- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Hey guys,
A lot of people use the example of “The Thief on the Cross” to justify “praying Jesus into your heart” method, or to say that one doesn't have to be baptized to inherit eternal life.
Was the thief on the cross given eternal life? I believe so, Jesus promised him paradise.
What we must understand is that this took place prior to the ushering in of the New Covenant.
There are many that inherited eternal life under the Old Covenant who were not baptized at all.
But there isn't a NT conversion that didn't include baptism.
15And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 16For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.
What do you guys think?
Hey Woutlaw,
BTW, I looked up and have posted the Address for your verse for us:
HEBREWS 9:15f
I know the feeling!
The way that I understood that thief on the cross thing is like going to a department store. They reserve the right to search your bags!
GOD reserves the right to show mercy on whom he would show mercy, and to make exceptions, having background information that only he could know. For example, how do we know if that guy was not once baptized and a back slider who at that point fully repented? It's speculation and I am not saying he was but just an example to say we do not know.
More importantly, God doesn't want us to play Russian Roulette with the matters of salvation and so have given us guidelines and boundaries. When we believe in Christ, we desire to be baptised as he was, as much as depends on us. We shouldn't have the attitude that we might or might not.
1) The thief did not, could not have a choice to be baptized. Jesus himself had at that point yielded to the cruelty of the cross and was being told he could not save himself (which we know isn't true).
2) All who had choices, e.g. the Ethiopian Eunuch, were baptized.
3) There may be people in life who repent and surrender their lives whole heartedly to Christ, but say are under some cruel government, maybe imprisoned in some dungeon, who cannot find another christian to baptize them let alone have the privilege. At such a time, they are as the thief on the cross and option #2 does not apply to them… but not due to choice. Due to the lack of choice.
I believe in such a case, GOD reserves the right to accept them.This is my opinion and I am interested in what others think as well, or scriptures to the contrary.
Gotta run!
Blessings.
Hi Guys,
Good stuff.
There is a way.
But God will have mercy on whom He chooses and that is none of our business.
Our job is to obey and preach the Way.Yes brothers I agree,
God can grant mercy to whom he wills. My response to that is amen.
But we must not forget Mark 16:16, ” He who believes and is baptized WILL be saved.”
Luke 13:3, “I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”
Matthew 10:22, “and you will all be hated for my name's sake. But he who endures to the end WILL be saved.”
FAITH, REPENTANCE, BAPTISM, ENDURANCE
Hi Guys
Paul said he baptised no one except a few names he mentioned… what happended to all the other people he lead to Christ in his missionary journeys… does anyone know.
1 Corinthians 1:14
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, {I know not whether I baptized any other}.
Christ sent me [not to baptize], but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effectI know not whether I baptized ANY other – gosh He had bad memory eh – by this statement Paul here seems to make out that baptism is not all that important to Him! He even can't remember if he Baptised anyone else! Then he states a new command from Jesus for him: “and Christ sent me NOT to baptise but to preach”… preaching was his thing… now there is something.
Paul states he did not in general practice baptizm himself… Did did one of his travelling companions do this job for him or did he simply not do it apart from the few instances. What happened to those who believed on the Isle of Malta when Paul was alone on that island. Who baptized them and if they were not baptised then were they even saved according other scriptures… if Paul only baptized those two and the group at Stephanas' house he thinks… hehe then these guys were not baptised… though no salvation is mentioned – after all the miraculous things that happened on that island, and the honour people showed to Paul – I cant believe there was no one saved.
So did Jesus change his commission when it came to Paul? If he commanded all to “baptise in water” how is it that Paul did not make it a practice… He specifically states that He was not sent to baptize… Those who preach were to make disciples and baptise them – was that not What Jesus had commissioned…
SO he is to [preach the gospel] as per the commission but was [not to baptize] contrary to the commission. Had something changed I have missed out on something?
Then in verse30 he says:
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.How are we “in Christ” acording to Paul…, salvation and belief in the Messiah and His redemptive work of the Cross or through the outward cleansing of water baptizm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul is asking the question about HS Baptism to some men who were baptised into John's baptim – notice *water and repentence*.
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, *Unto John's baptism*.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the [baptism of repentance] (water baptism), saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.When they heard this, they were baptized into* the name of the Lord Jesus. {And} when Paul had laid his hands upon them, [(the) Holy Ghost came on them]; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
IS that not Jesus' baptism of Holy Spirit Fire? They were baptized into Jesus, not into water. *The footnote of my Bible says “in” the modern translations seem to say into…
What was the baptism here, was it water or was it “Holy Spirit” coming on them… or two separate things… if it was water baptism, then Paul got it wrong in 1 Corinthians where he said he baptized no one except the two and the house hold of Stephanas. Or did he have someone with him that is not mentioned in the text who baptized for him. From my reading he seems to be alone here…
Your thoughts
Quote (Artizan007 @ April 21 2006,10:09) Hi Guys Paul said he baptised no one except a few names he mentioned… what happended to all the other people he lead to Christ in his missionary journeys… does anyone know.
1 Corinthians 1:14
I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, {I know not whether I baptized any other}.
Christ sent me [not to baptize], but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effectI know not whether I baptized ANY other – gosh He had bad memory eh – by this statement Paul here seems to make out that baptism is not all that important to Him! He even can't remember if he Baptised anyone else! Then he states a new command from Jesus for him: “and Christ sent me NOT to baptise but to preach”… preaching was his thing… now there is something.
Paul states he did not in general practice baptizm himself… Did did one of his travelling companions do this job for him or did he simply not do it apart from the few instances. What happened to those who believed on the Isle of Malta when Paul was alone on that island. Who baptized them and if they were not baptised then were they even saved according other scriptures… if Paul only baptized those two and the group at Stephanas' house he thinks… hehe then these guys were not baptised… though no salvation is mentioned – after all the miraculous things that happened on that island, and the honour people showed to Paul – I cant believe there was no one saved.
So did Jesus change his commission when it came to Paul? If he commanded all to “baptise in water” how is it that Paul did not make it a practice… He specifically states that He was not sent to baptize… Those who preach were to make disciples and baptise them – was that not What Jesus had commissioned…
SO he is to [preach the gospel] as per the commission but was [not to baptize] contrary to the commission. Had something changed I have missed out on something?
Then in verse30 he says:
But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.How are we “in Christ” acording to Paul…, salvation and belief in the Messiah and His redemptive work of the Cross or through the outward cleansing of water baptizm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Paul is asking the question about HS Baptism to some men who were baptised into John's baptim – notice *water and repentence*.
And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, *Unto John's baptism*.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the [baptism of repentance] (water baptism), saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.When they heard this, they were baptized into* the name of the Lord Jesus. {And} when Paul had laid his hands upon them, [(the) Holy Ghost came on them]; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
IS that not Jesus' baptism of Holy Spirit Fire? They were baptized into Jesus, not into water. *The footnote of my Bible says “in” the modern translations seem to say into…
What was the baptism here, was it water or was it “Holy Spirit” coming on them… or two separate things… if it was water baptism, then Paul got it wrong in 1 Corinthians where he said he baptized no one except the two and the house hold of Stephanas. Or did he have someone with him that is not mentioned in the text who baptized for him. From my reading he seems to be alone here…
Your thoughts
1 Corinthians 1:14is another misused scripture by many who try to deny the importance of water baptism. Paul isn't undermining water baptism, his job was to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. Paul often traveled with others, it is very likely that the others did the baptism.
Artizan, there are many faithful believers that will spend their entire life without baptizing anyone. Does this undermine its importance? Nope
Many people often forget other things Paul stated about baptism.
Romans 6:1-8
1What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? 2God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? 3Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? 4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. 7For he that is dead is freed from sin. 8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him.
Paul in his last days on this earth said to Timothy in 2 Timothy 2:11-13
11It is a faithful saying: For if we be dead with him, we shall also live with him: 12If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us: 13If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.If we be dead with him, we shall also live with him? what is he talking about? how are we dead with him? through WATER baptism. Paul spells this out clearly in Roman 6:1-8. Look at verse 8, If we die with him, we believe (AKA FAITH) we will also live with him.
Many people have no problem admitting that Matthew 28:19 speaks of water baptism, but they deny that Mark 16:16 speaks of water baptism. Well folks I believe that Matthew 28:18-20 and Mark 16:16 is the same event. One is Matthew's account and the other is Mark's account. There is a lot of simularity between the two passages.
If water baptism isn't important, then our Brother Peter lied in Act 2:38!! was he full of $%^& or full of the Holy Spirit? He was full of the Holy Spirit and he wasn't lying.
38Then 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. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.
Acts 8:26
26And the angel of the Lord spake unto Philip, saying, Arise, and go toward the south unto the way that goeth down from Jerusalem unto Gaza, which is desert. 27And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, 28Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. 29Then the Spirit said unto Philip, Go near, and join thyself to this chariot. 30And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? 31And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. 32The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: 33In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. 34And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35Th
en Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.If water baptism isn't important, why was the Ethiopian eunich so eager to do it? Philip opened his mouth and began in Isaiah 53 to teach the eunich about Christ. Then they came upon water, and what did the eunich say? there's water why shouldn't I be baptized. Question, how did the eunich know about baptism? unless it was preached to him by Philip!!
something to think about!!!Why in God's name would anyone not want to be united with Our Lord Jesus Christ? It is so intimate, to share in the Lord's sufferings.
We need to follow the apostolic teaching of our first century bretheren and no the fables of today's tv preachers. After all who laid the foundation? the Apostle's or today's preachers? who's foundation are you gonna rest on during a storm? the one built by the Apostles with Jesus being the chief corner stone, or the sandy foundation of today's tv preachers?
Paul may have been trying to minimize the whole I am of Paul, I am of Apollos scenario by not baptizing new believers. This whole misguided idea of being begotten by the baptism into a manmade church prevails to this day. In some churches you even recieve a “birth certificate” stating your baptism into that particular organisaton
absolutely Malcolm,
I was baptized in a UPC church and they gave me one of those stupid birth certificates, I pitched it!!!! It's pointless
Hey Outlaw,
I presume by “full of $%^&” you mean full of not a lot of nice things… as in the words of the tintin comics – blue blistering barnicles –
So do you think that baptism saves us… how do you see that it is important to us today. Is it necessary to our salvation or is it just symbolic, if it is necessary to our salvation, then a heck of a lot of people will never get into heaven because they do not get baptised. Or is it a symbol of a life concecrated to Jesus and therefore good to do but not necessary.
If Matthew 28:19 is correct why did the disciples only baptise into the Name of Jesus only. Not as directed. In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Why did Jesus himself not baptize any one?
If Paul was alone on some of his missionary journeys and led people to God, through acceptance of Christ's message but did not baptize them… I am sure he was not always with people all the time. I am sure not every daily journey he took was done with another. If preaching was his commission, and baptism was essential to salvation, then that would mean all his efforts will not save them even though they called on the Name of Christ, believed in the message of the Messiah and turned to a life of righteousness from a life of sin; that is a life foreign to God's ways – one walking in disobedience and outside the fellowship of God – the Father, would have come to nothing.
Also if baptism is essential then thief on the cross, which began this topic, could not have been saved cause he was not baptized. Yet Jesus said the thief would be where he was one day – in Paradise. Why because the thief believed in Jesus as the Messiah, not because he was baptised.
I really dont have an issue with water baptism. I just see it as a symbol further saying that Jesus is Lord in our lives… and I am not too sure if it is anything more than that… it is for our benefit. However, Jesus came to baptise us with holy pneuma and with fire.
Luke 3:16 (WEB)
John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. . .Acts 11:15-16 (WEB)
As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John indeed baptized in water, but you will be baptized in the Holy Spirit.’It seems to me it's like faith without works. I don't know anyone who met Jesus our Lord and didn't want to share Jesus with everyone.
When we accept Jesus we want to be baptised. I don't think the theif had any choice Jesus forgave his sins right there without water. It's the heart that matters.
Quote (Woutlaw @ April 24 2006,16:43) absolutely Malcolm, I was baptized in a UPC church and they gave me one of those stupid birth certificates, I pitched it!!!! It's pointless
What…you trashed your baptismal certificate? Shame, shame!
Just curious, but HOW were you baptized? Using the formula in Matthew 28:19, or as it states in Acts, “in the name of Jesus?”
Quote (kenrch @ April 25 2006,10:41) It seems to me it's like faith without works. I don't know anyone who met Jesus our Lord and didn't want to share Jesus with everyone. When we accept Jesus we want to be baptised. I don't think the theif had any choice Jesus forgave his sins right there without water. It's the heart that matters.
The thief was an exception….woulda been pretty difficult to do a water baptism while on the stake! [And also, this was BEFORE Christ's death, as someone pointed out above….]Now, here's the thing….John the baptist clearly stated the one who would come after him would baptize “in Spirit.” There are two positions in mainstream Christianitry:
1. Water baptism is NOT required, in view of John's statement, since believers would receive the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.”
2. Water baptism IS required, due to the several N.T. examples of water baptism.Does anyone know of any “absolute proof” WHICH is correct?
Hi,
The letter to the Corinthians, in context, was primariliy written to those in Corinth. He is saying he was involved directly in few baptisms there. We do know that on his journeys he did baptise but he was laying the foundation then and was later able to leave these works to others. Why should a unique Spirit filled teacher have to do all the simple works any ignorant new christian can do?Peter too directed that those who were blessed by the Spirit in Acts 10 be baptised in water so he also was able to direct others to do these simple menial tasks. It does not make it any less essential as a requirement from God. It was just logical that Peter and Paul were freed to be able to do more worthy tasks. There were none to take their roles there.
Quote (truebelief4u @ April 25 2006,22:39) Quote (kenrch @ April 25 2006,10:41) It seems to me it's like faith without works. I don't know anyone who met Jesus our Lord and didn't want to share Jesus with everyone. When we accept Jesus we want to be baptised. I don't think the theif had any choice Jesus forgave his sins right there without water. It's the heart that matters.
The thief was an exception….woulda been pretty difficult to do a water baptism while on the stake! [And also, this was BEFORE Christ's death, as someone pointed out above….]Now, here's the thing….John the baptist clearly stated the one who would come after him would baptize “in Spirit.” There are two positions in mainstream Christianitry:
1. Water baptism is NOT required, in view of John's statement, since believers would receive the “baptism of the Holy Spirit.”
2. Water baptism IS required, due to the several N.T. examples of water baptism.Does anyone know of any “absolute proof” WHICH is correct?
Hi ,
Jesus said
“you must be born again”
And
” unless one is born of water
and
The Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God”Amen Malcolm,
God is not a God of confusion but of peace.The usual order, exemplified in Acts is repentance followed by baptism[water baptism] and the laying on of hands to receive the baptism in the Spirit-with the one exception when God sovereignly baptised the listeners to Peter in Acts 10 in the Spirit first.
There are also records of the eunuch being only baptised in water as Philip seemed to not lay on hands.
There are no records in Acts of men only being baptised in the Spirit and not water.
The scripture you quote in Eph 4.5 already says we share the “One Spirit”, a Spirit received by baptism in the Spirit, so why would it be repeated as “One baptism”? Scripture is not unnecessarily repetitive.
When the word “baptism ” occurs in scripture referring to baptism in the Spirit it is always qualified as such.
So 'baptism', alone and unqualified, then refers to the type to which baptism in the Spirit is compared, which is water baptism.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
