The theif on the cross misconceptions

[DJT_47]

The thief on the cross misconceptions

I continually encounter people trying to justify that baptism is not an absolute necessity for one's salvation by use (erroneously) of the thief on the cross as justification, as he was not baptized but yet saved by the Lord, which is true! BUT, the error in this is the lack of understanding of the scriptures. You must read and understand Hebrews 9:15-17 which clarifies why the thief on the cross was saved by Jesus without being baptized. Christ was still alive when this occurred meaning it was done while the old testament or covenant was still in effect; the new testament had not yet been established because Christ had not yet died. And since the Lord was still alive no one could possibly be baptized into Christ under NT salvation criteria. Baptism did not become a requirement as part of salvation until the new testament began which was after the death of Christ. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross no different than he forgave others during his earthly ministry, such as the woman caught in the act of adultery as recorded in John 8. Baptism should not even be an issue when discussing the thief on the cross, but unfortunately always is, but in error.

Hebrews 9:15-17

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

 

[Magenta]

Titus 3:4-5

 

[Jocund]

The thief on the cross misconceptions

I continually encounter people trying to justify that baptism is not an absolute necessity for one's salvation by use (erroneously) of the thief on the cross as justification, as he was not baptized but yet saved by the Lord, which is true! BUT, the error in this is the lack of understanding of the scriptures. You must read and understand Hebrews 9:15-17 which clarifies why the thief on the cross was saved by Jesus without being baptized. Christ was still alive when this occurred meaning it was done while the old testament or covenant was still in effect; the new testament had not yet been established because Christ had not yet died. And since the Lord was still alive no one could possibly be baptized into Christ under NT salvation criteria. Baptism did not become a requirement as part of salvation until the new testament began which was after the death of Christ. Jesus forgave the thief on the cross no different than he forgave others during his earthly ministry, such as the woman caught in the act of adultery as recorded in John 8. Baptism should not even be an issue when discussing the thief on the cross, but unfortunately always is, but in error.

Hebrews 9:15-17

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

16 For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

17 For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

I can't say I've ever encountered the thief on cross / baptism argument.

I think the position you are taking is sound. The questions comes back to whether there are other valid ways to interpret the situation. And from each valid interpretation we can weigh the ramifications of those beliefs.

Consider these points:

If baptism is always required for salvation, is a newborn child that dies shortly after birth without the opportunity for baptism not saved?

If a mother experiences a miscarriage, is the baby without a hope for salvation?

If a mother aborted a baby (such as in the church of Satan human sacrifice ritual), does that damn the baby?

If a mother denies a child from baptism and that child dies prematurely, is that child cut off from salvation?

If something is misspoken during the rite of baptism, is the baptism void? How would a deaf person ever know if they are saved?

The conversation gets into strange territory of "salvation through works" which is contrary to scripture. And it also gets into the strange territory of humans somehow being able to deny eachother salvation through their works (e.g. the abortion example). The ramifications are enough to give me pause.

The idea that a person's choice to do evil could somehow deny someone else their chance at salvation doesn't seem right. Salvation in my view is a direct arrangement between a person and God.

 

[Magenta]

I can't say I've ever encountered the thief on cross / baptism argument.

People who put that argument (thief not baptized) forth do so on an
assumption, since we do not know if he was baptized previously or not.

Though the order given for salvation is: reprent, believe, be baptized.

 

[CorrectiveLens]

I can't say I've ever encountered the thief on cross / baptism argument.

I think the position you are taking is sound. The questions comes back to whether there are other valid ways to interpret the situation. And from each valid interpretation we can weigh the ramifications of those beliefs.

Consider these points:

If baptism is always required for salvation, is a newborn child that dies shortly after birth without the opportunity for baptism not saved?

If a mother experiences a miscarriage, is the baby without a hope for salvation?

If a mother aborted a baby (such as in the church of Satan human sacrifice ritual), does that damn the baby?

If a mother denies a child from baptism and that child dies prematurely, is that child cut off from salvation?

If something is misspoken during the rite of baptism, is the baptism void? How would a deaf person ever know if they are saved?

The conversation gets into strange territory of "salvation through works" which is contrary to scripture. And it also gets into the strange territory of humans somehow being able to deny eachother salvation through their works (e.g. the abortion example). The ramifications are enough to give me pause.

The idea that a person's choice to do evil could somehow deny someone else their chance at salvation doesn't seem right. Salvation in my view is a direct arrangement between a person and God.

Baptism is a work of God, not of humans. John 1: 13 Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Lifted_by_the_word]

I can't say I've ever encountered the thief on cross / baptism argument.

I think the position you are taking is sound. The questions comes back to whether there are other valid ways to interpret the situation. And from each valid interpretation we can weigh the ramifications of those beliefs.

Consider these points:

If baptism is always required for salvation, is a newborn child that dies shortly after birth without the opportunity for baptism not saved?

If a mother experiences a miscarriage, is the baby without a hope for salvation?

If a mother aborted a baby (such as in the church of Satan human sacrifice ritual), does that damn the baby?

If a mother denies a child from baptism and that child dies prematurely, is that child cut off from salvation?

If something is misspoken during the rite of baptism, is the baptism void? How would a deaf person ever know if they are saved?

The conversation gets into strange territory of "salvation through works" which is contrary to scripture. And it also gets into the strange territory of humans somehow being able to deny eachother salvation through their works (e.g. the abortion example). The ramifications are enough to give me pause.

The idea that a person's choice to do evil could somehow deny someone else their chance at salvation doesn't seem right. Salvation in my view is a direct arrangement between a person and God.

A baby with washed with the water and blood as they exit the mother.Even before that,the water and blood is present.The womans ovaries are in the image of the water and blood.That means that the sperm is already a spirit before it enters the egg.The spirit,water,and the blood are present.
When God said "let us make man in our image" He wasn't talking about our physical appearance.It is true though that we are in his physical image.The spiritual truth is that when we are of the spirit,water,and the blood,we are in his image.We lose it when we become conscious of right and wrong,and choose wrong.
The scriptures backs this up.We are to be born of the spirit.

 

[Jocund]

A baby with washed with the water and blood as they exit the mother.Even before that,the water and blood is present.The womans ovaries are in the image of the water and blood.That means that the sperm is already a spirit before it enters the egg.The spirit,water,and the blood are present.
When God said "let us make man in our image" He wasn't talking about our physical appearance.It is true though that we are in his physical image.The spiritual truth is that when we are of the spirit,water,and the blood,we are in his image.We lose it when we become conscious of right and wrong,and choose wrong.
The scriptures backs this up.We are to be born of the spirit.

I don't think there would necessarily be anything wrong with the position you're taking, but it does seem to be the opposite position of what the OP was suggesting.

I think the conversation boils down to the question of the ritual of baptism.

Anyone could have had a spirit of the Lord baptize them in a vision or dream, maybe even a vision or dream that the person doesn't remember.

But the topic usually comes back to a question of an earthly physical ceremony of baptism and the authorized officiant of that service (such as a priest, pastor, reverend, etc.). Different denominations and different religions will disagree about whether a given ceremony is valid and also whether a given officiant is authorized to perform that act.

The conversation is usually used as an appeal basically to say, "You should join my group and get baptised by an authorized minister of my group"

I still think it's an interesting topic

 

[Jocund]

Baptism is a work of God, not of humans. John 1: 13 Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man, but of God.

I agree, and what you say is a solid point. But there may be some that say that God works through the people in the process of the ritual of baptism, and that a official baptismal process would still be required.

I tend to think of baptism itself as an appeal for a good conscience. The ritual of baptism is for more than just the person, it is about a community of people welcoming someone into their fold. The end of that process is confirmation into the faith, which I also think is important from the perspective of being a member in the body of Christ.

I think this is a good conversation piece. I feel like there's some subtopic with this itching to come out. I can't think of what it might be, but it feels like there's something there that hasn't come to the forefront yet. I'm looking forward to everyone's replies and input on this topic.

 

[DJT_47]

People who put that argument (thief not baptized) forth do so on an
assumption, since we do not know if he was baptized previously or not.

Though the order given for salvation is: reprent, believe, be baptized.

He couldn't have been baptized into Christ, maybe John's baptism, but that's notvtge one that counts. You must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ and that couldn't happen until he had died si you could be baptized into his death as other scriptures say.

 

[DJT_47]

I can't say I've ever encountered the thief on cross / baptism argument.

I think the position you are taking is sound. The questions comes back to whether there are other valid ways to interpret the situation. And from each valid interpretation we can weigh the ramifications of those beliefs.

Consider these points:

If baptism is always required for salvation, is a newborn child that dies shortly after birth without the opportunity for baptism not saved?

If a mother experiences a miscarriage, is the baby without a hope for salvation?

If a mother aborted a baby (such as in the church of Satan human sacrifice ritual), does that damn the baby?

If a mother denies a child from baptism and that child dies prematurely, is that child cut off from salvation?

If something is misspoken during the rite of baptism, is the baptism void? How would a deaf person ever know if they are saved?

The conversation gets into strange territory of "salvation through works" which is contrary to scripture. And it also gets into the strange territory of humans somehow being able to deny eachother salvation through their works (e.g. the abortion example). The ramifications are enough to give me pause.

The idea that a person's choice to do evil could somehow deny someone else their chance at salvation doesn't seem right. Salvation in my view is a direct arrangement between a person and God.

Children are in no need of baptism since they have not sinned which must be committed. Nor can they believe, confess their belief, repent ( not capable nor have they any sin to repent of).

 

[Magenta]

He couldn't have been baptized into Christ, maybe John's baptism, but that's notvtge one that counts. You must be baptized in the
name of Jesus Christ and that couldn't happen until he had died si you could be baptized into his death as other scriptures say.

There is no passage mentioning the post resurrection water baptism of the original apostles.

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

 

[DJT_47]

I agree, and what you say is a solid point. But there may be some that say that God works through the people in the process of the ritual of baptism, and that a official baptismal process would still be required.

I tend to think of baptism itself as an appeal for a good conscience. The ritual of baptism is for more than just the person, it is about a community of people welcoming someone into their fold. The end of that process is confirmation into the faith, which I also think is important from the perspective of being a member in the body of Christ.

I think this is a good conversation piece. I feel like there's some subtopic with this itching to come out. I can't think of what it might be, but it feels like there's something there that hasn't come to the forefront yet. I'm looking forward to everyone's replies and input on this topic.

Baptism is a command and everything done on the flesh requires a work of some sort, but it's not a work of the flesh as condemned as in Galatians nor a work of the law. Too many scriptures to ignor that say it's required. Keep I'm mind also that you're baptized into Christ, baptized into his death, you become a member of the church by baptism as the Lord adds you to his body according to Acts 2:47. No other way does this or can this happen.

 

[DJT_47]

There is no passage mentioning the post resurrection water baptism of the original apostles.

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

That's true other than Paul, but does that mean they weren't? Should you build belief and stake your soul on maybe, speculation, or unknowns, or should you rely on what's written?

 

[Jocund]

Baptism is a command and everything done on the flesh requires a work of some sort, but it's not a work of the flesh as condemned as in Galatians nor a work of the law. Too many scriptures to ignor that say it's required. Keep I'm mind also that you're baptized into Christ, baptized into his death, you become a member of the church by baptism as the Lord adds you to his body according to Acts 2:47. No other way does this or can this happen.

I'm pro-baptism myself, but it's still interesting seeing the reasoning behind some of this.

If your view is that children are sinless, what's your take on Rom 3:23's "all have sinned"?

I think your child-innocence argument covers the scenarios about children without baptism, but what about the quality of the ritual itself?

If the words in the service are wrong, or misspoken, do you still see this as a valid baptism so long as the intention was there?

 

[Magenta]

That's true other than Paul, but does that mean they weren't? Should you build belief and
stake your soul on maybe, speculation, or unknowns, or should you rely on what's written?

Same applies to you = you cannot say the apostles were baptized in
the Name of Jesus. I specified original apostles, which Paul was not.

I was simply countering your talking points.

The baptism that counts is not by earthly water, but by Jesus via the Holy Spirit.

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Titus 3:4-5

Wow! This one has a new "flavor" to it. Very nice.

I can't believe someone hasn't discovered your work and offered you $$.

 

[Magenta]

Wow! This one has a new "flavor" to it. Very nice.

I can't believe someone hasn't discovered your work and offered you $$.

I source the individual bits and pieces I collage together are sourced from sites that offer them
free for use in personal projects with the caveat of no financial gain, which I am fine with

My most recent fave is this one:

Acts 10:43
The woman originally looked like this:

Thank you!

 

[2ndTimothyGroup]

Baptism is a work of God, not of humans. John 1: 13 Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, not of the will of man, but of God.

Just as was the case in the Old Testament, where baptism is a non-topic. How could David write and sing consistently about his Salvation? According to Matthew 1:1, David is the Spiritual Father of Jesus . . . hence, king David was not corrupt, but Pure, having been taught by the Spirit while at his mothers breast:

I source the individual bits and pieces I collage together are sourced from sites that offer them
free for use in personal projects with the caveat of no financial gain, which I am fine with

My most recent fave is this one:

Acts 10:43
The woman originally looked like this:

Thank you!

Just . . . amazing.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I continually encounter people trying to justify that baptism is not an absolute necessity for one's salvation...

Well the Bible is crystal clear that water baptism is NOT necessary for one's salvation.

Do you even understand justification by grace through faith and imputed righteousness?

At the same time water baptism is necessary for sanctification. So do you understand what sanctification is all about, since it is not the same as justification?

 

[Magenta]

Just . . . amazing.

Thanks! I was pretty happy with the transformation of this young woman also

To this:

James 4:8-10