Is Sally Saved?
- Thread starter DiscipleDave
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No one knows for sure if he was or was not baptized before he was sentenced to death. Countless numbers of people were baptized for the remission of sins both before and during the ministry of Jesus. (Mark 1:4)
Nevertheless debating the issue is moot since Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, baptized or not.
Nevertheless debating the issue is moot since Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, baptized or not.
So you believe that that thief may have been converted, was water baptized, and the fruit of that is being crucified as a thief? - (highly unlikely)
In Matthew 27:39-44, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.
In Matthew 27:39-44, we see that those who passed by, along with the chief priests scribes and elders blashemed, mocked and shook their heads at Jesus and EVEN THE ROBBERS WHO WERE CRUCIFIED WITH HIM REVILED HIM WITH THE SAME THING. More fruit? I certainly don't see being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus as being the fruit of repentance/faith. Yet, moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, he died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.
I actually agree with you that it was highly unlikely that the thief was baptized before his death. It is even more unlikely that every printed bible missed the opportunity to use the proper use of "eis" in Acts 2:38.
Peter went from defending Jesus with force to denying Him with a curse in a manner of hours. The thief went from cursing Jesus to repenting and confessing Him as Lord in the same amount of time. It is "possible" that the thief was a baptized believer years prior to his death. He could have been one among many people baptized for the remission of sins before or during the ministry of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:4) but turned to a life of crime. A lot can happen in a few hours or a few years.
Regardless Jesus has the authority to forgive sins at His discretion. If He wanted Pontius Pilot to be with Him in Paradise it is His choice.
The real issue is the false use of the thief as a loophole to negate the need for baptism. Many people have been saved without baptism in the past and it is possible that God may choose to save certain individuals today without baptism, that is of course His call.
But the promise still stands:
Acts 2:38-39 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
38 Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. 39 This promise belongs to you and to your children and to everyone who is far away. It belongs to everyone who worships the Lord our God.
Peter went from defending Jesus with force to denying Him with a curse in a manner of hours. The thief went from cursing Jesus to repenting and confessing Him as Lord in the same amount of time. It is "possible" that the thief was a baptized believer years prior to his death. He could have been one among many people baptized for the remission of sins before or during the ministry of Jesus Christ (Mark 1:4) but turned to a life of crime. A lot can happen in a few hours or a few years.
Regardless Jesus has the authority to forgive sins at His discretion. If He wanted Pontius Pilot to be with Him in Paradise it is His choice.
The real issue is the false use of the thief as a loophole to negate the need for baptism. Many people have been saved without baptism in the past and it is possible that God may choose to save certain individuals today without baptism, that is of course His call.
But the promise still stands:
Acts 2:38-39 GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
38 Peter answered them, “All of you must turn to God and change the way you think and act, and each of you must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins will be forgiven. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit as a gift. 39 This promise belongs to you and to your children and to everyone who is far away. It belongs to everyone who worships the Lord our God.
Last edited:
Amen! 
Why are you so obsessed with Acts 2:38? Now in regards to "eis" I've heard church of Christ preachers teach that BEFORE the cross, water baptism was not necessary for salvation (in order to get around the thief on the cross) but AFTER the cross, it's necessary for salvation, yet prior to the cross, John the Baptist came preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). *Now was this baptism "for" (eis) "in order to obtain" the remission of sins or was it for (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" forgiveness of sins received upon repentance?
*BE CAREFUL, THIS WAS BEFORE THE CROSS.*
*Also, in Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water "for" (eis) repentance.. (NASB). Now was this baptism "for" (eis) in order to obtain repentance? Or was it "for" (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? "In order to obtain repentance" does not make one bit of sense! We repent BEFORE we receive water baptism. You will stop at nothing in order to defend your "watered down" gospel.
Again, my point still stands. Peter was a genuine disciple of Christ who had a temporary, weak moment because he was afraid, yet after the Holy Spirit was given, we find him boldly confessing Christ (Acts 2:14-24; 4:8-13). We know that prior to Peter's weak moment, he was a believer and genuine disciple of Christ who confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Where do we find the proof that prior to his crucifixion, the thief was a believer and a disciple of Christ? We don't find this evidence for the thief. You said it yourself, "it was highly unlikely that the thief was baptized before his death."
Yet there is only one way to be forgiven of sins (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 16:31; 26:18 etc..).
The thief should not be used as a loophole to refuse to be water baptized after conversion, but it's an example that we are saved through faith and not by water baptism. If someone has truly received Christ through faith then why in the world would they refuse water baptism? I couldn't wait to get water baptized after my conversion and I can't name one Christian I know who has refused to be water baptized, but to say that water baptism is the actual means of our salvation is going too far.
"Water baptized in order to obtain remission of sins and receive the Holy Spirit" is NOT in harmony with (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). Period. So once again in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).
*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
So the only logical conclusion *when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture* is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
Why are you so obsessed with Acts 2:38? Now in regards to "eis" I've heard church of Christ preachers teach that BEFORE the cross, water baptism was not necessary for salvation (in order to get around the thief on the cross) but AFTER the cross, it's necessary for salvation, yet prior to the cross, John the Baptist came preaching a "baptism of repentance for the remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3). *Now was this baptism "for" (eis) "in order to obtain" the remission of sins or was it for (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" forgiveness of sins received upon repentance?
*BE CAREFUL, THIS WAS BEFORE THE CROSS.*
*Also, in Matthew 3:11, we read - "I baptize you with water "for" (eis) repentance.. (NASB). Now was this baptism "for" (eis) in order to obtain repentance? Or was it "for" (eis) "in regards to/on the basis of" repentance? "In order to obtain repentance" does not make one bit of sense! We repent BEFORE we receive water baptism. You will stop at nothing in order to defend your "watered down" gospel.
Again, my point still stands. Peter was a genuine disciple of Christ who had a temporary, weak moment because he was afraid, yet after the Holy Spirit was given, we find him boldly confessing Christ (Acts 2:14-24; 4:8-13). We know that prior to Peter's weak moment, he was a believer and genuine disciple of Christ who confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matthew 16:16). Where do we find the proof that prior to his crucifixion, the thief was a believer and a disciple of Christ? We don't find this evidence for the thief. You said it yourself, "it was highly unlikely that the thief was baptized before his death."
Yet there is only one way to be forgiven of sins (John 3:15,16,18; 6:40,47; 11:25,26; Acts 10:43; 16:31; 26:18 etc..).
The thief should not be used as a loophole to refuse to be water baptized after conversion, but it's an example that we are saved through faith and not by water baptism. If someone has truly received Christ through faith then why in the world would they refuse water baptism? I couldn't wait to get water baptized after my conversion and I can't name one Christian I know who has refused to be water baptized, but to say that water baptism is the actual means of our salvation is going too far.
"Water baptized in order to obtain remission of sins and receive the Holy Spirit" is NOT in harmony with (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). Period. So once again in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 - the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).
*In Acts 10:43 we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.
So the only logical conclusion *when properly harmonizing Scripture with Scripture* is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18). *Perfect Harmony*
haha
that's what I thought when I was in my 20's...wanted a camaro so badly...never bought one tho...could have but didn't
once drove someone else's Z28 down the highway...at night...years ago...a little power under the hood...that's all I'm gonna say
that's what I thought when I was in my 20's...wanted a camaro so badly...never bought one tho...could have but didn't
once drove someone else's Z28 down the highway...at night...years ago...a little power under the hood...that's all I'm gonna say
[video=youtube;utIjyD721XY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utIjyD721XY[/video]
R
My older brother once had a 67 Camaro like this. Nice ride!
[video=youtube;utIjyD721XY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utIjyD721XY[/video]
[video=youtube;utIjyD721XY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utIjyD721XY[/video]
-
1
- Show all
7
My older brother once had a 67 Camaro like this. Nice ride!
[video=youtube;utIjyD721XY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utIjyD721XY[/video]
[video=youtube;utIjyD721XY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utIjyD721XY[/video]
I went with a guy for awhile that drove a Corvette...sadly I was not impressed and he was not impressed that I was not impressed
lasted about a month
had the opportunity to buy a mustang recently...haha...too much too late don't care anymore