You need to read the entire thread. There is no way that we know if the thief was baptized or not. He very well could have been baptized before the crucifixion. There is scriptural evidence that he may very well have been. Read the whole thread. The thief on the cross is really no help to your cause.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
What do Baptists and Catholics have in common?
- Thread starter Peggy
- Start date
- Status
You need to read the entire thread. There is no way that we know if the thief was baptized or not. He very well could have been baptized before the crucifixion. There is scriptural evidence that he may very well have been. Read the whole thread. The thief on the cross is really no help to your cause.
He was eating ice cream cones before he was convicted, and before that he had been surfing in the Sea of Galilee. The reason he was crucified was that he was caught stealing from the purses and wallets on the beach while the others were surfing. He was a thief you know. Hey, check your history books.
Do you know how I know all that? The same way that you know that he was baptized, and the same way that you know babies in the NT were baptized.
One cannot argue from silence. Did you know that the other thief was a computer Geek. He was crucified as a thief because he hacked into FBI computers.
Yep, you can put anything into the Bible that you want to. But you can't prove it wrong because you are arguing from silence. And that is not an argument at all. It is just illogical and makes your argument foolish. And that is how foolish "the thief was baptized" argument looks like. He was baptized eating ice cream at the same time. Prove that he wasn't!
Secondly, baptism always follows repentance, faith, belief, calling on the name of the Lord, as the thief called upon Jesus. Every minute of the thief's life is accounted for after he was saved. He was not baptized after he was saved. And that is what really counts.
So you're agreeing with me that Christians have believed this from the start?
Really? I think you're on record as stating that the Catholic Church began after Constantine. However, if you have changed your view on this, then answer these two questions:
1. How come then that 'Catholic' doctrines such as baptismal regeneration were taught well before Constantine? Also episcopal organisation of the Church etc?
2. What new doctrines did Constantine introduce? If he founded a new Church, which Christian bishops did he remove and with which 'Catholic' bishops did he replace them?
It will be a couple of days before I have a chance to look at any commentaries other than on line commentaries. However, I did check a couple of them. Thomas Constable has a problem with it because he speculates it may have one of two different connotations. First he suggests it is telling us to work on the sanctification thing. Then he suggests it might be a corporate admonition to the church, not to be taken personally. I also checked Matthew Henry, whose explanation is not too far from my own concept of this verse. I agree there is nothing in the verse that is difficult, but you must think so because you try to make it mean something it does not say.
I always look at everything in context, whether it be scripture or the Wall Street Journal. The "every knee should bow" part does suggest fear and trembling but that doesn't explain explain the "work out your salvation" part. It's so simple. It we want to maintain our salvation we must work to do so.
We can't know for sure until we die and reach the other side. Frankly, I think there is merit and strong scriptural support for the Catholic model, which is if you die with unforgiven mortal sin you go to Hell. If you die only with unforgiven venial sin, you go to Purgatory. If you die with all your sins forgiven, you go straight to Heaven. I don't know if there is Purgatory. It is not expressly mentioned in the Bible but it is implied in 1 Corinthians 3:12-14 and Matthew 12:32.
That is your inference because the Bible doesn't say that about any of them except Abraham. Please keep that in mind when (if) you take issue with my conclusions about Purgatory.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Ok so then all the condemnation and burning at the stake done by the RCC against "protesting Catholics" (where those who escaped being burned then joined with Luther and other protesting Catholics) was not justified??
Recall that they were burned for refusal to worship Mary, refusal to support the system of indulgences, refusal to submit to the pope's claims to all encompassing authority ...etc..
Something like the Lutherans still do today.
So then all that infallible "extermination of heretics" (Lateran IV) done based on condemning their doctrine - was ... "fallible after all"??
That is certainly going to have a huge ripple effect as soon as people figure that one out.
in Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Well you are right about Eph 2:8-9 not cancelling out other texts speaking of "good works" (which Paul always speaks of positively).
But you are very mistaken if you imagine that "Love God with all your heart" (Deut 6:5) and "Love our neighbor as yourself" Lev 19:18 are not central pillars in the Law of Moses - given by God.
Paul is not condemning animal sacrifices or circumcision or tithing in the NT -- (as if to OBEY God's Word is "now evil").
Paul condemns man-made-traditions that were added to those Bible-based doctrines - just as Christ condemned them pre-cross in Mark 7.
Condemning man-made tradition and upholding the Bible as in the Mark 7 PRE-CROSS illustration IS the heart and soul of what those protesting-Catholics of the dark ages were engaged in.
That is all true - but as Matt 7 points out -- the person must FIRST BE a "SAINT" (a good tree) to engage in those works - those fruits that reveal that the tree is good.
Not quite.
In Rev 20:12-13 it is ONLY those raised in the SECOND resurrection (which are the wicked) that are judged by deeds. The rule they are judged by is "obey and live" and the result is that "all have SINNED" (Rom 3), even more it is that the "wages of sin is DEATH" (Rom 6) (in this case the SECOND death) and so ALL in that judgment are tossed alive into the lake of fire.
In Rev 22 God says that at the 2nd coming the REWARD of the RIGHTEOUS is WITH Christ. In 1Thess 4 we see the FIRST resurrection event where ony the "DEAD in Christ" are raised.
In Rev 20:4-5 we find that those raised in the fIRST reserrection are "blessed and holy".
The saints are judged prior to the Lake of Fire judgment listed in Rev 20. They are judged according to 2Cor 5:9-10 and according to Rev 14:6-7, and according to Daniel 7:22 - BEFORE the 2nd coming.
Thus when Christ comes - "His Reward is WITH Him".
James 2 points out that it is only the works of FAITH that matter. However to your point - James also points to the fact that faith that has no works - is worthless faith.
Romans 3 points to the idea of "works apart from faith" and states that this is worthless.
Your illustration misses the mark somewhat.
It is more like a couple offering to adopt a child from an orphanage and saying to them "you will instantly be part of the Smith family, you will eat in our home, sleep in your own bedroom in our home, dress like us, go to our church, and worship our God -- do you accept?" (Kind of like Ruth said to Naomi in scripture). The child says "yes I accept" and is instantly adopted, fully accepted into the family. "Having BEEN justified by grace we HAVE peace with God" Romans 5. Justification past is the work of an instant.
But that newly adopted child "has a choice" even AFTER they say "yes I accept". They must choose to continue living as a SMITH.
Jesus said in Matt 10 that the one who chooses NOT to take up his cross and follow - is not worthy of Christ.
For in Rom 2:6 Paul is explicit that the newly adopted AND fully adopted child must "PERSEVERE in doing good works", in Romans 8 Paul describes this by saying that "by the Spirit we continue putting to death the deeds of the flesh" and in 1Cor 9 Paul even speaks of himself as "buffeting my body and making it my slave LEST after preaching the Gospel to others I MYSELF should be disqualified".
And as Paul points out in Romans 11 (so often pointed out on this very board) Paul says to the born-again saints "You stand only by your faith... you should fear for if He did not spare them (rebellious jews) then he will not spare you either".
And of course we have the example given by Christ Himself in Matt 18 where the servant FULLY FORGIVEN - then chooses NOT to forgive his fellow servant and has his initial forgiveness revoked!
All of these examples show that it is only the GOOD tree that is expected to show good fruits. And in some cases that GOOD tree - turns back to evil and does not persevere and so ceases to show good fruits and is lost.
This is described in great detail in Ezek 18.
in Christ,
Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
There is no indication at all that the theif was anything but an unbeliever who joined WITH the other theif in railing accusations and taunting Christ at the start - but then was convicted and repented.
No chance to baptize that guy.
in Christ,
Bob
"Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church."
Jesus said this right after Peter confessed that Jesus was Messiah.
But at that time not even Peter believed that Christ would rise from the dead.
According to your theology or logic Peter was an unsaved man at this point. Is this true? Were all the apostles unsaved until after sometime after the resurrection. Did it require the resurrection to take place for one to believe or "have that type of faith"? So much for the apostles being saved men!
Not at all. Did Jesus have the power to forgive sin before His death and resurrection? Of course He did. He demonstrated that fact not only in His ministry but with the thief on the cross. The thief was saved before the atonement. He certainly didn't have the faith described in Romans 10:9.
Was the new covenant in effect before the atonement? "The Cross is the center of Christianity. The Cross stands alone attesting to the significance of the atoning work of Christ. It is the only way to find life in the presence of God. The place Jesus occupies as the crucified Messiah puts everything in perspective. The Cross attests to the depravity of man and to the love of God for His creation. It is the means God used to deal with sin and mankind's corrupt nature. It is the way of grace and truth, for God has always dealt through grace and truth to save humanity. People do not merit salvation, but receive it on the basis of what Christ accomplished on the Cross alone."
Nothing that happened before the Cross dealt with sin and humanity entirely.
The Cross meant a new way to God, that is, a new and living way to the Father. The Cross is a continuing demonstration of God's love for us.
Let's see Bob, isn't it the Seventh Day Adventist's (as well as many Baptist's) that say they are traced through succession back to the Apostles? Here is what your prophetess said:
Ellen G. White, founder of the Seventh-day Adventist denomination in the 19th century, in a more fanciful account, claims to have found early seventh-day "Sabbath keepers" in the Waldenses :
"In lands beyond the jurisdiction of Rome there existed for many centuries bodies of Christians who remained almost wholly free from papal corruption. They were surrounded by heathenism and in the lapse of ages were affected by its errors; but they continued to regard the Bible as the only rule of faith and adhered to many of its truths. These Christians believed in the perpetuity of the law of God and observed the sabbath of the fourth commandment....But of those who resisted the encroachments of the papal power, the Waldenses stood foremost....The faith which for centuries was held and taught by the Waldensian Christians was in marked contrast to the false doctrines put forth from Rome....Through ages of darkness and apostasy there were Waldenses who denied the supremacy of Rome, who rejected image worship as idolatry, and who kept the true Sabbath...Here, for a thousand years, witnesses for the truth maintained the ancient faith." (The Great Controversy, chapter on "The Waldenses")
What do we know about the Waldenses?
WALDO ("Valdesius") CONFESSION OF FAITH : Catholic to the Core
"In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the Blessed and Ever-Virgin Mary. Be it noted by all the faithful that I, Valdesius, and all my brethren, standing before the Holy Gospels, do declare that we believe with all our hearts, having been grasped by faith, that we profess openly that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons, one God....
"We firmly believe and explicitly declare that the incarnation of the Divinity did not take place in the Father and the Holy Spirit, but solely in the Son, so that he who was the divine Son of God the Father was also true man from his Mother.
"We believe one Church, Catholic, Holy, Apostolic and Immaculate, apart from which no one can be saved, and in the sacraments therein administered through the invisible and incomprehensible power of the Holy Spirit, sacraments which may be rightly administered by a sinful priest....
"We firmly believe in the judgment to come and in the fact that each man will receive reward or punishment according to what he has done in this flesh. We do not doubt the fact that alms, sacrifice, and other charitable acts are able to be of assistance to those who die.
"And since, according to the Apostle James, faith without works is dead, we have renounced this world and have distributed to the poor all that we possess, according to the will of God, and we have decided that we ourselves should be poor in such a way as not to be careful for the morrow, and to accept from no one gold, silver, or anything else, with the exception of raiment and daily food. We have set before ourselves the objective of fulfilling the Gospel counsels as precepts.
"We believe that anyone in this age who keeps to a proper life, giving alms and doing other good works from his own possessions and observing the precepts from the Lord, can be saved.
"We make this declaration in order that if anyone should come to you affirming that he is one of us, you may know for certain that he is not one of us if he does not profess this same faith."
In a statement of faith submitted to the bishop of Albano, Peter Waldo affirmed his belief in transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism. The famed Baptist historian A.H. Newman drew the only conclusion warranted by the evidence.
"Waldo and his early followers had more in common with...Roman Catholicism than with any evangelical party. His views of life and doctrine were scarcely in advance of many earnest Catholics of the time."
No I have not read these verses in the light of dietary laws, etc. You have not examined Eph.2:8,9 carefully enough. The "not of works" refers to any kind of works, not just the laws of Moses. Look at it again.
Ephesians 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
by grace--Only by the grace of God is one saved.
by faith--Only by faith in the grace that Christ provided on the cross is one saved.
Not of yourselves--not by the works that you do of yourself. This also refers to self-effort. You can't work your way to heaven. There is no self-effort involved, nor ever can be. Salvation is all of God; zilch for man.
it is the gift of God--A gift has no conditions. A gift involves no works. It it involves works, good works, obedience, etc. then it is not a gift. This expression alone negates the fact that it involves works. A gift is free, not earned.
It is not of works; not of man; not of obedience; not of yourself.
lest any man should boast--The reason it is not of your own works is that man would boast in his own goodness and not God's goodness. Heaven would be a terrible place if that were so. Salvation is all of God; nothing of man.
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
--this is what God thinks of your good works in relation to salvation.
Jeremiah 13:23 Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
--You think good works can save you?
You are incapable of doing good. An Ethiopian is incapable of changing his skin and a leopard is incapable is incapable of changing his spots. You also are incapable of doing good--before salvation.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
--Your heart is deceitful and desperately wicked--so wicked that it is incapable of knowing God, unless God does a work first. Good works can't save you. There is no cooperation with God.
Romans 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
--Not even one person can be considered righteous without God, not even one. Good works cannot have any part in salvation.
Romans 3:11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
--No one seeks after God; God must seek after you first. Good works plays no part in the salvation of man.
Romans 3:12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
--You are not even profitable to God
You cannot do good. There is not a single person on this earth that does good before they are saved. Good works do not save nor have any part in salvation. The Word of God is very clear on this subject, and upholds the truth explained in Eph.2:8,9
No, I just don't use one verse. There are many; many more than these. I can go on. Do I have to? Is this enough?
That is right. Many call themselves Christians and even act like it, but they are not. They are professors of Christianity but not possessors.
No it doesn't. Each one in the parable is already saved.
Because it is another judgement in the Bible--a third judgment that takes place just before the beginning of the Kingdom. The requirement: "those who have been kind to "my brethren" meaning the Jews.
ICor.3:1-15 speaks of one judgement and Rev.20-10-15 speak on another judgement: one for believers and another for unbelievers. There are many judgements in the Bible. The judgment of sheep and goats is a third judgement.
This passage is written to Christians and has nothing to do with salvation.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.
One must have faith in the work of Christ to be saved. If not they cannot be saved.
After that a believer must live a life of faith, a walk of faith. But he cannot lose his salvation just as a baby cannot be unborn.
What a blasphemous statement to make--"if he wanted it to be."
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
1 John 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
--The Bible clearly says that the blood of Christ cleanses us from all sin.
It also says that Christ paid the penalty for our sins--that he made the atonement or is the propitiation for all our sins. But you deny this??
Again, a blasphemous statement.
Scripture is clear that salvation is all of God or it is not salvation at all.
Was Christ lying when he said:
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
--There is no other way. There is no cooperative way.
Your illustration falls short.
You must be born again.
When a child is born into this earth there is nothing that one can do to change the fact that the child is the offspring of the parents. The parents cannot change the genes, the DNA. They may try to disown him, but he will always be his son. They were the ones that gave him the gift of life
At salvation Christ gave us the gift of eternal life. We were born into his family. It is impossible to be unborn. Eternal cannot end and be temporary or Christ would be found to be a liar. We are his children forever. Nothing can change that. The command "You must be born again," is there for a reason. You must come out of the family of Satan and be born into the family of God. That is the only way of salvation.
Then neither did James, John, Bartholemew, Thomas, and the rest of the disciples. Neither did Mary and Martha and Lazarus. They were all unsaved. They didn't have "that kind of faith." How ridiculous!
Did the above follow Jesus or not. Did they put their faith in Christ or not?
I suppose even Abraham, David, and Moses will not be in heaven because they too are unsaved because of your theology.
It seems to me that you have never read Psalms 51, the psalm of repentance by David, and how it came about--the rebuke of sin by the prophet Nathan.
Why were the OT saints required to sacrifice a lamb "without blemish" instead of any lamb?
Why was Cain's sacrifice not accepted?
Why did John (the last of the OT prophets), point to Jesus and say: "Behold the lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world."
Bob, since you are always bringing up 'the stake'. I want to post something I found while posting on 'Catholic.com.' the other night:
"Ultimately, it may be a waste of time arguing about statistics. Instead, ask Fundamentalists just what they think the existence of the Inquisition demonstrates. They would not bring it up in the first place unless they thought it proves something about the Catholic Church. And what is that something? That Catholics are sinners? Guilty as charged. That at times people in positions of authority have used poor judgment? Ditto. That otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance? All true, but such charges could be made even if the Inquisition had never existed and perhaps could be made of some Fundamentalists.
Fundamentalist writers claim the existence of the Inquisition proves the Catholic Church could not be the Church founded by our Lord. They use the Inquisition as a good—perhaps their best—bad example. They think this shows that the Catholic Church is illegitimate. At first blush it might seem so, but there is only so much mileage in a ploy like that; most people see at once that the argument is weak. One reason Fundamentalists talk about the Inquisition is that they take it as a personal attack, imagining it was established to eliminate (yes, you guessed it) the Fundamentalists themselves."
This is such a good point. Here you and other Fundamentalists rant on about being the persecuted ones of which the Inquisition was aimed. Often identifying yourselves with the Catharists (also known as the Albigensians. "In fact, theirs was a curious religion that apparently (no one knows for certain) came to France from what is now Bulgaria. Catharism was a blend of Gnosticism, which claimed to have access to a secret source of religious knowledge, and of Manichaeism, which said matter is evil. The Catharists believed in two gods: the "good" God of the New Testament, who sent Jesus to save our souls from being trapped in matter; and the "evil" God of the Old Testament, who created the material world in the first place. The Catharists’ beliefs entailed serious—truly civilization-destroying—social consequences."
In spite of what you think they may have believed, is that a good reason to persecute them, even unto death. Was that a good reason to hold a Crusade against a sect like the Albigenses and try to wipe them out completely. The terror and horror inflicted upon the Albigenses is right up there if not worse than any of the horrors we read today or in recent in history in Croatia, Serbia, Ethiopia, the Congo, and many other such countries where brutal atrocities abound and human rights violations abound. What the RCC did to the Albigenses makes these wrongs in these nations dwarf in the sight of the atrocities of the RCC.
"Then neither did James, John, Bartholemew, Thomas, and the rest of the disciples. Neither did Mary and Martha and Lazarus. They were all unsaved. They didn't have "that kind of faith." How ridiculous!"
No, your being ridiculous. I never said they were not saved. I'm saying that the thief did not have the kind of faith that is required in Romans 10:9. Couldn't have. I'm saying that after the resurrection we must believe that 'God raised Jesus from the dead' to be saved. The bible also says to 'repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins.' What is the sybolism of baptism? Death and resurrection.
No, your being ridiculous. I never said they were not saved. I'm saying that the thief did not have the kind of faith that is required in Romans 10:9. Couldn't have. I'm saying that after the resurrection we must believe that 'God raised Jesus from the dead' to be saved. The bible also says to 'repent AND be baptized for the remission of sins.' What is the sybolism of baptism? Death and resurrection.
What is applicable to the thief is applicable to all the disciples (Apostles), for they were pre-cross also. Why do you hold two standards: one for the thief and the other for the Apostles. Not even Peter, James and John believed that Christ was going to rise again. Peter was on the verge of going back to a secular occupation: "I go a fishing," he said, before Christ arose from the dead.
Neither did Peter, James, and John "have that kind of faith that is required in Romans 10:9. They couldn't have. You are saying that after the resurrection one must believe that God rasied Jesus from the dead to be saved. And the Apostles before the resurrection did not have that kind of faith. Thus they were all unsaved. Your position does not hold water. It is absurd and ridiculous. John the Baptist was martyred before Christ died. I suppose, therefore, he is in hell today, an unsaved person. He did not have "that kind of faith." Amazing!!
You are the one that keeps saying that I'm saying something I'm not. Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said the thief on the cross was un-saved or any of the disciples for that matter. I said that the word of God says (written after the resurrection of our Lord) we are required to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 10:9). Can a person deny the resurrection of Jesus and be a Christian?? The bible and the Church say that baptism is necessary to salvation.
1. The thief never denied the resurrection. He believed all that Jesus said, or as much as Christ told him. We are required to act on the light that Christ gives us.
2. You preach a heresy. Nowhere in the Bible does it say baptism is necessary for salvation. Have you not read my posts? If so you have not answered them? Why/
If Baptism was necessary then the blood of Christ was not sufficient enough to pay the penalty for our sins.
If Baptism was necessary then the statement of Christ "It is finished," was meaningless.
If Baptism was necessary then Christ is not the only way as he proclaimed he was in John 14:6 (for baptism is the way).
And on and on. You deny the atonement, the sufficiency of the blood of Christ, Christ being the only way of salvation, and many other cardinal doctrines of the Bible, by saying that baptism is essential to salvation.
Instead of parroting what others say, why not dig yourself out of a hole, and defend your position.
- Status