Baptism and obedience

The thief was still under the Law. Water baptism wasn't required until after the NT Church was born. (Acts 2:4) So baptism wasn't required for him!

So is the thieve in Heaven or Hell?
Command: Matt. 28:19) God ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Fulfilled: Acts 2:38) Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Sounds necessary to me...or is that MEE? [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]

 

Funny, if he had been baptized before, and if baptism as you see was a need for salvation, don't you think the good Lord would have mentioned it. Instead, He mentioned the thief believing on Christ. If baptism is it, why don't the pope bless the beach or the swimming pools and let everyone be saved?

So Jesus's plan of salvation depends on the circumstance surrounding one. Another funny thing is, if baptism is it, why did Jesus not baptize anyone? Plus, why did Jesus die?

 

The thief was neither baptized nor did he fulfill the requirements of the Law. All he did was trust Christ with his soul.

 

The thief was neither baptized nor did he fulfill the requirements of the Law. All he did was trust Christ with his soul. </font>[/QUOTE]Baptism of Desire.


LaRae

 

Baptism has nothing to do with salvation. Further, how one gets baptized has nothing to do with salvation.

The reason WE get baptized the way we do (as adults, and immersed), is because that is OUR traditional heritage as Christians. That doesn't make it wrong for others to have their own traditions concerning baptism, which may or may not differ from ours.

 

duplicate post deleted

 

Now now dual, don't go beyond what is written. Where does it say the theif had never
been baptized? He easily could have been by John the Baptist since it says that JTB baptized a crowd.

No Matter. Baptism by Desire will cover just anyone/anytime/anyplace.

And there's More......Your local Catholic Church has a Program called "Salvation
by Desire" for those who don't get around to getting saved before they die.

[ May 09, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Singer ]

 

Thes:

Don't deny that Catholicism has a doctrine called "Baptism by Desire" or
you'll be out of sync with your other unified brothers.

You're following the Vatican Course on "How To Debate on Message Boards"
to a "T". You're now in the "Attack the Protestant's Integrity" mode with your
personal attacks.....and talking in 'second person'.

That strategy seems to crop up when you guys run out of answers.

You haven't answered yet as to why the Apostles didn't just snack on
Jesus' arm and suck his blood if there is so much need to eat the ACTUAL
blood and body of our Lord. It was right there in front of them....why did
they instead partake of symbols..? Could it be that Catholicism is wrong..?

Worse yet (for your cause) is the fact that Jesus TOLD them to use bread
and wine. Why would He tell them one thing and the Vatican insists on another..?

Brother Ed might have the answer if you can't find it.

 

Singer, you can come up with some of the funniest things. I've laughed and laughed and what you just said. You really have a sense of humor.

MEE

 

The end of John chapter 3 says that Jesus baptized. John 4 says Jesus baptized more people than John, but then adds that He Himself did not baptize but the disciples. In commanding His disciples to baptize it was one and the same as if He Himself were baptizing except for one difference: no one could say "I'm better than you because the Lord Himself baptized me with His own hands!" So, why did Jesus not baptize? He did; through the apostles. But He did not baptize with His own hands, no doubt to keep jealousy away.

Can you prove that the thief on the cross did not accept John's baptism like virtually everyone in Judea (except the Pharisees) did? Can you prove that he was not baptized by the apostles when Jesus baptized & made more disciples than John?

 

Singer, you can come up with some of the funniest things. I've laughed and laughed and
what you just said. You really have a sense of humor.

Oh....Sorry Carol, I thought this WAS a Comic Strip !!

Doesn't it stand to reason though....?
Actually I think it's a very good question.............but I have not received an answer yet;
except to attract ridicule and accusation of being a deceitful liar.

Praise God Anyhow !!

 

Repentant sinners were baptized. The thief on the cross repented on the cross.

 

Repentant sinners were baptized. The thief on the cross repented on the cross.

This would not gel with RCC Doctrine that baptism itself is the mechanism that
brings the H.S. into a life. (They will defend that the thief WAS baptized). My
Catholic sources also claim that the thief was the ONLY example to receive the
promise of paradise from Jesus. (The rest of us have the requirement of "perseverence
by good works". ) upon us. Plus Pergatory, plus concenting to the infallible direction
of the pope, plus priestly forgiveness, plus mandatory Mass (to miss is a Mortal Sin),
plus, plus, plus............

Also does not gel with RCC Doctrine that salvation is a given (upon "believing in Him").

Their doctrine is more in line with "being saved" ..."will be saved".....

There is not a Catholic (Good Catholic) who will state a time and event whereupon
they were "Saved". (Will not claim present salvation). Only that they are "being saved"
according to a book of standards, requirements and works, will not claim 1 John 5:11-13,
will not, will not, will not.............

Still prayin for me, Thes?

[ May 11, 2003, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Singer ]

 

Yes you are missing something. You are missing any Scripture that says that anyone baptized the thief on the cross. You have a totally illogical argument. You cannot argue from silence. Your argument follows along the same logic that an atheist uses who proclaims "There is no God!" How can he prove his assertion. In order to prove that there is no God the atheist must look in every cubic meter of the universe for God: every star, planet, solar system that exists. If he doesn't overturn every rock, not only on this earth, but in the entire universe on a search for God, he has no proof that God exists. The atheist is not concerned about a search for God because he does not want to believe that God exists. You cannot argue from silence or the absence of facts.

The onus is on you to provide the facts of history that the thief was baptized. Provide the Scripture that says the thief was baptized. Give no implications, no interpolations, but facts that he was baptized. Even if you used outside sources, are there any? Does Josephus suggest that he was baptized? Is there any evidence anywhere to suggest that this person was baptized. You do not want to do an exhaustive search for evidence that he was baptized, for you would rather believe that he was by accepting it on blind faith or the presupposition of others without evidence. Your argument is defeated and ridiculously illogical. He must be assumed to be unbaptized until you provide the absolute proof that he was.
DHK

 

Who here is foolish enough to say that they have only repented once in their life? Whoever says this needs to open their Bible and start reading! We all need to repent MORE THAN ONCE. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 John 1:8)