The thief on the cross misconceptions

[Ernest T. Bass]

Does the Bible need to use those exact words? Plenty of examples. Ready?

John's baptism was public. That's an outward sign. (outside even) - LOL
And was a baptism of repentance. Inward reality? I hope so.

In the book of Acts we see some HUGE baptism events. 2000 and then 3000.
Those being added to the church.

Any possibility that these ceremonies were an outward sign of an inward reality?

Need more?
House of Cornelius, the Ethiopian eunuch, believers in Ephesus... More?

This is not about "exact words" but about how you DEFINE water baptism in a way the Bible does not. Nowhere does the NT gospel teach one is saved BEFORE one has been water baptized but this is what you are attempting to read into it with your definition of water baptism.

Again, water baptism saves (Acts 2:38 cf 1 Pet 3:21) it is HOW Christians/disciples are made (Matt 28:19-20) hence no such thing as an unbaptized Christian. Water baptism is commanded (Acts 10:47-48) which if for no other reason the command alone makes it essential to salvation. Water baptism is HOW one goes about obeying the gospel of Christ (2 Thess 1:8) for one will be in flaming fire if one does not obey the gospel of Christ. Not being water baptized is the same as rejecting the gospel message, (Acts 2:41).

Therefore nowhere does the Bible define water baptism as an outward sign of one being ALREADY saved BEFORE one was water baptized. Again, that is YOUR erroneous definition that cannot be found within the NT. Not a single example in any of the conversions in Acts of one being saved BEFORE one obeyed the command to be water baptized for the remission of sins.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

It's in the Bible - have you read it lately???

You keep making assumptions/assertions YOUR definiton of water baptism is in the Bible but continue to fail to point out where in the NT your definition can be found. "It's in the Bible" is NOT pointing out the specific book, chapter and verse. Anyone can claim an idea is "in the BIble' but that idea is not in the BIble until it can be found in the Bible.

 

[David in NJ]

You keep making assumptions/assertions YOUR definiton of water baptism is in the Bible but continue to fail to point out where in the NT your definition can be found. "It's in the Bible" is NOT pointing out the specific book, chapter and verse. Anyone can claim an idea is "in the BIble' but that idea is not in the BIble until it can be found in the Bible.

Good Morning Ernest,

Would you desire to have His Desire filling you to overflowing where Living Water flows from Christ into you and then from you -
out to the whole world?

 

[Titus]

Agree. I posted that verse because he'd said there was no passage saying baptize in Jesus name, when clearly there is

I know I never said that. Quote me saying no passage of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
You are either making false accusations against me or don't pay attention and are careless what you say about others. Which one is it?
I'll be expecting an apology if you are a man of integrity.

 

[St. SteVen]

This is not about "exact words" but about how you DEFINE water baptism in a way the Bible does not. Nowhere does the NT gospel teach one is saved BEFORE one has been water baptized but this is what you are attempting to read into it with your definition of water baptism.

Your personal opinion on this is very divisive.

This from GotQuestions.org

"Believer’s baptism is the act by which a believer in Jesus Christ chooses to be baptized in order to give testimony of his faith. Believer’s baptism is also called “credobaptism,” a term that comes from the Latin word for “creed,” indicating that baptism is a symbol of a person’s adopting a certain doctrine or creed.

Believer’s baptism is clearly taught in Acts 2. In this chapter, Peter is preaching the gospel message on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. In the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter boldly proclaims Jesus’ death and resurrection and commands the crowd to repent and believe in Christ (Acts 2:36, 38). The response to Peter’s gospel presentation is recorded in verse 41: “Those who accepted his message were baptized.” Note the order of events—they accepted the message (the gospel of Christ), and then they were baptized. Only those who believed were baptized. We see the same order in Acts 16, when the Philippian jailer and his family are saved. They believe, and then they are baptized (Acts 16:29–34). The practice of the apostles was to baptize believers, not unbelievers." Source

 

[David in NJ]

Your personal opinion on this is very divisive.

This from GotQuestions.org

"Believer’s baptism is the act by which a believer in Jesus Christ chooses to be baptized in order to give testimony of his faith. Believer’s baptism is also called “credobaptism,” a term that comes from the Latin word for “creed,” indicating that baptism is a symbol of a person’s adopting a certain doctrine or creed.

Believer’s baptism is clearly taught in Acts 2. In this chapter, Peter is preaching the gospel message on the Day of Pentecost in Jerusalem. In the power of the Holy Spirit, Peter boldly proclaims Jesus’ death and resurrection and commands the crowd to repent and believe in Christ (Acts 2:36, 38). The response to Peter’s gospel presentation is recorded in verse 41: “Those who accepted his message were baptized.” Note the order of events—they accepted the message (the gospel of Christ), and then they were baptized. Only those who believed were baptized. We see the same order in Acts 16, when the Philippian jailer and his family are saved. They believe, and then they are baptized (Acts 16:29–34). The practice of the apostles was to baptize believers, not unbelievers." Source

EXCELLENT

GOD calls it "Chicken before eggs" = Genesis

 

[St. SteVen]

EXCELLENT

GOD calls it "Chicken before eggs" = Genesis

Thanks.
I'm flabbergasted with this nonsense about not baptizing believers.
What's the point of baptizing an unbeliever? Infant baptisms accepted. (parents decide for their infant)

These folks went ballistic at my definition of a religious ceremony as an outward sign of an inward reality.

 

[David in NJ]

Thanks.
I'm flabbergasted with this nonsense about not baptizing believers.
What's the point of baptizing an unbeliever? Infant baptisms accepted. (parents decide for their infant)

These folks went ballistic at my definition of a religious ceremony as an outward sign of an inward reality.

Religion will always go ballistic on the Freedom & Liberty that His Children walk in.

"And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
to whom we did not yield submission even for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you."

Now Paul is speaking of those who sought to draw saved Believers back into the Law and 'works' salvation.

Since God's words are Living = this passage of Truth can be applied towards any type of religious error where it's purpose is to divert us, however slight, from the Liberty in Christ.

 

[ButterflyJones]

I know I never said that. Quote me saying no passage of baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.
You are either making false accusations against me or don't pay attention and are careless what you say about others. Which one is it?
I'll be expecting an apology if you are a man of integrity.

Post #251

"I've never found the NT, teach this doctrine on baptism in Jesus' name."

 

[ButterflyJones]

You are unable to find in the Bible where obedience to God's will is called work of merit, hence you make a personal attack rather than dealing with the subject at hand.

Not a personal attacks by any definition.

 

[DJT_47]

Sounds like you're picking at nits here by linking Baptism to forgiveness of the thief on the cross. Your logic seems to be accurate on the surface of things, but since the entire subject is so far off the rails it's difficult to understand why anyone would take the time to argue the point.

Point being whether the thief, who Jesus forgave and promised redemption, ought to have been saved at all despite God's forgiveness granted at the time.

Point asserted is the establishment of the New Covenant at the moment of Jesus' death. Again, the point struggles at a gnat and swallows a camel. Baptism doesn't save anyone, but it IS commanded as an outward demonstration of Repentance of SIN and beginning of the New Life from the Second Birth.

Baptism has two functions: It demonstrates REPENTANCE of SIN. It ADMITS to the Second Birth granted of God after humbly asking for forgiveness. Baptism is the result of being saved, not the cause or source of it. Christ is the source whether He's dead or alive. (He's still alive according to current rumors).

Point being that the New Covenant is not a change in any way shape or form from the Old Covenant. (Matthew 5:17-18) The New Covenant is an addition to the Old Covenant, an amendment according to the way legal documents are cited, not a replacement for anything God has endorsed.

Despite rhetoric about Baptism and whether or not Jesus had authority to forgive, I perceive the real argument at point here is an attempt to assert Replacement Theology (*), which is Roman Catholic dogma and entirely bogus according to the Word of God.

....and THAT my friend I something worthy of time spent writing here...

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) Also called Supersessionism.

I'm not picking at nits. People constantly use the argument contrary to baptism as a requirement citing the thief on the cross as justification.

Tell Peter that baptism doesn't save as he stated to the contrary in 1 Peter 3:20-1. You're wrong, Peter was right. Further to this point, how does one become (scripturally) a member if the body of Christ, the church? Only one way and that's by being baptized into it.

And of there is no difference between the old and new covenants, they are then the same which makes zero sense.

And for sure I'm in no way catholic or di u support any of that man made up unscriptural nonsense.

 

[David in NJ]

Sounds like you're picking at nits here by linking Baptism to forgiveness of the thief on the cross. Your logic seems to be accurate on the surface of things, but since the entire subject is so far off the rails it's difficult to understand why anyone would take the time to argue the point.

Point being whether the thief, who Jesus forgave and promised redemption, ought to have been saved at all despite God's forgiveness granted at the time.

Point asserted is the establishment of the New Covenant at the moment of Jesus' death. Again, the point struggles at a gnat and swallows a camel. Baptism doesn't save anyone, but it IS commanded as an outward demonstration of Repentance of SIN and beginning of the New Life from the Second Birth.

Baptism has two functions: It demonstrates REPENTANCE of SIN. It ADMITS to the Second Birth granted of God after humbly asking for forgiveness. Baptism is the result of being saved, not the cause or source of it. Christ is the source whether He's dead or alive. (He's still alive according to current rumors).

Point being that the New Covenant is not a change in any way shape or form from the Old Covenant. (Matthew 5:17-18) The New Covenant is an addition to the Old Covenant, an amendment according to the way legal documents are cited, not a replacement for anything God has endorsed.

Despite rhetoric about Baptism and whether or not Jesus had authority to forgive, I perceive the real argument at point here is an attempt to assert Replacement Theology (*), which is Roman Catholic dogma and entirely bogus according to the Word of God.

....and THAT my friend I something worthy of time spent writing here...

that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

(*) Also called Supersessionism.

I cracked up laughing (in AGREEMENT) when i arrived to this statement of yours:

"Baptism is the result of being saved, not the cause or source of it. Christ is the source whether He's dead or alive. (He's still alive according to current rumors)."

Thank You

 

[DJT_47]

I'm not saying anything. The scriptures say it. If the scriptures require belief then so be it. If thry too require confession of belief as did the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8 consistent with Romans 10:9, so be it. If they also require repentance as were tied to the Jews in Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, then so be it. And likewise, if the scriptures say one must be baptized to be saved, then so be it.

Mark 16:15-16

15And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. 16He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Belief + baptism = salvation

 

[Jim B]

There is no such thing as last minute salvation on someone's deathbed nor examples of this or inference of this in the bible. It's man conceived nonsense as well as being contrary to the NT teaching on salvation. No one has been saved at the last moment of their life out of fear and desperation. They've had their life to seek the Lord but didn't do so by believing and being obedient to the gospel.

Can you back this claim up with scripture?

Matthew 20:1-6 shows just the opposite...

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around, and he said to them, ‘Why are you standing here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’ When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.’ When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received a denarius. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

 

[DJT_47]

Can you back this claim up with scripture?

Matthew 20:1-6 shows just the opposite...

“For the kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius for the day, he sent them into his vineyard. When he went out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. When he went out again about noon and about three o’clock, he did the same. And about five o’clock he went out and found others standing around, and he said to them, ‘Why are you standing here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You also go into the vineyard.’ When evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his manager, ‘Call the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and then going to the first.’ When those hired about five o’clock came, each of them received a denarius. Now when the first came, they thought they would receive more; but each of them also received a denarius. And when they received it, they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong; did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go; I choose to give to this last the same as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ So the last will be first, and the first will be last.”

A few points of clarification to make.

The scripture you cited has nothing to do with nor does it support death bed conversions or any conversion for that matter that would be inconsistent with scriptures that clearly teach a plan and process to be saved when all pertinent scriptures are considered. That being, belief and faith, confession of belief, repentance, and baptism.

The scripture you cited simply is saying that we all get the same reward regardless of when we were saved, whether as an old man or someone saved from an early age. You don't get a greater reward for being saved individual, a Christian, gor a longer period of time.

And most important, don't confuse what Jesus personally did while he was alive such as forgiving specific individual's sins, such as the adulterous woman or the thief on the cross, with things today. Jesus is not here uniquely forgiving sins of people on their deathbeds. We've been left with the the bible and instructions contained therein to follow, and non-Christian individuals do not have Jesus there personally to pardon them, and to do so contrary to his written word. This is no different than the account of Lazarus and the rich man that died and went to hell who asked that someone warn his relatives, and was told they had Moses and the prophets to teach them.

 

[ButterflyJones]

I'm not picking at nits. People constantly use the argument contrary to baptism as a requirement citing the thief on the cross as justification.

Tell Peter that baptism doesn't save as he stated to the contrary in 1 Peter 3:20-1. You're wrong, Peter was right. Further to this point, how does one become (scripturally) a member if the body of Christ, the church? Only one way and that's by being baptized into it.

And of there is no difference between the old and new covenants, they are then the same which makes zero sense.

And for sure I'm in no way catholic or di u support any of that man made up unscriptural nonsense.

We are saved by God's grace through faith. His gifts. Irrevocable.

We are not saved by immersion. Jesus was baptized. He did not need to be saved.

After that he began his ministry. It's symbolic. Then and now. We passed from death, dead in our sins, and as ended, rose, from the waters reborn in the holy spirit .
We put off the old and became alive in the new.


Baptism does not save us. Never has. Never was it taught as such.
God told us how we are saved. By his grace.

Jesus is the water of life. The Holy Spirit on earth.

 

[DJT_47]

We are saved by God's grace through faith. His gifts. Irrevocable.

We are not saved by immersion. Jesus was baptized. He did not need to be saved.

After that he began his ministry. It's symbolic. Then and now. We passed from death, dead in our sins, and as ended, rose, from the waters reborn in the holy spirit .
We put off the old and became alive in the new.


Baptism does not save us. Never has. Never was it taught as such.
God told us how we are saved. By his grace.

Jesus is the water of life. The Holy Spirit on earth.

Yes we are saved by God's grace through faith but that doesn't mean we are not to be obedient. We are saved by God's grace through faith after following his commands, all of them. Jesus said he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved. Mk 16:15-16.

And you certainly are nor understanding why Jesus demanded to be baptized unto John's baptism and why John complied. Read the text. And being baptized into Christ is not the same as John's baptism. People are baptized into Christ and become part of his body which is his church and that can only happen subsequent yo his death.

 

[ButterflyJones]

Yes we are saved by God's grace through faith but that doesn't mean we are not to be obedient. We are saved by God's grace through faith after following his commands, all of them. Jesus said he that believeth AND is baptized shall be saved. Mk 16:15-16.

And you certainly are nor understanding why Jesus demanded to be baptized unto John's baptism and why John complied. Read the text. And being baptized into Christ is not the same as John's baptism. People are baptized into Christ and become part of his body which is his church and that can only happen subsequent yo his death.

Obedience saves?

 

[DJT_47]

Obedience saves?

You're trying to twist things. Obedience doesn't save but without being
obedient you certainly won't be. Abraham had faith and his faith was counted as righteousness but he was also obedient. Had he not been obedient, he couldn't have then become righteous as it was his obedience that demonstrated his faith. If you have belief and faith you'll obey.

 

[Titus]

Post #251

"I've never found the NT, teach this doctrine on baptism in Jesus' name."

Never said, baptism in Jesus name is not found in the new testament as you wrongly accused me.
I said I've never found "this doctrine" i.e. water baptism in Jesus' name in the NT for those who are already saved.