10andBOUNCE said:

---

So what do the TexAgs theologians think happened to the thief hanging on the cross next to Jesus? Doesn't seem like he was baptized.

Luke 23:39-43

[39] One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" [40] But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? [41] And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." [42] And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." [43] And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise."

---

Christ is God and can do what he wants. We don't have proof that the thief actually believed Christ was the Messiah and not just a prophet of God. We also do not know whether that he had not be previously baptized. We assume so, but it no scriptures alludes to it one way or another. He certainly wasn't aware of his resurrection yet. Finally, who else in the history of scripture was in such a unique circumstance as this particular thief? God's grace has been applied to unique individuals through biblical history who were not fully part of his new covenant.

Just as there are circumstances where a Christian has found faith but no access to immediate baptism before immediately dying...Gods grace could certainly be applied. But if we have the ability to be baptized and do not, we are being disobedient to God.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

So what do the TexAgs theologians think happened to the thief hanging on the cross next to Jesus? Doesn't seem like he was baptized.

Luke 23:39-43

[39] One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, "Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!" [40] But the other rebuked him, saying, "Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? [41] And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong." [42] And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." [43] And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise."

---

If the resurrected Christ himself didn't say baptism was unnecessary because 'thief on the cross', why would you replace His command with it? Where do you derive comfort ignoring Christ's commands because you read
God exercising His will?

I never said I was comfortable with ignoring God's commands. I simply subscribe to the theology that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Salvation is the work of God and there is nothing man can do to earn it. Obviously this will fundamentally be counter to this discussion, but in my eyes the thief of the cross is a wonderful example of God's grace and mercy.

Beyond that, when Jesus healed many as we read in the gospel accounts, he proclaims that their faith has made them well and to go and sin no more. Never said go and now you must be baptized to complete the healing process.

With all that said, baptism is a wonderful ordinance that I believe all Christians should take part in, however it does not have salvific powers. This is my belief anyway. Was mainly curious of how those who think differently would view the thief on the cross.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I never said I was comfortable with ignoring God's commands. I simply subscribe to the theology that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Salvation is the work of God and there is nothing man can do to earn it. Obviously this will fundamentally be counter to this discussion, but in my eyes the thief of the cross is a wonderful example of God's grace and mercy.

Beyond that, when Jesus healed many as we read in the gospel accounts, he proclaims that their faith has made them well and to go and sin no more. Never said go and now you must be baptized to complete the healing process.

With all that said, baptism is a wonderful ordinance that I believe all Christians should take part in, however it does not have salvific powers. This is my belief anyway. Was mainly curious of how those who think differently would view the thief on the cross.

---

Again, we have the miracles of Christ but you've set it at odds with His command to His followers to baptize. If He tells you to do something why would you profess a theology that omits it?

I think that's generally a good tool, beyond just this issue. If scripture is at odd with itself it probably isn't scripture that's wrong; we should tread carefully and hold the tension rather than set down a marker.

Interesting.

How quickly after someone believes in Christ must they be baptized?

If they wait too long to be baptized, how do they correct that problem?

Jabin said:

---

Interesting.

How quickly after someone believes in Christ must they be baptized?

If they wait too long to be baptized, how do they correct that problem?

---

I have no idea as it's not my theology or practice. That's a question for people who separate the act, not those who see it as unified.

Well, you were the person who raised a delay of months as problematic so I'm simply trying to understand your position/argument.

I don't really have a position and don't understand what the furor is. It seems to me that many Christians are trying to establish bright lines that the Bible itself doesn't provide (well, I suppose that is a position, ha ha).

Jabin said:

---

Well, you were the person who raised a delay of months as problematic so I'm simply trying to understand your position/argument.

I don't really have a position and don't understand what the furor is. It seems to me that many Christians are trying to establish bright lines that the Bible itself doesn't provide (well, I suppose that is a position, ha ha).

---

Like I said above, when there's tension I'd hold it loosely rather than be too vigorous and definitive. Calvinism and Arminianism, christus victor and penal atonement, etc.

Here however, have an explicit command from Christ to make disciples and baptize. Peter also says to repent and be baptized. That's not in question at all.

The question of how long can I wait, though, is also not the right question. We have a command from our Lord, though only He can say when it is disobedience. Im not sure where to draw the line with days since historical practice is to wait until the eighth but Sunday could be the ninth, etc. Some parishes are burdened and understaffed, run schools, serve rural parishes with transportation issues, etc. so it may be hard to baptize that quick.

However we're talking adults waiting months and years and churches supporting that. Surely this is a much easier call, for who can follow obediently but willfully disobeys this command?

Jabin said:

---

Well, you were the person who raised a delay of months as problematic so I'm simply trying to understand your position/argument.

I don't really have a position and don't understand what the furor is. It seems to me that many Christians are trying to establish bright lines that the Bible itself doesn't provide (well, I suppose that is a position, ha ha).

---

I think the rough test in the Protestant world would be "as soon as reasonably possible". If you are converted by Jesus on a roadside heading to Damascus, as soon as you find yourself a disciple to baptize you, get after it.

In the Catholic Church, adult converts go through a lengthy RCIA program before baptism to prevent hasty conversions that could cause scandal if recanted later. Generally in Church history baptism was rather immediate, but there is precedence back in the 300s of taking time to "vet" a converts intention. Some would say this goes against the Catholics own teaching that baptism is necessary, but we believe that since it's the Church that is withholding baptism, God will not hold it against that person.

A bright line is probably not needed but a general guideline of "as soon as reasonably possible" is important. I think it's fair to say that the act of getting baptized is more important than coordinating travel schedules for family to be there and witness it. If we reduce its importance, inevitably some people will come to view it as unnecessary.

Just to be argumentative:

Quote:

---

I think it's fair to say that the act of getting baptized is more important than coordinating travel schedules for family to be there and witness it.

---

Doesn't delaying baptism so that family can be there actually underscore its importance?

Quote:

---

If we reduce its importance, inevitably some people will come to view it as unnecessary.

---

Again I ask, who actually views it as unnecessary? Isn't this argument entirely theoretical with no practical import other than to further divide Christians?

Jabin said:

---

Just to be argumentative:

Quote:

---

I think it's fair to say that the act of getting baptized is more important than coordinating travel schedules for family to be there and witness it.

---

Doesn't delaying baptism so that family can be there actually underscore its importance?

Quote:

---

If we reduce its importance, inevitably some people will come to view it as unnecessary.

---

Again I ask, who actually views it as unnecessary? Isn't this argument entirely theoretical with no practical import other than to further divide Christians?

---

I think waiting unduly for family to be there makes no sense. A couple days, sure, but to wait months to receive something we all see as necessary seems to put the earthly issues above the heavenly ones. I want all my family to be there for my children's baptisms, but Covid restrictions made that impossible. We weren't about to wait who knows how long so all could be in attendance. Similar with our last child, family all had busy schedules. I wasn't waiting for the stars to align to get our child baptized. Unfortunately this is a modern problem. 200+ years ago you all loved within a couple miles of each other and didn't exactly have to compete with tee ball, karate, vacations, etc to get the family together for an hour. It's something we have to deal with in modern society.

And several on this thread. While they may say you SHOULD do it it's not strictly necessary. So people will inevitably delay it out of convenience or because it's just not all that important. It's easy to say that in the Bible believing churches many here go to but there are denominations that have reduced its importance even further.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I never said I was comfortable with ignoring God's commands. I simply subscribe to the theology that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Salvation is the work of God and there is nothing man can do to earn it. Obviously this will fundamentally be counter to this discussion, but in my eyes the thief of the cross is a wonderful example of God's grace and mercy.

Beyond that, when Jesus healed many as we read in the gospel accounts, he proclaims that their faith has made them well and to go and sin no more. Never said go and now you must be baptized to complete the healing process.

With all that said, baptism is a wonderful ordinance that I believe all Christians should take part in, however it does not have salvific powers. This is my belief anyway. Was mainly curious of how those who think differently would view the thief on the cross.

---

Many scriptures tell us over and over again that we must have faith and be baptized. If someone confessed with their mouth and had faith, but refused to be baptized...then do they have faith in Christ and what he and the apostles taught?

In my 66 years alive, I've yet to meet any Christian who has refused to be baptized.

This is a tempest with absolutely no point to it.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/geneveith/2014/07/churches-that-dont-baptize/

Thanks for posting it but it appears to be behind a pay wall. It looks like an intriguing article though.

It's not behind a paywall?

I definitely don't subscribe to that. Sorry if it shows behind a paywall for you. I don't know what quoting rules are for TexAgs, but here are the first two paragraphs:

Some churches that work hard to get people to "make a decision for Christ" never get around to baptizing them! In fact, there are some ostensibly Christian bodies that don't baptize at all. And more that will baptize if someone asks for it, but most members don't go to the trouble. And according to Christian scholar Roger Olson, "one Texas megachurch pastor reported that nearly a third of the people who receive Christ in his church are never baptized. "

Apparently, in churches that teach "believers baptism," some believers, having been taught that baptism is nothing more than a symbolic ritual, are too embarrassed to submit themselves to getting dunked in front of everybody. And those believers and the churches they are members of do not seem to believe in what the Bible says about baptism.

Thanks for posting that.

It appears that those churches believe in baptism, but simply don't prioritize it, and just let it drag on forever, correct?

That is clearly error, and my guess is that every conservative Christian theologian of any denomination, background, or flavor would agree. In other words, I am not sure that one's theology on baptism results in that type of practice. For example, there are many churches that claim to be Bible believing, but also fail to discipline members, even deacons and elders, who are living lives of visible and apparent sin, such as adultery.

In other words, it is not a theological or doctrinal issue, but one of actually living out one's theology and doctrine.

Yes I believe someone can have genuine saving faith in Christ if they do not get baptized. I agree 100% that baptism is a command from Christ and taught by his apostles. It should be taken seriously and obeyed. However the act of baptism, in my opinion, is an act of obedience only and not a miraculous event that contributes to or solidifies our right standing with God. Again, all comes down to the fact that there is no physical action we can take part in that earns us salvation. We are not regenerated by man's undertakings or accomplishments.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes I believe someone can have genuine saving faith in Christ if they do not get baptized. I agree 100% that baptism is a command from Christ and taught by his apostles. It should be taken seriously and obeyed. However the act of baptism, in my opinion, is an act of obedience only and not a miraculous event that contributes to or solidifies our right standing with God. Again, all comes down to the fact that there is no physical action we can take part in that earns us salvation. We are not regenerated by man's undertakings or accomplishments.

---

This isn't man's undertaking or accomplishment. It's going to receive Gods grace that he is offering.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Yes I believe someone can have genuine saving faith in Christ if they do not get baptized. I agree 100% that baptism is a command from Christ and taught by his apostles. It should be taken seriously and obeyed. However the act of baptism, in my opinion, is an act of obedience only and not a miraculous event that contributes to or solidifies our right standing with God. Again, all comes down to the fact that there is no physical action we can take part in that earns us salvation. We are not regenerated by man's undertakings or accomplishments.

---

What happens at baptism is not man's undertaking. We are participating through our faith to receive. So, to reiterate what you said, we can have faith but be intentionally disobedient to God until the end (even if its just in regard to refusing baptism)?

I believe we are all disobedient to what Christ has asked of us. So yes, to your question.

The first and second greatest commandments he gave were to love God with all of our heart, soul and mind and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Nobody is able to live that out as it was intended. Only by God's grace can we be acceptable to Him.

Where in scripture are you persuaded that baptism is a means to receiving God's grace? Or is that not what you mean?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I never said I was comfortable with ignoring God's commands. I simply subscribe to the theology that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone. Salvation is the work of God and there is nothing man can do to earn it. Obviously this will fundamentally be counter to this discussion, but in my eyes the thief of the cross is a wonderful example of God's grace and mercy.

Beyond that, when Jesus healed many as we read in the gospel accounts, he proclaims that their faith has made them well and to go and sin no more. Never said go and now you must be baptized to complete the healing process.

With all that said, baptism is a wonderful ordinance that I believe all Christians should take part in, however it does not have salvific powers. This is my belief anyway. Was mainly curious of how those who think differently would view the thief on the cross.

---

Why do you think the thief on the cross is a wonderful example? The New Covenant had not begun, and they were living under the old law.

This is about the easiest question to dismiss I can imagine. The Lord's church began in Acts 2. Jesus ascended in Acts 1. People were told specifically what to do to be saved, "Repent and be baptized every one of you for the forgiveness of your sins...". Once they had obeyed Acts 2:47 notes that the Lord adds them to the church. We can reject it, spin it, or accept it. I pray that people would accept it.

On the previous page I provided a detailed understanding of Grace, Faith, and Works. People misunderstand or confuse Grace from these other required aspects of salvation. Happy to address any questions once you read it.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Where in scripture are you persuaded that baptism is a means to receiving God's grace? Or is that not what you mean?

---

Church fathers unanimous interpretation… As with most things in the Church. Plenty of documentation from the first century on about their belief of baptismal remission of sin and becoming a new creation.

The good thief on the cross underwent a baptism of blood, referenced by Christ Himself in Mark 10:38-39...

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I believe we are all disobedient to what Christ has asked of us. So yes, to your question.

The first and second greatest commandments he gave were to love God with all of our heart, soul and mind and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Nobody is able to live that out as it was intended. Only by God's grace can we be acceptable to Him.

---

Yes...but we are repentant (or at least hopefully). If we unrepentantly disobey God, do you really believe you're still righteous? Pretty sure that's apostasy. You either have faith in Christ and what he taught or you don't. Even the demons believe in Christ, they just disobeyed.

Thanks. This has spurred some interest at relooking at this topic.

Another interesting thought. As stated, the thief on the cross is easy. That event occurred prior to the resurrection and the establishment of the new covenant. While Jesus was on earth, he had the ability to forgive people. Jesus spoke to the future plan of salvation; he that believes and is baptized will be saved. We know this as the new covenant of Christ blood.

So here's the thought. I see people all the time saying that Jesus could choose to save someone any way he wants to...I suppose this is stated to either diminish the necessity of baptism OR it is to say that the rule maker might bend their own rules, so no one can say with any certainty some might be saved outside of the plan and pattern given.

Well, is there any example in scripture that addresses both of those? Absolutely!

When Paul was blinded on the road to Damascus, it was none other that Christ himself that spoke to Paul. I think it goes without saying that Paul would now be categorized as believing in Jesus as God's son. Nor would anyone in their right mind question either Paul's faith or sorrowful repentance for what he had been doing.

So Jesus forgave him of his sins right there, right? I mean he could have, right? Read what Jesus tells Paul. "Acts 9:6 "Rise and enter the city, and you WILL BE TOLD WHAT TO DO."

In Acts 22 Paul recounts what he was told to do. "Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins." Christ made Paul follow his established plan of salvation. I'd be extremely careful to suggest he would alter that plan for anyone.



.

I think there is a lot of merit in this point. Can God make exceptions? Of course, but an exception is not the ordinary.

The Catholic view is perfectly consistent with this idea, and the Sacraments provide the means for the vast majority of us through Baptism, Confession, and the Holy Eucharist (and the other 4 too).

The typical Protestant view is that everyone is an exception because of the Good Thief. Just believe and say the sinners prayer and that's good enough for eternity.

Even St. Paul was sent to the Church to be Baptized.