, it is only a belief. Every person, from OT to NT, who is saved will have been saved by faith.

Now, what that faith "looked like" does differ.

OGIA
04-12-2007, 11:23 AM
so is it a case by case basis?Hmmmmm? How about "yes" and "no"? Yes, because we will all be judged individually. No, because we will all be judged by one standard -- the word of God.

Kutless
04-17-2007, 07:34 AM
Right....and the thief didn't have to come down from the cross and make a blood sacrifice....neither would he have to come down and be baptized.this is a point to ponder. :praying

Steve Epley
04-17-2007, 07:45 AM
Okay, I can go along with that. I believe that anyone rejecting baptism is not going to be on the happy side of God. But, the truth is that we do have an example here of being saved by faith alone.....so, it does happen. I think that should make folks think a lot less narrowly..

I should say I can go along with that somewhat. There is a lot in Romans etc. that talks about being saved by faith.

Does Romans teach a man can be saved by faith alone without believing in the death burial and resurrection. The thief did not believe that it had not happened. But he did recognize the King and mercy was granted. The NT was not in effect until the work of redemption was accomplished and the New Covenant message was preached. The thief on the cross is not the problem it is the thieves who try to climb up some other way today.

Ron
04-17-2007, 08:52 AM
The Law and the Prophets were until John.

Water Baptism in Jesus Name and the infilling of the Holy Ghost did not start until the Day of Pentecost.

There was a time between two testaments.
I believe that those who had been baptised unto John's Baptism who died after Jesus death but before the day of Pentecost where the Spirit of God
was poured out were saved.

That does not negate the fact that people now in this time of the Apostolic Church need to be Water Baptised in Jesus Name and received the infilling of the Holy Ghost.