The thief on the cross: The rule or the exception?

[Strength & Honor]

Whenever the topic of baptism is mentioned as a requirement for salvation, there is almost always one objection: the thief on the cross. The basic idea of this objection is that if this thief was saved and went to Paradise without being baptized, then so can anyone else.

My only problem with this objection is that it is an isolated incident. It is a scenario wherein Jesus specifically nominates someone for entry into paradise. Since Jesus has the authority to grant such a favor, I believe that the man truly went to Paradise. However, this happens no other place in scripture (that I'm aware of), nor does it happen today.

My question is: Does the "thief on the cross" scenario represent the rule (i.e. baptism is not required) or the exception to the rule (baptism is required)?

 

[Watchmen]

Neither. Baptism is the rule and the thief would be baptized through proxy work.

Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John 3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf.

Additional Information
Jesus Christ said, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). Even Jesus Christ Himself was baptized (see Matthew 3:13-17).

Many people have lived on the earth who never heard of the gospel of Jesus Christ and who were not baptized. Others lived without fully understanding the importance of the ordinance of baptism. Still others were baptized, but without proper authority.

Because He is a loving God, the Lord does not damn those people who, through no fault of their own, never had the opportunity for baptism. He has therefore authorized baptisms to be performed by proxy for them. A living person, often a descendant who has become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is baptized in behalf of a deceased person. This work is done by Church members in temples throughout the world.

Some people have misunderstood that when baptisms for the dead are performed, deceased persons are baptized into the Church against their will. This is not the case. Each individual has agency, or the right to choose. The validity of a baptism for the dead depends on the deceased person accepting it and choosing to accept and follow the Savior while residing in the spirit world. The names of deceased persons are not added to the membership records of the Church.

View More

Scripture References
Malachi 4:5-6

John 5:25

1 Peter 4:6

3 Nephi 25:5-6

Doctrine and Covenants 124:93

Source: Baptisms for the Dead

 

[outhouse]

Whenever the topic of baptism is mentioned as a requirement for salvation, there is almost always one objection: the thief on the cross. The basic idea of this objection is that if this thief was saved and went to Paradise without being baptized, then so can anyone else.

My only problem with this objection is that it is an isolated incident. It is a scenario wherein Jesus specifically nominates someone for entry into paradise. Since Jesus has the authority to grant such a favor, I believe that the man truly went to Paradise. However, this happens no other place in scripture (that I'm aware of), nor does it happen today.

My question is: Does the "thief on the cross" scenario represent the rule (i.e. baptism is not required) or the exception to the rule (baptism is required)?

lets restate this another way


would you want to worship and or follow a god that would send you to hell because


you led a great life and were kind to others
you followed the bible and had faith in jesus
you were liked and loved through your whole life by those who were around you
but you never were baptised allthough you thought you were


if there is a magical place were people go when there dead I highly doubt ancient men could give you decent directions on how to get there.


dont get hung up on details, no one knows.



ill say it was the exception

 

[Me Myself]

Whenever the topic of baptism is mentioned as a requirement for salvation, there is almost always one objection: the thief on the cross. The basic idea of this objection is that if this thief was saved and went to Paradise without being baptized, then so can anyone else.

My only problem with this objection is that it is an isolated incident. It is a scenario wherein Jesus specifically nominates someone for entry into paradise. Since Jesus has the authority to grant such a favor, I believe that the man truly went to Paradise. However, this happens no other place in scripture (that I'm aware of), nor does it happen today.

My question is: Does the "thief on the cross" scenario represent the rule (i.e. baptism is not required) or the exception to the rule (baptism is required)?

If baptism was a necessity, Jesus couldn´t have forgiven everyone that booed him while he went to the cross, because there would have been no point.

 

[e.r.m.]

My position first is that the Bible is God's word and and the standard for doctrine. If another religious writing or author contradicts the Bible, then the Bible is right and the other author is wrong. In saying this, I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me.

It facsinates me that the thief on the cross is the only objection people cite of a person being saved or forgiven without baptism. The only one I've heard anyway. There were others that Jesus saved and forgave as well. The woman who washed his feet, the parylitic, etc.

Romans 6:3-4 We are baptized into his death and, through the glory of the Father, raised with him into a new life. In the account of the thief on the cross Jesus hadn't died yet. The baptism in Jesaus name for the forgivess if sins (Acts 2:38) was not yet in effect. The new covenant started after Jesus death & ressurection. Luke 5:24 Jesus had
authority on earth to forgive the thief on the cross, the parylitic, the sinful woman, etc. Jeaus left vehibd instructions on baptism Mark 16:16, which Peter carried out (Acts 2:38).

 

[e.r.m.]

In short, for all of us, since we live after Jesus died and was ressurected (Rpmans 6:3-4), 'our' sins are forgiven after we belief, repent, and then when are baptized in Jesus name. (Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38.). We live under the new covenant (Hebrews 9:16-18, 28).

 

[e.r.m.]

We live under the new covenant Hebrews 9:16-18, 28.

 

[e.r.m.]

Sorry for duplicate. Screen won't let me edit or delete.

 

[Quagmire]

Well technically we don't know if the thief was baptisted or not. He could have been a follower of John the Baptist for all we know.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Jesus wasn't even dead yet, and had not given the command to baptize.

 

[Desert Snake]

Whenever the topic of baptism is mentioned as a requirement for salvation, there is almost always one objection: the thief on the cross. The basic idea of this objection is that if this thief was saved and went to Paradise without being baptized, then so can anyone else.

My only problem with this objection is that it is an isolated incident. It is a scenario wherein Jesus specifically nominates someone for entry into paradise. Since Jesus has the authority to grant such a favor, I believe that the man truly went to Paradise. However, this happens no other place in scripture (that I'm aware of), nor does it happen today.

My question is: Does the "thief on the cross" scenario represent the rule (i.e. baptism is not required) or the exception to the rule (baptism is required)?

How would one prove the other? Do you think salvation depends on baptism?

 

[e.r.m.]

JacobEzra, you're right, he had not yet even given the command. Didn't think of that. Good observation.

Quagmire, that is true. He could have been baptized and either returned to stealing (sad) or had been punished for a theft previous to baptism. The Bible does leave that open. However, even if he had been baptized by John, that would still be under the old covenant and not in Jesus's name. The baptism in Jesus name is the one we live under now and the one usually objected to when people invoke the thief on the cross.

 

[e.r.m.]

JacobEzra, you're right, he had not yet even given the command. Didn't think of that. Good observation.

Quagmire, that is true. He could have been baptized and either returned to stealing (sad) or had been punished for a theft previous to baptism. The Bible does leave that open. However, even if he had been baptized by John, that would still be under the old covenant and not in Jesus's name. The baptism in Jesus name is the one we live under now and the one usually objected to when people invoke the thief on the cross. Although, I would like for someone to.not repeat what everybody else says and ask "Hey, what about the sinful woman who washed Jesus's feet, she wasn't baptized?", lol.

 

[Desert Snake]

Neither, it doesn't apply to baptism.

 

[Firstborner]

Whenever the topic of baptism is mentioned as a requirement for salvation, there is almost always one objection: the thief on the cross. The basic idea of this objection is that if this thief was saved and went to Paradise without being baptized, then so can anyone else.

My only problem with this objection is that it is an isolated incident. It is a scenario wherein Jesus specifically nominates someone for entry into paradise. Since Jesus has the authority to grant such a favor, I believe that the man truly went to Paradise. However, this happens no other place in scripture (that I'm aware of), nor does it happen today.

My question is: Does the "thief on the cross" scenario represent the rule (i.e. baptism is not required) or the exception to the rule (baptism is required)?

The thief was still under the Old Covenant which was not entered into through baptism. He was still a Jewish thief.

Baptism is a symbol of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, none of which had occurred yet.

There is a lesson ( I am sure more than one) to be had in this incident. You have Christ in the throes of death in the midst of his greatest suffering. There are two witnesses to it. One ridicules him though he is in the same plight, only concerned with his own self, desiring to be saved from his fate. The other rebukes the man for his statements, acknowledges he is guilty and being rightfully punished, understands that Christ was a superior person unworthy of his suffering, comprehends that he is the messiah even though he is not what they had been expecting as the messiah, and only asks to be remembered.

The Lesson: The outsiders watch how Christians suffer closely, and those that are hardened are hardened still, but those whom Jesus has called, awaken. If a Christian loses heart in his afflictions, he loses an opportunity to gain for Christ them that are his.

 

[Firstborner]

Well technically we don't know if the thief was baptisted or not. He could have been a follower of John the Baptist for all we know.

He could have been, but that would be a long shot. Especially since John baptized for repentance and the thief was well, a thief. No doubt both thieves hanging next him knew something of his ministry, as it was public, and according to Paul, "not done in a corner."

 

[Otherright]

The thief was still under the Old Covenant which was not entered into through baptism. He was still a Jewish thief.

I don't recall the scriptures ever saying that the thief was Jewish.

 

[Otherright]

There are two witnesses to it. One ridicules him though he is in the same plight, only concerned with his own self, desiring to be saved from his fate. The other rebukes the man for his statements, acknowledges he is guilty and being rightfully punished, understands that Christ was a superior person unworthy of his suffering, comprehends that he is the messiah even though he is not what they had been expecting as the messiah, and only asks to be remembered.

But in Mark, the first Gospel in major circulation, written around 55AD, both thieves ridicule Christ. It isn't until Luke that the story becomes as you have stated.

 

[Firstborner]

I don't recall the scriptures ever saying that the thief was Jewish.

It's an assumption of mine since it was illegal for Jewish criminals to hang during the passover. They were in Jerusalem, mostly Jews, and the ruling army was Roman which had it's own courts, and as citizens of Rome were sent there for execution.

 

[Katzpur]

Well technically we don't know if the thief was baptisted or not. He could have been a follower of John the Baptist for all we know.

Good point. I have a feeling there are thousands of "baptized Christians" in prisons all over America right now. The fact that he was a thief does not tell us all that much.