Do you have to be baptized to achieve salvation?

[handy]

There's a big difference between believing and wanting to believe.

One believes.... the one who says "I want to believe, but..." doesn't.

But the one who believes isn't dying in a state of "believeth not".

Let me tell you a true story, Ernest T. About my Uncle Garnet.... He lived his life as an unbeliever. Now my Aunt Ardie became a believer and prayed and prayed and prayed that one day Uncle Garnet would believe.

Well, since one of my strongest memories of Uncle Garnet was watching him roll his own cigarettes using just one hand, it should come as no surprise that he contracted lung cancer. As he lay dying, he asked Aunt Ardie if it was too late for him... She assured him it wasn't. He did the classic death bed confession... Prayed, repented of his sins, asked for forgiveness... then slipped into a coma shortly afterwards. No one expected him to live through the night.

Actually, he came out of the coma a few days later... and continued to get better as the cancer, for some inexplicable reason, went into remission.

He lived for another three years and the very first thing he did when he got out of that hospital bed was to get baptized. He might have waited over 60 years to be saved, but his work for the kingdom in the last three years of his life could put some who have been warming pews all their lives to shame.

There on his death bed, the Holy Spirit was indeed able to enter in. His conversion was real. He died in peace.

I sure am glad that Aunt Ardie didn't tell him... "Nope, you had your chance buster... die and be damned."

I would never, ever tell a person on their death bed, or a guy in a fox hole, or a person watching a tsunami wave rolling in, that it's too late for them... (although with the tsunami, the baptism wouldn't be a problem)... as long as someone has today, they can have salvation... even if today is also the day they die. There is just nothing in the Scriptures that tell us that the day we receive eternal life cannot be the same as the day we die on this earth.

 

[heymikey80]

You've got the order wrong. Peter says so.

1 Peter 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:

but the answer of a good conscience toward God,

1 Peter 3:21 ¶ ... it is the appeal of a clear conscience towards God — a thing made possible by the power of Christ’s resurrection. JBP

I think you have a good point, but I don't think it deals directly with baptism as the water rite itself. Peter clearly, plainly expresses his view of baptism as the repentance aspect.

There's a reason for this: Peter is talking about the covenant of baptism, wherein there are vows being committed, and consciences called to account. He's talking about a signing event. But Peter's not talking specifically about dousing people with water, Peter specifically denies it. The water doesn't do what Peter says saves.

I think the issue is a question of what baptism is. Peter identifies what it is about baptism that saves. And let's all mind it, this construction is no more "causes salvation" than numerous others (e.g. childbearing in the Timothean letter).

So to Peter, baptism is a repentance event of the conscience committing to Christ. That's also what John the Baptist and Jesus Christ both instituted as the event of baptism. If that's what you mean -- that repentance, and not water, saves -- I expect few would disagree on reba's side or mine.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

There's a big difference between believing and wanting to believe.

One believes.... the one who says "I want to believe, but..." doesn't.

But the one who believes isn't dying in a state of "believeth not".

Let me tell you a true story, Ernest T. About my Uncle Garnet.... He lived his life as an unbeliever. Now my Aunt Ardie became a believer and prayed and prayed and prayed that one day Uncle Garnet would believe.

Well, since one of my strongest memories of Uncle Garnet was watching him roll his own cigarettes using just one hand, it should come as no surprise that he contracted lung cancer. As he lay dying, he asked Aunt Ardie if it was too late for him... She assured him it wasn't. He did the classic death bed confession... Prayed, repented of his sins, asked for forgiveness... then slipped into a coma shortly afterwards. No one expected him to live through the night.

Actually, he came out of the coma a few days later... and continued to get better as the cancer, for some inexplicable reason, went into remission.

He lived for another three years and the very first thing he did when he got out of that hospital bed was to get baptized. He might have waited over 60 years to be saved, but his work for the kingdom in the last three years of his life could put some who have been warming pews all their lives to shame.

There on his death bed, the Holy Spirit was indeed able to enter in. His conversion was real. He died in peace.

I sure am glad that Aunt Ardie didn't tell him... "Nope, you had your chance buster... die and be damned."

I would never, ever tell a person on their death bed, or a guy in a fox hole, or a person watching a tsunami wave rolling in, that it's too late for them... (although with the tsunami, the baptism wouldn't be a problem)... as long as someone has today, they can have salvation... even if today is also the day they die. There is just nothing in the Scriptures that tell us that the day we receive eternal life cannot be the same as the day we die on this earth.

Again, it would have to be proven from the bible baptism is not essential to salvation, various circumstances and antedotes do not determine God's will. They may satisfy man's will but not God's.

There is a big difference between being baptized and wanting to be baptized. I gave an example of an atheist that wanted to believe but died before he had a chance. So this circumstance rids the need to believe to be saved. So your uncle need not even to believe.

Once again, the NT does not teach deathbed salvation for us today, that is a man-made concept. Where is the verse that teaches "if thou believest while on thy deathbed thou shalt be saved"? From Acts 2:41,44 shows that NT belief incudes being baptized. Those that accepted Peter's words were baptized, those that rejected his words rejected baptism. So in v44 who were the ones that are said to believed? The ones that accepted Peter's words and were baptized were the ones that are said to believe so in v44 we have "believed" include being baptized. The context shows that rejecting baptism is the same as rejecting the gospel message.

I am truly astounded and amazed that some really think that they can change God's will with various circumstances.

 

[handy]

Ernest T. it seems as if you are creating some straw-man arguments here...

I'm not sure how you are jumping from someone who comes to real belief and real repentance, and then dies before baptism can take place to "rejecting baptism."

Who is rejecting baptism in all your "death bed" scenarios?

There is a big difference between being baptized and wanting to be baptized. I gave an example of an atheist that wanted to believe but died before he had a chance. So this circumstance rids the need to believe to be saved. So your uncle need not even to believe.

Sorry, I'm totally lost here... exactly what are you referring to that Uncle Garnet didn't need to believe?

Are you somehow operating on the assumption that the Holy Spirit would never regenerate a heart, causing one to come to belief and repentance, unless a baptism is possible? Where's that in the Scriptures?

Sorry, I just don't know you well enough yet, to understand where you're coming from. It sort of sounds Calvinistic, except that all the Calvinists I know are wholly accepting of death-bed conversions understanding that God grace can reach anyone at the last moments... for with God all things are indeed possible.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Ernest T. it seems as if you are creating some straw-man arguments here...

I'm not sure how you are jumping from someone who comes to real belief and real repentance, and then dies before baptism can take place to "rejecting baptism."

Who is rejecting baptism in all your "death bed" scenarios?

Sorry, I'm totally lost here... exactly what are you referring to that Uncle Garnet didn't need to believe?

Are you somehow operating on the assumption that the Holy Spirit would never regenerate a heart, causing one to come to belief and repentance, unless a baptism is possible? Where's that in the Scriptures?

Sorry, I just don't know you well enough yet, to understand where you're coming from. It sort of sounds Calvinistic, except that all the Calvinists I know are wholly accepting of death-bed conversions understanding that God grace can reach anyone at the last moments... for with God all things are indeed possible.

No straw man's from me, I am simply astounded that some believe that various circumstances that they can think of come above and before God's word, that those cicumstances represent "the truth" and God's word does not.

Jesus said no one can enter the kingdom unless he is born again, that is, born of spirit and water....ye MUST be born again. Yet some think they can get one into the kingdom without being born again but get them in the kingdom through various "circumstances". Do circumstances undermine and take precedence over Jesus' "must"?

As far as your uncle not believing, people make up circumstances such as a soldier in battle who comes to "believe" but is killed before he is able to be baptized. He would have been baptized but just did not have the time. With such a circumstance they think they have effectively made baptism unessential to salvation.

I similarly presented a circumstance of an atheist in a plane that is seconds away from crashing into the ground. In his last moments the athiest thinks that there really is a Divine being and there is life after death but dies in the crash not knowing who or what to believe in. He would have believed but just did not have time.

If we allow the soldier to get around being baptized for he did not have time, then we have to allow the atheist to get around believing for he did not have time.

So if others can make up scenarios that get people around being baptized, i can make up scenarios to get your uncle around believing.

 

[handy]

OK... I think I'm understanding where you're coming from a lot more clearly now... either because you explained it more clearly, or because I finally got around to eating some supper... ;)

btw... I've spent some time perusing the "Christian Courier" site... some very good stuff there...

 

[Kidron]

Have to be? No... there are many Christians who die very soon after coming to belief and never have the opportunity to be baptized.

But... those are exceptions... Any reason for a born again believer not to be baptized?

No... none whatsoever

Well, you might also consider that Salvation was "achieved" for us by Jesus, and its given to us as a free gift.
We dont "achieve" it, as to achieve it means we work for it or earn it, and of course thats not how we get it.

Also, think of it like this..

compare "water baptism" to an Army uniform.

Now, how do you get into the Army?
You sign up., you commit, you agree to the terms and its a legal contract.
After you do this, they give you a Uniform.
So, the uniform identifies you as having JOINED, but it does not create the contract.
Its a symbol of your position, and THATS why you wear it.

Water Baptism is the same.
Baptism is the symbol, or, the "uniform" that you have put on that signals that you are in the army, or have been saved..
However, you can own an army uniform, and not be in the Army, exactly the same as you can be water baptised and not be born again.
And many are water baptised and not actually saved.
Fact.

 

[beforHim]

No straw man's from me, I am simply astounded that some believe that various circumstances that they can think of come above and before God's word, that those cicumstances represent "the truth" and God's word does not.

Jesus said no one can enter the kingdom unless he is born again, that is, born of spirit and water....ye MUST be born again. Yet some think they can get one into the kingdom without being born again but get them in the kingdom through various "circumstances". Do circumstances undermine and take precedence over Jesus' "must"?

As far as your uncle not believing, people make up circumstances such as a soldier in battle who comes to "believe" but is killed before he is able to be baptized. He would have been baptized but just did not have the time. With such a circumstance they think they have effectively made baptism unessential to salvation.

I similarly presented a circumstance of an atheist in a plane that is seconds away from crashing into the ground. In his last moments the athiest thinks that there really is a Divine being and there is life after death but dies in the crash not knowing who or what to believe in. He would have believed but just did not have time.

If we allow the soldier to get around being baptized for he did not have time, then we have to allow the atheist to get around believing for he did not have time.

So if others can make up scenarios that get people around being baptized, i can make up scenarios to get your uncle around believing

Handy said she got what you were saying. I'm sorry, I still don't see it. I understand your concern- I can see why you're adamant on not letting any light in. But still, what you're saying is: a person wants to be baptized, but because of no fault of their own they could not before they died: therefore God would reject them?

God's the one who made our universe with all the circumstances. So He made a world where someone who sincerely wants to be saved but- of no fault of their own- doesn't get the chance to fulfill the requirement, is not saved? They have belief but since baptism is impossible (a scenario which God effectively brought about, however indirectly) they go to hell?

Again- I understand what you're getting at (at least I think you do) about not wanting to "find ways around" the clear commands of God in scripture. But if the "circumstances" exist, then we must face them.


I'm sorry I'm using not much scripture. I'm sorry if I seem I'm trying to get around scripture. I'm simply looking at the world God has made. Too bad we don't have any examples or teaching in the Bible on the exact scenarios "So-and-so believed, but baptism before their death was impossible. Therefore, ______". But I'm guessing you'll say "we do have teaching: one must be baptised, therefore too bad". I'm just not seeing it.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Handy said she got what you were saying. I'm sorry, I still don't see it. I understand your concern- I can see why you're adamant on not letting any light in. But still, what you're saying is: a person wants to be baptized, but because of no fault of their own they could not before they died: therefore God would reject them?

God's the one who made our universe with all the circumstances. So He made a world where someone who sincerely wants to be saved but- of no fault of their own- doesn't get the chance to fulfill the requirement, is not saved? They have belief but since baptism is impossible (a scenario which God effectively brought about, however indirectly) they go to hell?

Again- I understand what you're getting at (at least I think you do) about not wanting to "find ways around" the clear commands of God in scripture. But if the "circumstances" exist, then we must face them.


I'm sorry I'm using not much scripture. I'm sorry if I seem I'm trying to get around scripture. I'm simply looking at the world God has made. Too bad we don't have any examples or teaching in the Bible on the exact scenarios "So-and-so believed, but baptism before their death was impossible. Therefore, ______". But I'm guessing you'll say "we do have teaching: one must be baptised, therefore too bad". I'm just not seeing it.

God's word says baptism is necessary to be saved. So those that do not believe that make up a lot of "circumstances" thinking those circumstances take precedence over or undo the truth of God's word.


1) God's word says baptism is necessary to salvation
2) circumstance says baptism is not necessary to be saved


Now which do you think I will go by to determine the truth regarding the necessity of baptism, God's word or circumstances?


If one does not think baptism is necessary to be saved then they will have to prove that from the bible for circumstances can never prove it.

 

[farouk]

Ephesians 2.8 & 9:

Where does it mention baptism there?

 

[handy]

Ephesians 2.8 & 9:

Where does it mention baptism there?

farouk, just because some verses don't mention baptism doesn't mean that baptism isn't necessary. Many texts which speak of belief do not mention repentance, yet we know that repentance is necessary to salvation. The thing is, many texts emphasize that we are to be baptized, that baptism joins us in Christ's death and that baptism is tied with our cleansing of sin. Just because there are texts that don't deal with the specifics of baptism doesn't discount all the texts that do.

Handy said she got what you were saying.

Just want to clarify that while I finally understood what Ernest T. was saying, I don't necessarily agree with it.

I think it all really comes back to the thief on the cross. Ernest T. and others seem to believe that this isn't a valid case of someone in the NT coming to salvation without baptism... I believe it is. I've found those that discount the testimony of the thief on the cross tend to drag in assumptions that he "must have" been baptized by John or someone previous to his death on the cross. I pretty much reject that out right... There is no reason to add that dimension to the testimony since the bible gives absolutely no grounds for believing it. Much is made of the fact that he seems familiar with the story... as if anyone in Jerusalem wasn't aware of who Jesus was by now. They had already seen Barabbas freed in place of Jesus, so they knew at least the basics of the fact that a man who did nothing more than preach was being crucified in place of a known criminal. The only reason to make the jump from the fact that the thief knew of Jesus to the idea that he "must have been previously baptized" would be simply to bolster the claim that no one can ever be saved without water baptism.... something the Bible does not say.

Also, Ernest brought up this:
Again, the thief is not an example of NT salvation so the thief is a bad argument anyway. Rom 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." At the time the thief was promised paradise, Christ had not yet died much less been raised from the dead, so the thief could not have the NT belief that saves which Paul requires in this verse. At the time the thief was promised paradise, he and Christ were both alive and under the OT law. Acts 2:38 came into effect some time later after the thief died. We today who live after Acts 2:38 are accountable to it.

I respectfully disagree with this as well, Ernest. First, the thief did confess his faith in the fact that Jesus was not going to remain dead... even as they both hung there on the cross, the thief, by faith, said, "Remember me when You come into Your kingdom." In a way, his faith was even greater, because he believed even more than what the disciples at the time believed... that Jesus was obviously not going to remain in death but be coming into His kingdom. We tend to forget that resurrection was a teaching of the time...one the thief believed regarding Jesus.

I also disagree with the idea that somehow Acts 2:38 is a line of demarcation in how people are saved. Jesus, John and the disciples were already baptizing for the repentance of sins... the only difference is now the Holy Spirit had come... something all the OT people and even the thief could only hope in faith for. But, we know from Hebrews 11 that those who hoped in faith were saved just as we are, by the work of Christ on the cross, something the thief recognized and believed.

And finally there is this from Ernest T.:
Mk 16:16 is a compound sentence. The first part deals with salvation the second with condemnation. If one desires to be saved look at the first part and believe and be baptized. If one desires to be lost, look to the second part and simply not believe. One does not have to both not believe and not be baptized to be lost, unbelief is sufficient.

Moreover, in the first part, the conjunction "and" ties belief to baptism making them inseparable and of equal importance. This means baptism is just as necessary to salvation as belief is.

Lastly, in the first part Jesus made belief a prerequisite to being baptized. No one can be scripturally baptized without first believing. So when Jesus said "he that believeth not" that phrase automatically includes not being baptized.

Now, I don't disagree with what you say here, except that none of this deals with the fact that there have been people who have came into belief, but yet, through no fault of their own, were unable to be baptized prior to their imminent death.

If Jesus had said, "Anyone who disbelieves or has not been baptized will be condemned" then I would agree, there could be no situation in which an unbaptized person, including the thief, could be saved. But, He did not say that, anymore than the Scriptures say that the thief had been baptized previously.

So, bottom line for me, baptism is most necessary, but if one believes, repents and desires to be baptized, then gets slammed by a truck, God in His mercy will deal with the person's heart, not the fact that... "Gee, I know you believed in Me, repented of your sins and begged forgiveness and would have loved to have been baptized, but too bad... that truck got you before you could. So, off to eternal damnation for you!"

 

[Mike]

I saw at least one time in this thread where someone said, "I'm going to make this easy.".

A lot of things aren't easy, but His yoke is.

Matthew 11
"29 Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.â€

I'm not criticizing anyone in this thread or on this board. Where would CFnet be without debates? The fact that we have to debate something we are told to do (whether it's required for salvation or not) seems to be getting off target.

 

[handy]

The fact that we have to debate something we are told to do (whether it's required for salvation or not) seems to be getting off target.

I had to laugh... in a wry sort of way... about this, Mike.

Because during the course of this thread it seems as if I'm speaking out of both sides of the mouth... first I'm hammering that baptism is necessary, but then going on about how God in His mercy can accept those who die without baptism...

Certainly we are told to do it. :yes

 

[beforHim]

God's word says baptism is necessary to be saved. So those that do not believe that make up a lot of "circumstances" thinking those circumstances take precedence over or undo the truth of God's word.


1) God's word says baptism is necessary to salvation
2) circumstance says baptism is not necessary to be saved


Now which do you think I will go by to determine the truth regarding the necessity of baptism, God's word or circumstances?


If one does not think baptism is necessary to be saved then they will have to prove that from the bible for circumstances can never prove it.

OK, I see where you're coming from now.

BTW, while I am of the "nonecessary baptism" stock, this is not why I'm putting forward the reasons I am. because as you said, we could say the same exact thing for "belief alone". No matter whether we believe it's belief alone, or belief+baptism, or whatever, we must all grapple with the facts that in the universe that God made, there are obviously circumstances that fit into this line of reasoning (ie, "they would have believed/been baptized").

So really, when I bring this real life vs Bible discrepancy up (the discrepancy being that: the Bible nowhere [I don't think] addresses the circumstance of a person who "would have been" baptized given the opportunity, vs the world that God made is full of this particular circumstance), I myself must face the situation from the same vs scenario, just replacing "belief" with "baptism".


But let's see. . .

1) Gen 1:1: God creates all things, including the circumstances I mentioned above
2) Ex 33(34?), Rom 8:end, 1 John 4: God is all loving
3) Your scriptures and line of reasoning: Baptism is necessary for salvation
4) Therefore. . .

I don't think the argument really works, since an all loving God would not create a circumstance were one would not gain salvation through no fault of their own. We might as well believe in original sin (which we both find absolutely repugnant).

We must somehow address and grapple with circumstances which happen in real life, not just say "bibleonlybibleonlybibleonlybibleonly", since God created everything (obviously including those real life circumstances not addressed in the Bible).

 

[Asyncritus]

The Thief on the Cross

Lk 23.39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

It seems as if this thief knows Jesus' claim to be the Christ. The chances are that the other one does too.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

The implication is the the other should fear God, as he himself does.

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds:

Here is a confession of his sins; an admission of his guilt before God and man. He also admits that the punishment received is just and deserved.

but this man hath done nothing amiss.

This is a statement confirming his belief in Jesus' own claim:

Jn 8.46 ¶ Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

He was there that day and heard Jesus say that. He had followed the news of Jesus' deeds throughout the country, and knew the truth of the claim.

Knowing all that, it does not seem at all improbable to me that he may well have become a baptized disciple of Christ, and then fallen away.

His next words are nothing short of astounding in the context where they are spoken.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

First, he calls Jesus 'Lord'.

In John's gospel at least, EVERY ONE who calls Jesus 'Lord' is a believer in Him at the very worst, or a disciple as is most usual. So this man was a believer, at the lowest estimate, or a disciple at the highest.

An even more startling idea recognises the fact that in John 8, where he heard Jesus saying 'which of you convicteth me of sin', at the very same time there was the incident of the woman taken in adultery, a sin worthy of death under the Law.

Jesus forgave her.

It is likely then, that he is asking for pardon here for his own deeds which were clearly worthy of death, because he remembered what Jesus had done for another whose sin was worthy of death.

Second, it is a shockingly inappropriate place to be asking for forgiveness.

Imagine two crooks being hung, standing on the scaffold waiting for the executioner to pull the trap door open.

Is it remotely conceivable that one would say anything resembling 'Lord', and 'remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom' to the other crook?

I hardly think so. Yet, that is precisely what is happening here. A dying, condemned criminal is asking another dying, condemned criminal to remember him when he comes in his kingdom.

He obviously knew and acknowledged who Jesus was.The King of the Kingdom of God.

Did he hear and believe this:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Or this:

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

He knew, and all appearances to the contrary, believed that Jesus was exactly who he said He was.

Further, he believed in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, even though it hadn't occurred yet, because he, Jesus, was going to die shortly.

He also believed in the return of Christ to establish His kingdom: 'when thou comest in thy kingdom.

In the circumstances it is a startlingly extensive statement of faith, one which, I believe, could come from none other than someone who had followed Christ and knew both His claims, and His teaching.

That being so, it is far from unreasonable to think that he too, had been baptised and fallen away into dangerous company.



One cannot be sure about the matter, of course, but neither can the possibility be summarily discarded.

Jesus' reply has been sadly misunderstood too.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

If we insist that He meant that on that very day both he Himself, and the malefactor were going to be in Paradise, then a very serious problem arises.

Where was Jesus that day?

Answer: in hell. How do we know?

Peter tells us.

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

So how can we harmonise the obvious facts?

By moving that comma, which incidentally is absent in the Greek.

Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise

becomes

Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Paradise, of course, means 'the garden of God', and refers to the time when Eden will be restored to Jerusalem, and

"...and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody." Isa.51.3

 

[handy]

The Thief on the Cross

Lk 23.39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

It seems as if this thief knows Jesus' claim to be the Christ. The chances are that the other one does too.

40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

The implication is the the other should fear God, as he himself does.

41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds:

Here is a confession of his sins; an admission of his guilt before God and man. He also admits that the punishment received is just and deserved.

but this man hath done nothing amiss.

This is a statement confirming his belief in Jesus' own claim:

Jn 8.46 ¶ Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?

He was there that day and heard Jesus say that. He had followed the news of Jesus' deeds throughout the country, and knew the truth of the claim.

Knowing all that, it does not seem at all improbable to me that he may well have become a baptized disciple of Christ, and then fallen away.

His next words are nothing short of astounding in the context where they are spoken.

42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

First, he calls Jesus 'Lord'.

In John's gospel at least, EVERY ONE who calls Jesus 'Lord' is a believer in Him at the very worst, or a disciple as is most usual. So this man was a believer, at the lowest estimate, or a disciple at the highest.

An even more startling idea recognises the fact that in John 8, where he heard Jesus saying 'which of you convicteth me of sin', at the very same time there was the incident of the woman taken in adultery, a sin worthy of death under the Law.

Jesus forgave her.

It is likely then, that he is asking for pardon here for his own deeds which were clearly worthy of death, because he remembered what Jesus had done for another whose sin was worthy of death.

Second, it is a shockingly inappropriate place to be asking for forgiveness.

Imagine two crooks being hung, standing on the scaffold waiting for the executioner to pull the trap door open.

Is it remotely conceivable that one would say anything resembling 'Lord', and 'remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom' to the other crook?

I hardly think so. Yet, that is precisely what is happening here. A dying, condemned criminal is asking another dying, condemned criminal to remember him when he comes in his kingdom.

He obviously knew and acknowledged who Jesus was.The King of the Kingdom of God.

Did he hear and believe this:

Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Or this:

Luke 19:12 He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.

He knew, and all appearances to the contrary, believed that Jesus was exactly who he said He was.

Further, he believed in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, even though it hadn't occurred yet, because he, Jesus, was going to die shortly.

He also believed in the return of Christ to establish His kingdom: 'when thou comest in thy kingdom.

In the circumstances it is a startlingly extensive statement of faith, one which, I believe, could come from none other than someone who had followed Christ and knew both His claims, and His teaching.

That being so, it is far from unreasonable to think that he too, had been baptised and fallen away into dangerous company.



One cannot be sure about the matter, of course, but neither can the possibility be summarily discarded.

Jesus' reply has been sadly misunderstood too.

43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

If we insist that He meant that on that very day both he Himself, and the malefactor were going to be in Paradise, then a very serious problem arises.

Where was Jesus that day?

Answer: in hell. How do we know?

Peter tells us.

Acts 2:27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
Acts 2:31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

So how can we harmonise the obvious facts?

By moving that comma, which incidentally is absent in the Greek.

Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise

becomes

Verily I say unto thee today, thou shalt be with me in paradise.

Paradise, of course, means 'the garden of God', and refers to the time when Eden will be restored to Jerusalem, and

"...and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the LORD; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody." Isa.51.3

This is the same logic/tactic applied by those who insist that babies and infants ought to be baptized. After all, Acts 16 states that the jailer and his whole household were baptized... the whole household must have included young children and babies...no, the text doesn't say that it did... but it's logical to assume that it did because... well, because we want to say that baptism should be applied to babies and most households back then had at least one or two babies or little kids around, so it's safe to assume that Acts 16:33 included babies and young children.

Sorry... there is absolutely nothing in the texts that indicate the thief was a prior believer or disciple of Jesus'...that is nothing but pure assumption.

I'm not sure why anyone would think it surprising that the thieves, both of them, knew Who was being crucified with them and why He was being crucified... nor why it should seem so surprising that one of them expressed a saving belief in Jesus. Why we need to make this thief a former disciple who had been previously baptized but yet had somehow fallen away... there is just no biblical reason to make such a jump. Frankly, there is even less of a logical case to be made for that than there is to make Acts 16:33 a "proof text" for infant baptism.

 

[Asyncritus]

I'm sorry you take this view, Handy.

I certainly don't believe in infant 'baptism' and would never use the jailor's household as proof that it did take place. After all 'household' usually means 'household servants' and the like.

But where do you suppose this guy got his information from?

And even more peculiarly, why does he bring up the subject just when he was just about to have his legs broken and die because of the sheer agony?

And in any case, did you miss this:

One cannot be sure about the matter, of course, but neither can the possibility be summarily discarded.

 

[handy]

Why he would bring it up is pretty obvious... since he was a believer (for however long he believed) he wanted to be forgiven of his sins...especially since death was quite imminent...

I think it's more odd that you would wonder why a man who is about to die, and whom obviously has been enlightened by the Spirit (for no one says Jesus is Lord but by the Spirit) wouldn't turn to Jesus for forgiveness and mercy... especially since Jesus was right there....what believer doesn't turn to Jesus when death is nigh?

As for where he got his information from... again, did Jesus operate by stealth? Of course not... He had been in the city for a whole week and had been talked about for far longer than that.... by this time Jesus had attained rock-star celebrity status... I doubt there was anyone in the city who didn't know who Jesus was...

What I don't see is any reason why we somehow have to make this man a former disciple that had been previously baptized... other than to prop up the idea that no one can ever enter Paradise unless water baptized, because if he wasn't baptized, that theory doesn't hold water.

 

[handy]

And in any case, did you miss this:

One cannot be sure about the matter, of course, but neither can the possibility be summarily discarded.

No, I didn't miss it... I realize that you are just putting forth a theory, not being dogmatic.

 

[stovebolts]

I am completely baffled by all this hoo-hah.

God says 'Get baptized'.

Everybody in the Acts got baptized.

Why all this argument?

Well, if I were to take a guess... I would say that it's because "everybody" in Acts got baptized. At least that's the argument for infant baptism, although I don't see it...

Catholic dogma is that if one is baptized, one is saved. Augustine argued this point with the Universalists of his day, which concreted the doctrine that infants, if not baptized were bound for hell. Although not directly supported by the RCC, the idea of LIMBO is widely accepted in the Catholic church.

Calvin even believed in baptism for regeneration / salvation if I recall correctly...

Personally, I think we have a distorted view of what salvation is. Most think that being saved is about where one spends eternity once they die and they are totally unaware that we are currently living in eternity. Essentially, eternity is always now, because eternity has always been, and it will always be. Yet it's substance is always now. And what are we saved from?... if not oursleves? Is there no such thing as hell on earth, or heaven on earth?

Baptism is many things, but it is not a formula. When I read the scriptures, I see those being saved as those who have had their hearts pricked and have received the gospel of Jesus Christ. In obedience with the willingness to do as Christ did, they follow Jesus into the baptismal waters and experience being buried with Christ, and raised from the pool united with Christ knowing that every sin they have ever committed has been fogiven, and all they need is ask for forgiveness moving forward. It is a wonderful experience to feel the Holy Spirit moving in you and have the assurance that you are a part of the living body of Christ.