^^^Jesus gave him a free ride face to face. Jesus commanded this act after he died on the cross to show others of your decision to follow him.

Yes-All sins equal.

The unpardonable sin is an attitude of the heart. It is an attitude of resistance and rejection of Christ. It is a final rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

^^^Jesus gave him a free ride face to face. Jesus commanded this act after he died on the cross to show others of your decision to follow him.

Respectfully disagree AL-I don't feel Jesus gave a free ride to the thief.

 

This thief was neither baptized nor partook of the Lords supper he believed and was promised to be with Jesus. He did no works but only believed.

Respectfully disagree AL-I don't feel Jesus gave a free ride to the thief.

 

This thief was neither baptized nor partook of the Lords supper he believed and was promised to be with Jesus. He did no works but only believed.

 

If baptism was not important why did Jesus send his disciples out to baptize. To waste their time?

Girl, me to disagree with you. They met almost face to face, and the thief ask for paradise and the Lord promised him that he would honor the request. How did I miss that? Or you? At this point the only thing the thief could do was show repentance and ask Jesus for it, and here is a main point...he knew his true heart. The demons also believe in Christ...they shook in fear and shouted..."here comes the Christ". Its oK to disagree with each other, ask my wife. :jump:

If baptism was not important why did Jesus send his disciples out to baptize. To waste their time?

 

I agree that baptism accompanies faith, and should follow as soon as appropriate after faith (at least it seems to in all the examples we see in the New Testament), but I would contend that baptism itself does not save.

Paul writes:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

I could multiply references to the primacy of faith, such as, " whosoever believes in him... (John 3:16, 36; 6:40), "your faith has saved you" (Luke 7:50), and many others. It is not that you can or should separate baptism from salvation. You shouldn't. They go together. Nor should one construct doctrine from exceptions. But the thief on the cross gives us an illustration of saving faith apart from baptism.

Girl, me to disagree with you. They met almost face to face, and the thief ask for paradise and the Lord promised him that he would honor the request. How did I miss that? Or you? At this point the only thing the thief could do was show repentance and ask Jesus for it, and here is a main point...he knew his true heart. The demons also believe in Christ...they shook in fear and shouted..."here comes the Christ". Its oK to disagree with each other, ask my wife. :jump:

 

We can agree to disagree. :bunny:

The thief, life ebbing out of him, looks across and sees not another dying man, but the Messiah himself. Somehow, he understands that Jesus is not an impostor, and that he will still receive the Kingdom that belongs to the Messiah.

 

I recall Joseph saying something similar to Pharoah's cupbearer, prisoner to fellow prisoner, when Joseph predicted that the cupbearer would be released from prison: "When all goes well with you, remember me and show me kindness; mention me to Pharaoh and get me out of this prison" (Genesis 40:14).

 

How can this quality of faith exist at such a dark time? Already the darkness is falling over the whole land, and yet a dying thief believes.

 

Did he confess his sins? Yes. "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve" (23:41).

Yes-All sins equal.

The unpardonable sin is an attitude of the heart. It is an attitude of resistance and rejection of Christ. It is a final rejection of the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior.

If all sins are equal, then why is only one unpardonable?

I agree that baptism accompanies faith, and should follow as soon as appropriate after faith (at least it seems to in all the examples we see in the New Testament), but I would contend that baptism itself does not save.

Paul writes:

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith -- and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God -- not by works, so that no one can boast." (Ephesians 2:8-9)

I could multiply references to the primacy of faith, such as, " whosoever believes in him... (John 3:16, 36; 6:40), "your faith has saved you" (Luke 7:50), and many others. It is not that you can or should separate baptism from salvation. You shouldn't. They go together. Nor should one construct doctrine from exceptions. But the thief on the cross gives us an illustration of saving faith apart from baptism.

 

When the thief was granted his path to Heaven, had Christ died and been sacrificed for the thief's and our sins? Was a baptism in the name of Jesus Christ even possible at that time?

 

Remember later in Acts, Paul (I believe) confronts someone and asks him in whose name he was baptist. The reply, I think, was John the Baptist and Paul tells him he needs to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

How could the thief be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ if Jesus had not already died on the cross and arisen?

If all sins are equal, then why is only one unpardonable?

 

I do not understand the serious workings of the Holy Spirit. I only know that it is a dangerous thing to resist Him. I know this, however, that God says, "He that hardeneth his neck, being often reproved, shall suddenly be cut off, and that without remedy" [see Proverbs 29:1]. It is a dangerous thing to hear the Gospel--it is a dangerous thing to be called by God--and then refuse.

When the thief was granted his path to Heaven, had Christ died and been sacrificed for the thief's and our sins? Was a baptism in the name of Jesus Christ even possible at that time?

 

Remember later in Acts, Paul (I believe) confronts someone and asks him in whose name he was baptist. The reply, I think, was John the Baptist and Paul tells him he needs to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

 

How could the thief be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ if Jesus had not already died on the cross and arisen?

 

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3

 

Understanding salvation from the Christian perspective isn’t hard…yet, many people keep adding, or taking away prerequisites to the process.

 

What did the thief do: He proclaimed that there was indeed a God. He admitted (which means he knew and acknowledged) he was a sinner deserving of death, he admitted (which means he knew and acknowledged) Christ was sinless, that Christ was Lord and King, then he called upon Jesus, in a way even though the thief may not have realized precisely what he was doing, to save him by asking Him to remember when He was in His rightful position. The thief did this directly to Christ, and with his mouth. The simplicity found here is enough to take one’s breath away.

 

Don’t get me wrong, our understanding of things, this side of the cross, has been increased. For example, we now know that Christ resurrected as prophesied, but the same simplicity is available to everyone still. Salvation still hinges on faith, not any of the “extras” some try to throw in.

But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 2 Corinthians 11:3

 

Understanding salvation from the Christian perspective isn’t hard…yet, many people keep adding, or taking away prerequisites to the process.

 

What did the thief do: He proclaimed that there was indeed a God. He admitted (which means he knew and acknowledged) he was a sinner deserving of death, he admitted (which means he knew and acknowledged) Christ was sinless, that Christ was Lord and King, then he called upon Jesus, in a way even though the thief may not have realized precisely what he was doing, to save him by asking Him to remember when He was in His rightful position. The thief did this directly to Christ, and with his mouth. The simplicity found here is enough to take one’s breath away.

 

Don’t get me wrong, our understanding of things, this side of the cross, has been increased. For example, we now know that Christ resurrected as prophesied, but the same simplicity is available to everyone still. Salvation still hinges on faith, not any of the “extras” some try to throw in.

 

So Peter was throwing in extras after giving his sermon (inspired by the Holy Spirit) and the crowd asked him what they needed to do and he "threw in the extra" of being baptized??????

 

Using your thought process, than Peter was corrupted by throwing in extras minutes after having the Holy Spirit breathed into him.

 

And again, had Christ even been sacrificed and the price of our sins paid for when the promise went to the thief?

In Matthew 25 those who "go to heaven" were neither saved nor baptized but treated the "least of these" appropriately.

Jesus's death on the cross and his rising on the third day fulfilled both Old Testament prophecy and the foretelling of Jesus himself. Once he arose from the grave the New Law started. Jesus was alive when he talked with the thief and was able to promise him paradise face to face. Man no longer could have that happen once he died. This is called the Gospel and Paul writes about this and in Galatians and Hebrews this is explained the best.

 

If Jesus never rose from the grave our belief is worthless. 1st Corinthians 15 :14

 

Ace, I read Matthew 25 and was that your view of the verse?

In Matthew 25 those who "go to heaven" were neither saved nor baptized but treated the "least of these" appropriately.

 

So, Peter who remember was freshly anointed with the Holy Spirit was wrong about his call to repent and be baptized.

 

So, you are saying both Peter and the Holy Spirit were wrong in Acts when he answered the crowd on what they needed to do?