Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Rico's right, this is not a on like a light bulb type thing...

Heb 8:13

13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

KJV


The Old Covenent was still in existence when Heb. was written. It wasn't gone, it was fading away.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

There have been some really good posts on this thread so far.

I have to always keep in mind that it is only God who births us out of sin and death. Men have always been saved by faith, either in the promise that was to come or what has already been done.

The price has been paid for our salvation. It is up to us to accept what God has done for us.

We in our human nature just want to be able to have a formula or a checklist so that we can insure our salvation. I am sorry to say that following a three-step formula won't save you anymore than taking communion or going to confession. It is only by what Christ has done that we are saved and the faith in his finished work that will change our lives and allow the Holy Ghost to work in our lives.

Romans 9:6-18

6It is not as though God's word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.
7Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham's children. On the contrary, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b]
8In other words, it is not the natural children who are God's children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham's offspring.
9For this was how the promise was stated: "At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son."[c]
10Not only that, but Rebekah's children had one and the same father, our father Isaac.
11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand:
12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger."[d]
13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."[e]
14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!
15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."[f]
16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.
17For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."[g]
18Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Maybe not now ... TR .. but I have thoughts on it.

I will remark that to most 1 steppers there is not the insatiable need to delineate dispensations since they believe OT and NT saints are saved by grace through faith yet dispensationalism is very important to many 3 steppers since they believe we can only enter the New Covenant by re-enacting the Gospel ... by 3 steps that they have linked to His Death, Burial and Resurrection through applying Acts 2:38 in their lives ... yet interestingly enough can't agree when it begins.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

I agree with MOW. God did and does what he always has. THat is why th theif was saved.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Here is a pretty good article, though 56 pages long, that outlines dispensationalism and it's influence on our thinking and reading of the Bible.

http://www.inchristalone.org/PDFiles/Everlasting.PDF

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

First, this is a great thread and a lot of interesting points on all sides. I think the point made by Baron here is extremely important. The correlation between the obedience of circumcision in the OT and obedience of baptism in the NT is undeniable. Scripture bears that out plainly. The more OT I read concerning circumcision, the more I see the mirror image of the two in the OT and NT.

Just as plainly seen, is the point that faith was the central core of salvation that ties the OT and NT together. Faith's role in salvation in the OT is just as vital as it is in the NT. Without faith, I'll promise you no one went through the sacrifice rituals for the remission of sin. The correlation that Baron points out here is worth a lot of study and meditation by all of us.

If one accepts the faith to salvation in NT and OT, then the dispensationalists arguments concerning the thief, as intriguing as they are to me, lose their importance because faith was the key to his salvation regardless of the dispensation.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

In my opinion, that is a good, sound answer.

Hebrews 9:16-17 speaks of a testament being in force after the death of the testator. Hebrews 4:1-2 says that the Gospel was preached to us (NT) as well as unto them (OT).

Arguing over the sequence of the promise of Paradise to the repentant thief, the death of Jesus, then the death of the thief reminds me of a couple of deep, deep theological questions such as, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and, "If God can do anything, can He create a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift?"

We need to avoid extremes. We all agree that salvation is by faith. We also agree that faith results in works. If we are not careful we can fall into an extreme position in which we over emphasize the faith aspect so strongly that we could view the Book of James as "an epistle of straw and destitute of evangelical character" as Martin Luther is alleged to have said and we could become loose and careless in our Christian walk. On the other hand, we can fall into another extreme position where unless certain works are accomplished in certain prescribed ways (and we are the ones who define which works and in which ways), the faith is not considered real or sufficient for salvation.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Thanks, MOW, for those good words.

You said it better than I could.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

[QUOTE=Sam;516466]In my opinion, that is a good, sound answer.

Hebrews 9:16-17 speaks of a testament being in force after the death of the testator. Hebrews 4:1-2 says that the Gospel was preached to us (NT) as well as unto them (OT).

Arguing over the sequence of the promise of Paradise to the repentant thief, the death of Jesus, then the death of the thief reminds me of a couple of deep, deep theological questions such as, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and, "If God can do anything, can He create a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift?"

We need to avoid extremes. We all agree that salvation is by faith. We also agree that faith results in works. If we are not careful we can fall into an extreme position in which we over emphasize the faith aspect so strongly that we could view the Book of James as "an epistle of straw and destitute of evangelical character" as Martin Luther is alleged to have said and we could become loose and careless in our Christian walk. On the other hand, we can fall into another extreme position where unless certain works are accomplished in certain prescribed ways (and we are the ones who define which works and in which ways), the faith is not considered real or sufficient for salvation.[/QUOTE]

Sam, that's a great reminder to ALL of us no matter our positions. That post will preach on Sunday morning my friend!!

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

I'd have to agree that we have made the idea of covenant to mean salvation as getting into heaven ... when it always deal w/ relationship and union.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

I pretty well agree with the 7 dispensations as taught by Scofield, Ironside, the Oneness Pentecostal Correspondence Course and others. It makes sense to me that God has dealt in different ways in different times and ages with different people. However, in my opinion, people have always been "saved" by just believing in God. That belief/faith/trust led to acting on the Word of God, but the salvation was based on the faith, not based on their actions.

Dispensationalism teaches that each dispensation ended with judgment and the law ended with judgment upon Jesus. Strong dispensationalists will say that the New Covenant/Testament or the Church Age or the Age of Grace began at Pentecost.

I have problems slicing it that thinly. I realize that when the fullness of times was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, but when Jesus was here in flesh, it was kind of a "mixed" period. I think Jesus acted and lived according to "the spirit of the law" but not according to the "traditional interpretation of the law" held by the scholars and religionists of His day. However, it is my understanding that folks were saved and even "born again" under His ministry before His death but not strictly according to the law.

The Bible says that the law and the prophets (Old Testament?) were until John and after that the Kingdom is preached. Jesus told some that "The Kingdom is among/within you." In my opinion, the kingdom was already starting (and I think the Church also) when John the Baptizer pointed his disciples to Jesus and they left John started following Jesus.


In one way, the church began in the ageless past when we were seen in God's plan (Ref Ephesians 1:3-6) before the foundation of the world.

Believing that the church began when people started following Jesus and submitted to His leadership as a teacher/master does not fit into a neat theological/dispensational package. But, based on His later words in Matthew 18:20 about being with any two or three who were gathered in His name, I think that when Jesus and His motley crew wandered through Israel, they were the church. He was with them in flesh and is now with us in Spirit.

As a side note, when Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, "I WILL build my church," the will does not necessarily mean that since will can be future tense the church had to be future tense at that time. That's how some dispensationists teach it --that by saying "I will" proves that the church wasn't here yet. "I will" could be a statement of intent, meaning I intend to build up my church. And the word translated build is also translated edify in other places so Jesus could just be saying that He intended to build up/edify/strengthen His assembly/church/group of disciples.

Sorry this got so long and that it doesn't fit into a neat package but that's how I see it.

In my opinion, the disciples were saved as they followed Jesus and therefore did not get saved (again) at Pentecost. My belief about the Holy Ghost Baptism or "Pentecostal Experience" is that it is an empowerment or equipping for service promised to a child of God.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

I have to leave and get to church and teach midweek Bible Study (in sandals, shorts, and a Tee shirt). I would think that any theologian would find sufficient stuff in my post to refute, so have at it.

P.S. I don't intend to argue about this. I've stated my opinion.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Daniel,

Though I gave some rough thoughts, I do not believe I can say that I clearly dealt with this subject and gave an answer as to what I believe.

I think the 1st thing we should do if we are going to identify when the New Covenant took effect is to identify what the New Covenant is. This "New Covenant" is first mentioned by name in Jeremiah Chapter 31.



Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Several points to make in this is:

• This "new" covenant was originally to be made with the House of Israel and Judah
• It would be different than the old covenant that Moses presented
• Gods Law would no longer be on the hard tables of stone, but the soft tables of mans heart

Hebrews 8 brings this same text forward and gives greater clarity as to the mediator of this "new" covenant.


Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.


There are many things to consider in Hebrews 8. Again, a few points to highlite are:

• Our high priest, Jesus Christ, is sitting in a place of authority (right hand) in the heavens
• The high priest of necessity had to be IN the holiest of all in order for the sacrifice to be offered upon the mercy seat. Thus our high priest, who offered the sacrifice in the heavens, had to be in the holiest of all in the heavens to offer His blood sacrifice upon the mercy seat in the heavens.
• the first covenant had fault, the new covenant was better, and had better promises

maybe more later...

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Gee...someone else mentioned OT circumcision and NT baptism just before Baron, but I can't remember the name.....hmmmmmm :bliss

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Hey Prax,

I know we discussed a little bit back whether there was a remission of sins in the old testament. I believe your view was that sins were not remitted in the old testament. Can you talk to me about how this verse fits into your view. It seems to indicate that the blood of the bulls and goats could purity the flesh.


Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

It made them ritually clean, their flesh. It did not make them spiritually clean.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

heh! You said, "technical"... heh!

It is interesting to argue this from a dispensational or even anti-Dispensational point of view. But what if dispensationalism had never been invented?

My only point in arguing here is to say that anyone who was ever "saved" from anything was saved by the grace of God. Remember, even Noah was "saved" by grace (Genesis 6:8). "Oh," you say (well not "you" but "they"), Noah was "saved" by building the ark! Works!

Not so, at least I don't think so. Where does it say that Noah was "saved" by that boat? 1 Peter 3:20-21 says that it was the "longsuffering of God that waited..." and then attributes Noah's salvation not to the boat, but to the flood. The "eight souls" were "saved by water..."

Ah, ha! Water "saves" us? No, for Peter tortuously goes on to say that the obvious effects of the water are in fact meaningless. What ultimately saves us in Peter's view is the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21).

So after all of that, I would say that the thief was "saved" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his faith in that event. The thief himself said, "Remember me when you come into your kingdom..."

The Dispy style arguments, in my view, fail here. What ultimately matters was that the thief had faith in Jesus Christ, and the fact that Jesus Himself was able to prove Himself faithful.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Does that mean Jesus' death on the cross and the blood He shed for us was without effect as well without the resurrection?

1Cor 15:13-17 .....and if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain, ye are yet in your sins.

Romans 4:25 Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.

The fact that Christ rose from the dead doesn't take away from the salvific nature of water baptism but reinforces it!

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Jesus being God manifest in human flesh could forgive sins,but if I understand correctly the resurrection and ascension of Jesus bodily had to occur before the new covenant could be instituted because the Holy Spirit had to be given for personal regeneration.I understand the Holy Spirit according to John 7:37,38,39 was not given till after the ascension.
Of course a question we must settle is when did the Christian church begin ?

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

I think I've given my views on dispensationalsm in an earlier post.

This is lesson 4 from the Pentecostal Bible Study Course. It is called Seven Ages. In the old Oneness Pentecostal Correspondence Course which this replaced, this lesson was called The Seven Dispensations. It is my understanding that at one time this course was required reading for those who had not gone to Bible school but were applying for ministerial papers with the UPC.


Lesson 4
Seven Ages

I. Human Innocence
This age began at the creation of man and extended until Adam and Eve yielded to the voice
of the tempter and sinned (Genesis 3:6). During this time, they were sinless, not even having the
knowledge of good and evil.
The age of innocence, like the others, ended in judgment. In this instance, God drove Adam
and Eve from the Garden of Eden. This judgment included God cursing the ground with thorns
and thistles and making people earn their bread by the sweat of their brows (Genesis 3:17-19).
Death, which was unheard of before, now entered the world and passed on to all humanity.

II. Conscience
This age extended from the fall of humanity until Noah’s flood. God gave humans a conscience,
which is an instinctive knowledge of good and evil. Without the written Word of God, people
relied primarily on conscience to govern their behavior.
During this period, human wickedness became so great that God “repented . . . that he had
made man” and ended this age with the judgment of the great flood.

III. Human Government
This age covered the time between the flood and the building of the Tower of Babel. Since it
appears that God did not govern humanity directly through prophets or priests during this time,
we can call this period the age of human government.
This age ended when God thwarted the building of the Tower of Babel, confused mankind’s
languages, and scattered the people across the face of the earth (Genesis 11:7-8).

IV. Promise
During this period, we read of God’s promises, by which God led His people. We note especially
God’s promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (See Galatians 3:16.)
This age ended when the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites. Canaan was the land of promise,
and trouble was inevitable when they left the land God had given them to settle in Egypt. Similarly,
we Spirit-filled Christians dwell in the “land of promise,” and if we are not continually led by the
Spirit, we will be enslaved by Satan.

V. Law
The law covered the time from God giving the law to Moses until the crucifixion of Christ.
During this time, Israel was governed by the old covenant.
At the end of this period, judgment fell upon Christ, thus ending the old covenant, or the law.
Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us, taking upon Himself the penalty that belonged to
those who had transgressed the law. “All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every
one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all” (Isaiah 53:6). (See
Romans 5:6; Hebrews 9:28; I Peter 2:24.)

VI. Grace
We are now living in the age of grace. It extends from the Day of Pentecost, when the new
covenant church began and when the full message of grace was first preached, until the second
coming of our Lord. We are saved by grace and not by works. “For by grace are ye saved through
faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast”
(Ephesians 2:8-9). (See Romans 11:6.)
Judgment will fall on the earth at the close of the church age, or age of grace, during the
Tribulation. “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world
to this time, no, nor ever shall be” (Matthew 24:21). (See Luke 21:25-28.)

VII. The Kingdom
This is the period of a thousand years called the Millennium that will follow the second coming
of the Lord in the clouds (I Thessalonians 4:16-17). (See Revelation 20:5.) During the
Millennium, Jesus will reign as King of kings and Lord of lords. “The government shall be upon
his shoulder” (Isaiah 9:6), and righteousness shall cover the earth as waters cover the sea. “And
the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one”
(Zechariah 14:9). (See II Timothy 2:12; Isaiah 65:18-25; Jeremiah 31:34.)
This age shall end with the Great White Throne judgment: “Because he hath appointed a day,
in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained” (Acts
17:31). “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27). (See
Revelation 20:12.)

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

These diagrams show the 7 dispensations as usually taught.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Why did the Thief ask Jesus to remember him "WHEN HE CAME INTO HIS KINGDOM, if the kingdom of God was already there, as some have surmised?


The Kingdom of God was established at Pentecost. This "Feast of Weeks" was viewed by many Jews as the conclusion of the Passover celebration. It is also to be noted that many Jews believe that God gave Moses the Law during this "Feast". If that be the case, then as a glove in a hand the old and new show unity. God revealed His glory to Moses on Mt Sinai. God revealed His glory (Holy Ghost) in his Church upon Mt Zion. God wrote the old upon tables of stone with His finger, he wrote the new upon the hearts of his people with His spirit.

Just some thoughts

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

So the Resurrection actually reinforces the salvific nature of water baptism?

It's a subset ... ? His resurrection gives support/assists water baptism saving me?

Mizzy?

Tangentially, Isn't baptism ... the burial in re-enactment theology???

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

I believe Matt is talking about types and shadows in the old covenant that bear a striking resemblance to the new covenant.

God is amazing in that respect. How He sets into array figures of things to come. Does God do anything on a whim?

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

I know folks like to put everything in one box but sometimes things can be more than one thing. Baptism is first and foremost for the remission of sins and then our participation in the gospel of Christ (specifically the burial), part of the new birth, and a Spiritual circumsicion, and baptism INTO Christ or into the body of Christ. There's probably more that can be gleaned from the OT tabernacle but I'm not very knowledgable about the tabernacle types.

Without the resurrection, if only Christ died, in 1Cor 15, Paul says we would still be in our sins. And our being baptized for the dead and judgement would be of no effect except the dead RISE. But because Christ rose from the dead, we will rise also with assurity that His work on the cross is salvific.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

How can you possibly take that from what I said?

I said: The effects of the cross were benficial and accounted even before Calvary.

You then ask: Are you saying the cross has no benefit at all?

Either you're not paying attention or you're deliberately attributing the exact opposite to what I say.

I deeply resent what appears to be a deliberate attempt to undermine my preaching of the Gospel.

I said: The cross perhaps has a greater benefit than what we've considered.

You respond by saying: "Pelathais says the cross has no benefit at all?"

No hard feelings intended here, but I just can't escape feelings of resentment over such a gloss.

I never said "the resurrection take[s] away from the salvific nature of water baptism..." I quoted the very words of Peter himself when I said "that baptism doth now save us... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." That's what the Book says (1 Peter 3:20-21).

Since the discussion involved the "salvation" sought for and apparently found by the Thief on the Cross, and the fact that this Thief was never baptized caused me to look for similarities between those who are "saved" and baptized and those who are "saved" and not baptized in the Bible. One similarity that leaps from the pages of the Bible is the hope for and faith in the resurrection of the Savior.

Add to this the fact that no one has even attempted to disprove my assertion that John's baptism was "for the remission of sins..." and that this "remission of sins" was accounted before the cross. The only response I get from that point is "Nuh-uh." No one has even attempted to address Mark 1:4; Luke 1:77; and Luke 3:3.

The people who responded to John's preaching received "the remission of sins" before the cross. And those are Mark's and Luke's words, not mine. The whole purpose of John's ministry was "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins..." Those were the words that Luke attributes to the Holy Spirit speaking through the priest Zacharius, John's father.

Q: When did the people receive this "knowledge of salvation?"
A: When they heard John's preaching - before the cross.

Q:When did the people receive "remission of sins?"
A: When they came to John, confessed their sins and were baptized by John and his disciples and later by the disciples of Jesus Christ Himself (John 4:1-2) before the cross.

Q: Why is this important?
A: Because by looking at baptism both before and after the events at Calvary we can compare and contrast the different time periods and see what was "different" about after the cross.

Essentially, the "only" thing that was "different" was that Jesus had completed the promised work for our salvation. AND NOTE: I put the word "only" in the scary "QUOTE" marks to emphasize the fact that this event was a pretty big deal in my opinion. However, the "only" difference remains one of timing.

Those born and saved before the cross were no less fortunate than ourselves, except they didn't have power lawn mowers. But when it comes to salvation- they were saved by the same means and with the same hope that we today possess.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

If the thief on the cross died under the old covenant, why was he promised "paradise" which is the new covenant reward? I think the new covenant doesn't take effect practically until Pentecost. No one was baptized after the death of christ until pentecost.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Jesus' disciples were baptizing people before he was crucified according to John 4:2.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

Were the people baptized before the death of Christ baptized in the name of Jesus Christ or John's baptism? If the new covenant doesn't take effect until the death of Christ and practically at pentecost then, were those believers rebaptized in the name of Jesus Christ like the disciples of John from Acts 19?

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

It makes no sense for them to be baptized with John's baptism the Scripture makes a clear distinction. You bring the supposition to the Scripture that they needed to be rebaptized.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

How were the disciples baptizing before the death of Christ? If it wasn't in the name of Jesus then I believe they were all rebaptized at Pentecost in the name of Jesus.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

It would make sense that it was in the name of Jesus. The practice was to be baptized in the name of the one you followed.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

You may be right, but I don't see how they would identify with the death and burial of Christ before He died and was buried. I think they were baptized unto repentance and at Pentecost in the name of Jesus. jmho

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

were John's disciples baptized in the name of John? I think not. If John's disciples needed to be rebaptized then I think those baptized by the disciples of Christ were rebaptized also.

Re: Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?
 

I don't think that John made a decalaration of 'in the name of John' or 'in the name of Jesus' when baptizing. There is no scriptural evidence of either, but it is natural to assume that they were baptized unto John baptism, which by scripture we know was repentance. I believe that John baptized the people for their conversion to the saviour. If he were to make a declaration in baptism it might have been in the name of God, the Lord or the Saviour. Remember John did not personally know Jesus, but He knew Jesus as the Saviour of the world when he saw Him. 'Behold the Lamb of God!'

I do beleive that the ones John baptized did not need to be rebaptized after the death and Pentecost. They were baptized as an acknowledgment of whom they followed. We assume they were baptized in John's name, but a person he baptized was unto the Saviour cause that is who John taught about. Once Jesus was on the scene people were then baptized into Jesus' name I surmize because He was the one they followed. The ones John baptized followed Johns teaching ABOUT the saviour they did not follow John's doctrine but the doctrine about the Saviour