Christians: The thief on the cross

[Kathryn]

Yes. So you've been baptised with water? (and by that I don't mean "being borne of a woman!")

 

[Thief]

Yes. So you've been baptised with water? (and by that I don't mean "being borne of a woman!")

Apparently...you didn't bother.

 

[Kathryn]

I'm sorry. If you've already stated whether or not you've been baptised with water, I missed it. That doesn't mean I haven't read the thread, but I am debating on several threads right now (as you know). Please humor me and tell me again - have you been baptised with water since your profession of Christian faith?

 

[Thief]

I'm sorry. If you've already stated whether or not you've been baptised with water, I missed it. That doesn't mean I haven't read the thread, but I am debating on several threads right now (as you know). Please humor me and tell me again - have you been baptised with water since your profession of Christian faith?

As soon as you go back and pick up...Matthew20:20.

 

[Kathryn]

Go back and pick it up? You mean read it again? Post it? What?

First of all, surely you mean Matthew 20:20-28, which is:

Matthew 20:20-28 (New International Version)


A Mother’s Request

20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21 “What is it you want?” he asked.
She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”
22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”
“We can,” they answered.
23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” 24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Alrighty then.

Now - since your profession of the Christian faith, have you been baptised with water? Why or why not?

 

[Thief]

Go back and pick it up? You mean read it again? Post it? What?

First of all, surely you mean Matthew 20:20-28, which is:

Matthew 20:20-28 (New International Version)


A Mother’s Request

20 Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him.
21 “What is it you want?” he asked.
She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.”
22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?”
“We can,” they answered.
23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” 24 When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. 25 Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. 26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Alrighty then.

Now - since your profession of the Christian faith, have you been baptised with water? Why or why not?

Oil....as if it matters....

You do understand what happened in Matthew?

 

[Kathryn]

So you are basically refusing water baptism. Am I correct in this?

 

[Thief]

So you are basically refusing water baptism. Am I correct in this?

And you are refusing the direction this discussion will go?
You can see it coming...can't you?

 

[jtartar]

The problem is, we really don't know for sure where the comma should be placed or whether there should even be a comma. Since virtually all of the punctuation we see in our Bibles today was inserted by its translators, all we can really be sure of is that some of the translators believed one thing and some of them believed something else. They either inserted a comma or chose not to based upon what they believed Christ meant by His statement. Wouldn't it be nice if He could come down and clarify this for us?

I'm going to have to get back to you on this paragraph since I've got an early day tomorrow and need to get to bed. For now, though, I'll simply say that I disagree with you.

Katzpur,
One other thing we have to take into consideration about where the comma belongs.
The comma certainly belongs after the word today,at Luke 23:43, because Jesus did not go to heaven until forty days after his resurrection, Acts 1:3. Therefore Jesus would not have told the evildoer that he would be with him in Paradise that day.
There are going to be two resurrections, the First Resurrection, Rev 20:5,6. Notice that in verse 6 the Bible tells that the second death has no authority over them. This is because the ones resurrected in the First Resurrection will be spirit creatures, and be given immortality, 1Pet 3:18,19, Rom 6:5,8, 1Cor 15:51-54. Jesus went in the spirit state and preached to the wicked angels. Jesus had to be spirit or he could not have preached to angels, or even see them. God, angels and Jesus are all in the apirit realm, John 8:23
The Bible tells us that Jesus was the first of all God's creations, Col 1:15, Rev 3:14.
Jesus was made in the same form as God had, SPIRIT Form, 2Cor 3:17, Phil 2:6.
The Bible tells us that flesh is lower than spirit creatures, Ps 8:5, Heb 2:7,9.
Notice that Phil 2:9 says that God exalted Jesus to a superior position, because he was willing to give his life for mankind, Phil 2:7,8.
Jesus was certainly resurrected as a mighty spirit creature, even superior to the mighty position he had before coming to earth, John 17:5.
The second resurrection mentioned at John 5:28,29, Acts 24:15, is a resurrection back to this earth, for the Judgemant Day, Rev 20:1-3, 4-7, 11,12, 15.
All who live through the final test, when Satan is released for a little while, will be granted everlasting life in a Paradise earth, which was the original urpose stated to Adam and Eve, Gen 1:26-26, and Isa 45:18, Ps 37:29. When God, whose Personal name is JEHOVAH states a purpose it is certain to come true, isa 55:11.

 

[*Paul*]

This thread is in reference to baptism.

The story of the thief on the cross is a very powerful demonstration of Christ's love and compassion for humanity. But it has always been a story put forth as an example of how NT baptism might not be for salvation. The story, from Luke 23, goes like this, starting in verse 39:
Those who believe that baptism is not for salvation often use this story as evidence of that belief - the implication being that, if this thief did not need to be baptized, then neither do I. However, I find it hard to agree with that for 2 reasons:

1. This happened before Christ's death burial and resurrection, and therefore, before NT baptism even took effect as a part of salvation. So whether he was baptized or not is irrelevant. It wasn't until after Christ's death was the New Covenant initiated, having, as Paul puts it, nailed the Old Law to the cross.

2. This is a specific incident - a one-time occurrence of Jesus personally telling someone face-to-face that they would be saved. This does not happen today! Christ does not come down from heaven and point out individuals publicly as being saved. So, this specific mode of salvation does not apply to us today.

For these two reasons, and perhaps others, the thief on the cross story seems to be the exception, rather than the rule. Any thoughts or comments?

Good point, Christ had not yet given the command to the apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Using this as an example against baptismal regeneration would be a poor arguement.

However I think that salvation by grace through faith is clearly taught in the Epistles.

 

[marky mark]

Good point, Christ had not yet given the command to the apostles to baptize in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Using this as an example against baptismal regeneration would be a poor arguement.

However I think that salvation by grace through faith is clearly taught in the Epistles.

I agree! In Eph. 4:5, Paul states there is only "one baptism." From vv.4-6 he is speaking of aspects of God's salvation, they are essential for salvation. Therefore, the baptism of the Spirit is essential, for it places the regenerated sinner into the body of Christ. 1 Cor. 12:13-"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free-and having all been made to drink into one Spirit." 1 Cor.1:14-17- "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel." I believe every believer should be water baptized in obedience to Christ if at all possible. But, water baptism is suppose to be the outward evidence of the inward reality [baptism of the Spirit at regeneration], but to be water baptized without the inward reality is vain. So the only baptism essential to salvation is the baptism of the Spirit which is accomplished at the time of the new birth. Thanks...

 

[mmksparbud]

Christ was baptized---He, being the Son of God, didn't need to be--but it served several purposes--it was the outward symbol of His surrender to God, it served as an example for us to follow, and His baptism covers those who were, or may not, be able to be baptized--just as His death covers our sins.

 

[sojourner]

Christ was baptized---He, being the Son of God, didn't need to be--but it served several purposes--it was the outward symbol of His surrender to God, it served as an example for us to follow, and His baptism covers those who were, or may not, be able to be baptized--just as His death covers our sins.

I agree with you -- right up to your third point.