Where is the evidence the thief was NEVER a disciple, NEVER baptized? There is none. Therefore one can only GUESS if he were ever baptized or not.
Where is the evidence that thief
WAS a disciple,
WAS baptized? There is none. The burden of proof is on you. Therefore you can only
GUESS if he was ever baptized or not. Being crucified as a thief
and blaspheming, mocking and shaking his head at Jesus is NOT the fruit of repentance/faith/being a disciple. The evidence that he was not a disciple stands heavily in my favor.
The thief mocking Christ is no proof he was never a disciple.
He not only
mocked Christ, but also
blasphemed, and shook his head at Jesus, along with the chief priests scribes and elders. He was in the same boat with the chief priests and scribes, who were certainly not disciples of Christ!
Again, Peter denied Christ.
There is a difference between having a temporary weak moment and denying that you know Christ out of fear, and mocking,
blaspheming, and shaking your head at Jesus, along with the chief priests scribes and elders. Peter wasn't the only disciple to desert Christ when He was arrested. After Peter had his weak moment and denied Christ, he went out and
wept bitterly. He did not turn to a life of crime. Your argument is weak.
There were other disciples that turned their back on Christ Jn 6:66 to walk with Him never again.
And what did Jesus say about these so called disciples? But there are some of you who
do not believe. For Jesus
knew from the beginning who they were who did not believe, and who
would betray Him (John 6:64). Not everyone who sets out to follow Jesus and claims to be His disciple really is. There are false disciples just as there are false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26; Galatians 2:4) who are temporarily thrown into the mix.
There is no proof the thief was not of those of Judea that was baptized of Jn in Mk 1:4.
There is no proof that he was. Again, the burden of proof is on you. Up until the thief repented and placed his faith in Christ toward the very end, all we have is rotten fruit!
The knowledge the thief had of Christ was better than some of Christ's own disciples had, providing evidence the thief was not only taught about Christ but was a disciple himself once.
Pure speculation! It's easy to acquire knowledge about someone, but where is heart submission to this knowledge? Being crucified as a criminal, mocking, blaspheming and shaking your head at Jesus is not the fruit of being His disciple. Period. Your desperate attempt to prove otherwise in not convincing at all.
So you are not certain how the thief ascertained the knowledge he had of Christ, you think Christ may have told him all those things while hanging there on the cross...even though the context does not say Christ taught the thief those things. It maybe the thief may have once been a disciple as to whey he had the knowledge of Christ that he did.
You don't have to be a disciple of Christ in order to acquire knowledge about Christ. Many people have heard the gospel and simply shrugged it off over and over again. It doesn't matter how the thief acquired the knowledge he had of Christ. What matters is when did he have a heart submission to this knowledge? Not until he repented from mocking, blaspheming and shaking his head at Jesus to defending Jesus' innocence and acknowledging his guilt and need for Jesus then placing his faith in Jesus at the end. Your argument is weak at best.
The thief sounds like one time disciple with all the knowledge he had of Christ, who then fell away into a life of crime and now repents.
No evidence supports that, but I understand your desperate need to accommodate your theology so that's the best you can do.
Peter was a disciple that denied Christ. Yet Peter's denial in no way proves he was NEVER a disciple. So the thief could have once been a disciple that mocked Christ. Yet you want his mocking Christ as "proof" he was never a disciple....but you cannot have it both ways.
Again, There is a huge difference between having a temporary weak moment and denying that you know Christ out of fear, and
mocking, blaspheming, and shaking your head at Jesus, along with the chief priests scribes and elders. After Peter had his weak moment and denied Christ, he went out and
wept bitterly. He did not turn to a life of crime. You cannot have it both ways. Your proof remains weak at best that the thief was previously a disciple of Christ.
Under the OT law they did not have the shed blood of Christ, therefore must offer animal sacrifices for their sins. Under the NT law which does have the shed blood of Christ one is baptized to contact that shed blood for complete remission of sins.
One is baptized to "contact" the shed blood? "Through His blood" (Colossians 1:14) is a reference not limited to the fluid as if the blood has saving properties in it's chemistry and we contact it in the waters of baptism, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16). We do not literally contact the blood of Christ in the water and Roman Catholics do not literally contact the blood of Christ in the wine.
Under the OT law they had no complete justification without the blood of Christ which the NT has. This is just one of a mulititude of differences in the Ot law and NT law. The point I am making is the NT law would not come into effect until some point AFTER Christ died, Heb 9:16,17. Since Christ promised the thief paradise while BOTH were still alive then it is no way possible that thief is an example of NT salvation, he was not accountable to NT laws as Acts 2:38.
The point that I am making is if Acts 2:38 teaches that water baptism obtains the remission of sins but under the old law, baptism was not necessary for salvation (as the church of Christ teaches in order to get around the thief on the cross), then what does "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" mean in Mark 1:4 under the old law? See the contradiction?
Johns' baptism was not "in the name of the Lord". John's baptism made one a disciple of John whereas Christ's baptism makes one a disciple of Christ, Jn 4:1,2.
So prior to Acts 2:38, everyone was a disciple of John and not Christ? What was John's baptism in the name of? Was Peter a disciple of John or Christ prior to Acts 2:38? John 4:1 - Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though
Jesus Himself did not baptize, but
His disciples).
Again, Christ is NOT on earth forgiving sins today as he did with the thief so no one today can be saved in the same way as the thief.
The thief was not saved through faith? We are not saved through faith?
Not a single person can say Christ came and talked to them personally and forgave their sins based upon faith only. Christ left earth leaving behind His gospel word as His authority as to how men are to be save today and that word requires belief, repentance confession and baptism.
Your 4 step out of order plan of salvation is the result of poor semantics and flawed hermeneutics. That is not the gospel of Christ, but the gospel of Campbellism. What did Jesus say in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26?
Some have an "obsession' with cherry-picking out verses that mention 'belief' while purposely ignoring verses as Lk 13:3,5 where Jesus made repentance necessary to salvation.
I don't ignore Luke 13:3,5 but I understand that repentance precedes believing in Christ for salvation. Matthew 21:32 - For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not
repent and believe him. Mark 1:15 - Repent and believe the gospel. Acts 20:21 - Repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. You reverse the order and reduce faith to mere "mental assent" belief in Christ (no different than the belief of demons) and reduce repentance to self reformation. Belief and confession are not two separate steps to salvation but chronologically together (Romans 10:8-10). Water baptism follows faith and conversion (Acts 10:43-47; 11:17,18).
Or Mt 10:32,33 making confession necessary to being saved or Mk 16;16 making baptism necessary to being saved. I do have an obsession with what Christ said to do but no obsession with cherry picking or man mad doctrines.
I already explained Matthew 10:32-33 in context to you and Mark 16:16. You continue to ignore the second half of Mark 16:16 and (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) in favor of your watered down gospel. Only the Lord can open your eyes to the truth.
The thief was not required to have the type of belief the NT requires in Rom 10:9,10 for the thief is not an example of NT salvation. NT belief requires one to believe in thine heart that God hath raised (past tense) him from the dead, thou shalt be saved
So the thief could not believe in his heart that God hath raised Christ from the dead for Christ had not yet died much less be raised from the dead when Christ promised him paradise.
Did the thief BELIEVE in Him (Christ) to receive salvation? (John 3:16) Do we BELIEVE in Him (Christ) to receive salvation (Acts 16:31). YES.