Was the repentant Thief really told he’d be in heaven with Jesus?greenspun.com : LUSENET : The Christian Church : One Thread |
In another thread, a few comments were made about this account.To help support the theory of purgatory for the Catholics or “dying and goin to heaven” for many Protestants, many understand that Jesus told him that "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise." (Luke 23:42 KJV) Many translations say this “…truth, today…” Notice the comma punctuation.
Is this actually correct? Consider, Did Jesus say that when they died on that day they both would be in “heaven?” Also, note there was no punctuation in the original Greek text, it was added later. Had Jesus’ Kingdom been set-up at His death?
If Jesus was telling this thief this how can that be? According to my Presbyterian upbringing, we recited every Sunday morning “…he died, descended into hell (added back in the mid 80’s) and arose the third day…”
Then, and only then, does it say “…he ascended to heaven…” Everybody probably recognizes this creed.
Now take into account according to Biblical references. After His resurrection three days later He still hasn’t ascended to heaven (John 20:17). Even telling others not to touch Him because He hadn’t yet ascended to His Father. Surely He wouldn’t have been to heaven without seeing His Father.
Then, even after eight days He still hasn’t (John 20:26). He was still performing signs (20:30). And, after these He manifested Himself again (21:1). There is still no mention He has been to heaven. Some may read that into or assume it, however it’s not written.
It is only after all these other occurrences does it say He ascended to heaven (Luke 24:51, Acts 1:9). And according to the time frame Jesus spent 40 (Acts 1:3) days on earth teaching and preaching before His ascension. After the crucifixion, before the Passover He was buried and did not ascend till near Pentecost.
So, if the common understanding is correct “…., today you will…” is true, then Jesus was not truthful to the thief. And, that can’t be true!
Now consider the event of the crucifixion. This was Jesus’ ‘darkest hour.’ He was being crucified for false accusations, with two convicted criminals. Not many would believe him or what he had been teaching all this time, since He didn’t save Himself, and He was still hanging on a tree.
A man – the thief, knowing he had done wrong, recognized that Jesus was who He said He was and that Jesus would have a/the Kingdom. That thief repented and requested a “remembrance.”
Jesus, knowing the mans true heart, told him, in this what would have seemed totally impossible to most considering the current situation, that “I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in paradise."
Some will say that moving the comma is “changing” the Bible. However, considering that punctuation was not in the original (and really not considered inspired) and the actual chain of events, who actually change it or added to it?
-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001
It is changing the Bible, pure and simple. Jesus said, "I tell you the truth" before many of his statements in the Bible, followed by the statement. It is inconsistent to move the comma in this one instance. Not to mention dishonest, only being changed at this one instance to support a particular point of view, rather than letting the scripture change your point of view.Your other statement is also in error. "Even telling others not to touch Him because He hadn't yet ascended to His Father." Jesus gave no one else this command. And he told the disciples, especially Thomas, to touch him. So either he had ascended into heaven between the time of Mary and the time he met Thomas, or "do not touch me for I have not yet ascended" means something other than what you think it means. Or both.
-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001
Then what does it mean?
-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001
Wesley's Explanatory Notes at John 20:17 says:Touch me not - Or rather, Do not cling to me (for she held him by the feet,) Matthew 28:9. Detain me not now. You will have other opportunities of conversing with me.
From Matthew Henry's Commentary:
Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended. Mary was so transported with the sight of her dear Master that she forgot herself, and that state of glory into which he was now entering, and was ready to express her joy by affectionate embraces of him, which Christ here forbids at this time. 1. Touch me not thus at all, for I am to ascend to heaven. He bade the disciples touch him, for the confirmation of their faith; he allowed the women to take hold of his feet, and worship him (Mt. 28:9); but Mary, supposing that he was risen, as Lazarus was, to live among them constantly, and converse with them freely as he had done, upon that presumption was about to take hold of his hand with her usual freedom. This mistake Christ rectified; she must believe him, and adore him, as exalted, but must not expect to be familiar with him as formerly. See 2 Co. 5:16. He forbids her to dote upon his bodily presence, to set her heart on this, or expect its continuance, and leads her to the spiritual converse and communion which she should have with him after he was ascended to his Father; for the greatest joy of his resurrection was that it was a step towards his ascension. Mary thought, now that her Master was risen, he would presently set up a temporal kingdom, such as they had long promised themselves. "No,’’ says Christ, "touch me not, with any such thought; think not to lay hold on me, so as to detain me here; for, though I am not yet ascended, go to my brethren, and tell them, I am to ascend.’’ As before his death, so now after his resurrection, he still harps upon this, that he was going away, was no more in the world; and therefore they must look higher than his bodily presence, and look further than the present state of things.
-- Anonymous, June 05, 2001
I counted. Jesus preceded his words with the words, "I tell you the truth", seventy-eight times in the New Testament! Yet we are to believe at this one point, he changed his usual formula and said "I tell you the truth today"? Merely because we choose not to believe that the thief could have gone that day into paradise, so Jesus must have said something else? I choose to believe the Bible and alter my beliefs accordingly, and not the other way around.
-- Anonymous, June 06, 2001
Also it makes no sense to reinforce Jesus' statement "I tell you the truth" with the word 'today'. Consider if you will, the posibility that as Jesus is in fact God and has omnipresence, that the thief would indeed be in heaven with God that day. Jesus did not say "today you will be with me in my Kingdom". The fact that Jesus apparently went to Hades for three days doesn't mean that He wasn't also in Heaven at the same time in the Spirit.It's an interesting topic, however I for one will stick to way the translators from Greek to English interpreted it.
-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001
Well done, sam! an excellent point!
-- Anonymous, June 08, 2001
Just a note to consider: The thief was saved through a "deathbed" confession of faith. Where was his life of obedience? Where was his baptism? Certainly he could not have made such a confession, accepted by Jesus as sufficient unto salvation, if the Holy Spirit were not working within him. That faith, prompted by the Spirit, resulted in eternal life. Certainly works of obedience ought to follow such a transformation, but in this case he had no opportunity and his only "work" was a rebuke to the other thief. The same situation applies on a battlefield, or on death row, or in a hospital. Some get into heaven just as the door is about to close for them. It happens in God's timing and for his purposes, and not when we would want it to happen based on our human expectations.
-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001
Maria,Excellent point, the thief was not water baptized in Jesus name, he did not purify himself in obeying the truth, there were no good works performed that merited God's favor, only grace through faith not of works lest he should boast.
Simply
-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001
Hate to bring this up ... but he was also saved under the Old Covenant, as Jesus had yet to die and be resurrected.
-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001
CA prior thread in an exchange between Scott and Danny, in which they were discussing Paradise, seems to answer your question.
Maria & Barry
I suggest you go back and read the threads that discuss the old and new covenants. They sufficently address your comments about the thief on the cross. Lk. 23:43. It is obvious that his death was still under the old law. I never cease to be amazed at the number of persons that study their bible and overlook this simple fact. Rms 6 displays the necessity of Christ death before one could be baptized into him.
A quick reading of the 2nd chapter of Acts and minimal study will show the first mention of the Church that,on that day, is established. The Holy Spirit has arrived. (Necessary for the church to be established).And the command to 1.repent 2.be immersed IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST 4. for the forgiveness of your sins 5. and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Many are obedient and the church is established. NO works. Just grace and obedience.
The new covenant began on that day of Pentecost with Christ resurrected and back at home and the Holy Spirit here for the church. At which time Peter, by the direction of the Holy Spirit,spoke to the people. When they asked what they should do because of their involvement with Christ crucifixition,(Acts 2: 36 & 37) Peters reply is found in verse 38. Is not forgivness of ones sin, by God, salvation?
WORKS
I have never known a CC or C of C preacher who believes we are saved by works nor have I ever heard that taught. I have read many discussions on the forum where baptism is considered a work by some but that is such a weak argument and has already been discussed. If baptism is indeed a work, did Peter teach works on the day of Pentecost?
A study of the requirements of the high priest before entering the Holy of Holies might well be beneficial when considering this subject of baptism as a work.
Ivealottolearn
-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001
Faris,The thief was saved under the old law? On what basis? Where is the evidence of temple worship and sacrifice? You read more into the passage than exists, in order to make an inconvenient example fit your beliefs. Jesus preached the gospel of salvation through faith in his sacrifice that was to come, in different ways throughout his ministry, presenting the new covenent as the route to salvation. People continued to die during all that time. Are you telling us Jesus lied to them, to their eternal damnation? In any case, from the events of the crucifiction, it seems quite clear that Jesus died BEFORE the thief died; and his salvation was entirely the result of his confession of faith - which is the essence of the new covenent not the old.
-- Anonymous, June 12, 2001
Maria,You are right on! The Law was given to lead us to conclude our own works of obedience fall short in contribution to our own redemption. We see this principle demonstrated throughout the OT - the Holy Spirit in Gal. 3: 20-26
"Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus."
The Law was given to show all are under sin and that it is only possible through faith by grace we are the children of God and not of works. There is not a single work that could be done under the old covenant that could have given life. This is our schoolmaster, if it was impossible under the Old Covenant it is illogical to conclude God would then require sinners to continue that same works based approached under a new and better covenant.
Faris,
As you have read my reply to Maria you may have noticed that we have not "overlooked any simple fact", although I am glad you have not arrived in a place where you could no longer be "amazed". I am amazed everyday I read the Scriptures and see again the tremendous love God has for me.
You also made this curious statement…(?)
"The new covenant began on that day of Pentecost with Christ resurrected and back at home and the Holy Spirit here for the church."
After the resurrection the new covenant began on that day of Pentecost? What Scripture do you have to support this? Also Jesus was "back at home"? What does this mean? In heaven? Hadn't Christ already His glorified body and had taken back up His glory He laid aside before He came to earth? Wouldn't this mean He, as God, would have been omnipresent, thus already at home?
You also make another curious statement…
"I have read many discussions on the forum where baptism is considered a work by some but that is such a weak argument and has already been discussed."
You contend that water baptism is not a work of man? Huh? Who gets dressed to go down into the water? Who seeks out a place suitable to for one to be water baptized? Who is it that walks/drives to the water? Who is it that walks out into the water? Who is it that goes under? Is there not another man/woman that assists in this effort (work - what is the difference)? Who walks out of the water? Who dries off? Who gets dressed again?
I am not sure what your answers will be but from any logical standpoint this physical effort required to obey a command of God would be considered work. Of interest, if you do not consider this a work, then what do you consider it?
You also ask a fair question, "If baptism is indeed a work, did Peter teach works on the day of Pentecost?"
Obviously, we are going to completely disagree here, that is fine, I am not here to argue only present another logical alternative. Because our sins have been remitted we should be water baptized, Peter states, "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Quite possibly as well Peter was informing them that if they wanted this same Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues for which they were asking, they ought to be water baptized. In either event water baptism is indeed a work in direct obedience to the command of Christ and as obedience is a hallmark of the believer - good works are part of the new life of the Christian.
To all:
One last question, if the thief on the cross was saved under the Old Covenant, where is the sacrifice required by the Old Covenant in order for him to obtain forgiveness for his sin? The thief could only have been saved under the Old Covenant if he fulfilled the requirements of the Old Covenant, which he did not do, how then was he saved under the Old Covenant?
If the answer is Jesus directly forgave him - then how is that different than what happens under the New Covenant? He is either under the Old or the New and clearly he is not forgiven in accordance with the Old Covenant requirements, thus placing him under the New. Thus the whole argument is moot and the thief was saved by grace through faith not of works lest any man should boast and is the prime example of a New Covenant conversion.
1 John 5:1
"Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: and every one that loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him."
Presented for your consideration.
In Christ's love,
-- Anonymous, June 13, 2001
Maria1.I said he DIED under the old law. That is to say during the time of.
2. He went to paradise because he said,"Jesus, remember me in your kingdom" and Jesus said,"I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise". Lk. 42&43
3. Yes, Jesus preached salvation through faith but as E Lee has said on occassion, not faith only. See Mt.28:18-20 Mk. 16 Acts 2.38 Rms 6
4. Yes salvation is through Christ sacrifice and we are under the new covenant. BUT, the thief was not. Nor was anyone before the day of pentecost. If christ died a few minutes before the thief, so what? One more time - DAY OF PENTECOST.
5. When you conclude with,"his salvation was entirely the result of his confession of faith" where do you find that?
Please do not credit statements to me that I have not made. When responding, read the post more carefully, do not change wording or thought.
The subject we are discussing has been discussed thoroughly in previous threads by others much more qualified than I. Therefore the information for a correct understanding is available by simply refering to those threads. If you are sincerely searching for truth refer to those. If you want to argue against immersion as being necessary for ones salvation, you are wasting my time and yours. I've stood where you now stand. You are wrong!
-- Anonymous, June 13, 2001
BarryNew covenent.Since Christ was the perfect sacrifice and he died that we can be forgiven I think the obvious question is when did the change take place. I believe that the church began on the day of pentecost. This is the day on which Peter said," repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgivness of your sins and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit". This is the day we see the Holy Spirit working mightily among them. This seems also to be the day the church was established. It seems to me to be the first time sins were forgiven through Christ blood. I think this is the day the new covenant began to be the method of salvation.
You say,we will disagree. Yes we do. But I do appreciate your attitude in doing so. You say,"because our sins have been remitted we should be water baptized". Then you quote Peter,"repent and be baptized for the remission of sins". The following has occured. You have placed remission of sins prior to baptism while Peter places repentance and baptism ahead of remision of sins. My understanding is that when Peter promised the gift of the Holy Spirit after repentence and baptism for the forgiveness of sins that he,Holy Spirit,would be the seal guaranteeing our inheritance at the day of redemption.Eph 1:13 & 14.
Works
When I play softball I play hard. When I play golf I walk long distances. A lot of this in the woods and rough unforunately. I dont consider these events work. If I build or remodel a house that is work. But none of these have relevance to baptism. The action that is accomplished when one repents and is baptized is done by God. Forgiveness is the action.
Again Barry I am amazed. I have been able to write this even though there is an ongoing homicide investigation. I doubt that I will be writing for sometime. Thanks for making me think.
ps. On a personal note. I don't care for the word remission. It sounds as if they are still there. I prefer forgivness.
-- Anonymous, June 13, 2001
If we are to stick with the translators, which ones? The newer ones of today or those of the past?The newer ones have gone so far as to totally remove the very name of The God – Jehovah (Psalms 83:18 KJV)– from their Bibles. Why? So, what difference is changing the meanings of words or removing commas going to make to them?
John, in your original post the commentary is very logical in explaining the point of “not touching.” It makes sense and it does follow translations in which Mary is said to be “clinging” to Christ, therefore holding Him back from His mission. However, it does not address the question of “ascending to His Father.”
What if the phrase “I tell the truth,” occurs 78 times (I assume your looking at the NIV)? I didn’t see the words “to-day” in the NIV, except in the verse in question.
According to the internet KJV (http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible) that phrase “I tell the truth” only occurs 5 times .
The phrase occurs only twice in the NASB.
It only occurs once in Young’s Literal Translation.
However, there is not any mention of “to-day” in Luke 23:43 in the KJV, NASB nor Young’s .
There is no “formula”. It is different men rearranging words, but only in past few decades, to help reinforce an assumption that’s not there. There is no relevance. There is no precedent to translate the verse the way the newer translators do.
Even though I have two versions of NIV, a study guide and one with a Greek word-by-word text translation, I’ve found it to be a poor translation. For specifically the reason above, it rearranges words and confuses things.
You said moving the comma is “my” changing the Bible. Is it really? Again, punctuation was added only several hundred years ago. And, it is not in the original. And, it doesn’t agree with the time frame that is written. If the Holy Spirit concept is used, it would be adding more to what is written – the very thing you’re claiming of me.
I agree with you, it is dishonest for the newer KJV and others to move/rearrange the commas when in all other instances it comes after “today,” for reasons pointed out in the following.
Even though I enjoy reading the KJV because of it’s poetic language and style of writing, again who’s dishonest, the newer KJV chooses this verse to move/rearrange the commas? Highly questionable. Much like adding “is” to a verse that doesn’t require it or even have the word. Or, adding the word “son” when it doesn’t exist in the original known text.
As for “today,” in Luke 23:43 “A Critical Lexicon” (published by Zondervan Publishing House 1975 - “Originally published in 1877, with later editions in 1886, 1892 and 1908 “) of the earlier KJV’s says:
“”And Jesus said to him, Verily, to thee I say this day, with Me shalt thou be in the Paradise.”
The words “to-day” being made solemn and emphatic. Thus, instead of a remembrance, when He shall come in (v22) His Kingdom, He promises ‘a presence’ then in association with Himself. And this promise He makes on that very day when He was dying, but when the faith of the dying robber read aright the inscription above Him and the signs around Him.
Thus we are saved the trouble of explaining why Jesus did not answer the question in its own terms; and (2) the inconvenience of endorsing the punctuation of the Auth. Vers. as inspired; and we also place the passage in harmony with numberless passages in the O.T., such as “Verily I say unto you, this day,” etc.; “I testify unto you this day,” etc. Duet. Vi.6; vii.11; viii.1; x.13; xi.8; xxxi.2; etc., where the Septuagint corresponds to Luke xxiii.43.”
So, in the past 100+ years somebody rearranged some words, deleted a comma and moved another. Dishonesty?
Notice too, Paradise in this case is not synonymous with “Heaven.” The Syrian MSS of the 5th century C.E. renders :
“Amen, I say to thee to-day that with me thou shalt be with me in the garden of Eden.” F.C. Burkitt, The Curetonian Version of the Four Gospels 1904
“Paradise” here is rendered as “in the garden of Eden” referring to Genesis 2:8, 10, 15 etc.
The Worldwide English (WE) version says:
“Today you will be with me in God's garden of paradise.'
This agrees with Strong’s, again with older versions (not the internet versions or newer “revise” versions, which have added meanings), definition of “paradise:
(3857) Of oriental origin (comp. Hebrew 6508); a park, i.e.(spec.) an Eden (place of future happiness, “paradise”)
Now, clearly Paradise had not been restored at that time (Acts 1:6- 8). So the correct understanding cannot be the thief went to heaven or anywhere else at his death, except to the ground to which we all return. Further, the Good News includes the promise of The Kingdom (ie: Mat 6:26, 24:14,25:1,etc,etc,etc)
I ask again, who really changed what? And why? In only this one instance is the comma located before, to prove a point that doesn’t agree with what is written. Jesus was promising a future event not an instantaneous at death occurrence. Notice the NIV, KJV and the other’s have taken/replaced several comma’s and word’s over the past hundred years or so.
At the grave site, 3 days after the crucifixion, He did not let the one there touch Him because He states He had not ascended. So He still would have not told the truth to the thief with the understanding at death he’d be in heaven.
I agree, Thomas is allowed to touch to prove to him that He had risen. And the explanation given makes good sense. But The Bible clearly says three days after His death, a minimum of one was not allowed because He had not yet ascended. And it is highly unlikely that a woman in that day was alone at that hour, possible, yes, probable, no. Further, according to the parallel accounts (Mat 28, especially verse 8, Mark 16) other women were with her, so there were others. And, Do you think a group of women (or anyone else) all would just stand around after someone rises from the dead? (example: John 11:31-42) So my statement is not in error.
The Bible clearly states when He ascended. It does not say what you suggest, that He went during the interim. No where but Acts says that He ascended/taken up to Heaven. He was seen through out the 40 days. Even, if it is assumed He ascended after meeting Mary, before meeting with Thomas, there are still 3 days to account for. He had only 40 days to complete His earthly work, the commentary is correct on this point. But there is still no mention to His ascending to heaven till Acts. And this is still 40 days later!
The point still stands, even if the 40 days are disregarded, there are still three days in which it is recorded Jesus said He had not yet ascended. And, just because the comma was rearranged/removed by whomever in the last few decades does not make it correct. I didn’t change it, the newer translators have. They are the dishonest ones. Of course I’m sure you all can find any disagreement you want. So, I asked again, which translators are we to believe? The newer ones of today whom have added/deleted/rearranged things, because it doesn’t fit this concept of “goin to heaven when you die.” Or, the ones who had a more correct understanding of this in years past?
And undoubtedly the Thief asked about the Christ coming into His Kingdom. One translation (WE) even “becoming King.” Again, looking around me today, the Kingdom of the Christ clearly has not been established (Psalm 37).
Again, Paradise is not heaven - nowhere in the Bible. Paradise actually means garden. Paradise is what earth is supposed to be now, before sin entered into it. Why do you think so many people think they have to garden, plant flowers, trees, protect the environment, etc, etc, etc? It is pre-programmed, as it were, “pre-wired” into us. Some, however, do ignore it, but, we are all “dirt!”
Adam had a chance to live forever “on earth” in a garden Paradise. He wasn’t thinking of going to heaven. (unless you believe all the Genesis account was just some sort of preliminary action or a game or test of some sort) Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and fill the earth – not heaven before sin. Death wasn’t even thought of, till he blew it! And, no man has entered into heaven except the one who first came down.
Btw, thanks for the commentary insight on “not touching.“
Sincerely
-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001
First I would like to respond respectfully to Faris.I am not sure about your reference to a homicide investigation, this must be some personal event and I will keep you in my prayers.
First point I must address and this is your comment concerning the Day of Pentecost. Being Pentecostal I have spent some time studying these chapters and I would like to draw your attention to John 20:22
"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"
Here is the beginning of the Church, not 50 days later (approx.).
Also the gift of the Holy Spirit is not redemption or salvation - the gift of the Holy Spirit is the promise of the infilling or Baptism with the Holy Spirit. This is a subsequent experience to the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit. Some have attempted to meld these two events into one experience, however, we see clearly that the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit was given in John 20:22 approximately 50 days before Jesus baptized the early church with or in the Holy Spirit. It has been described as such, the Holy Spirit places us in Christ when we believe and Christ places us in the Holy Spirit when we receive.
I am attempting to remain brief as you probably have already heard this before and have decided that this is not what you believe.
You are quoting Acts 2:38 to say Peter teaches we must be water baptized for our sins to be forgiven. Yet when we go to Acts 10: 44-48
"While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. 45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, 47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."
We see that Cornelius and friends had received the "gift of the Holy Ghost". How did they know they had received this gift? "For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God." This gift or promise of the Holy Spirit Baptism is only given to believers. At this point some want to differentiate between "poured out" and "indwelling". That these gentiles were not yet born again but only the Holy Spirit came "upon" them. This position completely contradicts the account then given in Acts 2, when others claim the Church actually began.
Either the Baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues indicates the infilling of the Holy Spirit, which would then mean that tongues is a sign of salvation, or, the Baptism of the Holy Spirit evidenced by tongues indicates a subsequent event following the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Obviously, I believe the latter seeing that the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit had already been given in John 20:22.
Thus, Cornelius and friends had the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in order that they could then receive the gift of the Holy Spirit which is evidenced by tongues.
I would find it hard to believe that you would hold the position that tongues is the evidence of salvation.
Finally, Cornelius and friends are water baptized but only after they had received the gift of the Spirit which is precipitated by the infilling presence of Holy Spirit.
When Peter in Acts 2 is asked the question by the crowd, what must we do to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit - this is not the same question as asking what must we do to receive eternal life. Too often people forget the context of this question asked of Peter. The crowd wanted this same gift of tongues that they were witnessing this day.
I am going on longer than I intended, if you have time I would like to hear from you again - if not, I take it you are very busy from your last post.
God Bless.
In Christ's love
-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001
Mr. Hansen,I thank you for your post. I agree with you, but most here seem to be committed to a position that cannot get beyond their rather narrow interpretation of Acts 2:38, and passages in James. They are utterly convinced that water baptism is an obedience condition without which forgiveness can not be granted by God.
I came upon this site by accident, and began thinking this was a discussion forum that would be of value to me and to others. I am now satisfied this sect is presenting "another gospel", and as for me I think it should be avoided.
God Bless and Keep You,
Maria
-- Anonymous, June 14, 2001
Maria,About a year and a half ago I stumbled onto this forum, at first I thought I had found a great place to fellowship but soon found out I was not viewed as a "brother" or even a Christian because of my position regarding redemption (Grace + Faith = Redemption + Good Works). I have spent some time here talking and pretty much came to the same conclusion you have. Although I do think that there are some who do not hold so dogmatically to this position. The thing that scares me most is that someone could be so close and with a very subtle twist may not have faith in Christ at all but rather their own works. All I can do is pray that this is not the case because most will not consider what I have had to share.
In Christ's Love,
-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001
BarryI'm at work so just a few brief thoughts for your consideration.
Jn.20 Jesus is speaking to his disciples. He is preparing them for their ministry. With the mind of man they could not hope to be successful. They had to have the Holy Spirit to speak the word of God. We have the inspired word today. He gave them authority to forgive sin's. Even though we (receive the gift of the Holy Spirit)Act's 2.38, we can not add to or take away from the word spoken by these inspired men. Nor can we forgive sin's at the level described in Jn.20.
I do see your point but as you have said,do not agree. I see a common thread in Jn. 20, Act's 2 and Act's 10. That common thread is ministry. In Jn.20 preparing or being prepared for. In Act's 2, to the Jews and in Act's 10, to the gentiles. The 'gift' promised us in Act's 2.38 I see as being given for a different purpose. As I have said previously the Holy Spirit is, (the seal that guarantee's of our inheritance). Eph 1. As the disciples could not have spoken the inspired word without the Holy Spirit I feel he MUST be there to guarantee our place in heaven.
You said,"the gift of the Holy Spirit is not redemption or salvation. I agree. But again, he is the seal that guarantees.
Act's 2 & 10 after the (as a mighty wind and as of fire) they were told to be baptized. In both cases Peter was there to teach and in both cases, after the wind and fire, he commanded them to be baptized. Why? So they could be forgiven and receive the seal. I still see,repent, be immersed in the name Of Christ for the forgiveness of your sin's. You WILL receive the gift, the seal.
Probably the place where you and I disagree most is with the reason the people said," brothers, what shall we do. Peter had just told them in verse 36 they had crucified Christ. In 37 it says they were,"cut to the heart". The thing utmost on their mind at that time was forgivness for this terrible deed. Not miraculous gifts. And thus Peter's reply for the cure of their sin is found in Verse 38.
In Act's 2.38 they were yet to repent. In 10.48 they had repented but according to Peter needed to be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ. Yet to repent or having repented they were both to be baptized. It seems clear to me, for their forgivness and to receive the Holy Spirit.
Whether one looks at Jn. 20 or Act's 2.38 as the beginning of the church, the thief still died during the time of the old law.
We have both somewhat stated our beliefs in this area so I'll give you the last word. You have caused me to revisit some long held beliefs. I thank you.
-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001
NIV KJV
Matthew 5:18 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 5:26 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto thee
Matthew 6:2 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 6:5 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 6:16 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 8:10 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 10:15 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 10:23 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 10:42 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 11:11 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 13:17 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 16:28 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 17:20 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 18:3 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 18:13 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 18:18 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 19:23 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 19:28 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 21:21 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 21:31 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 23:36 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 24:2 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 24:34 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 24:47 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 25:12 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 25:40 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 25:45 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 26:13 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 26:21 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Matthew 26:34 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto thee
Mark 3:28 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 6:11 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 8:12 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 9:1 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 9:41 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 10:15 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 10:29 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 11:23 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 12:43 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 13:30 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 14:9 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 14:18 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 14:25 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Mark 14:30 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto thee
Luke 4:24 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Luke 11:51 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Luke 12:37 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Luke 13:35 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Luke 18:17 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Luke 18:29 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Luke 21:32 I tell you the truth Verily I say unto you
Luke 23:43 I tell you the truth today Verily I say unto thee to day
John 1:51 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 3:3 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto thee
John 3:11 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 5:19 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 5:24 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 5:25 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 6:26 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 6:32 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 6:47 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 6:53 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 8:34 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 5:51 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 5:58 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 10:1 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 10:7 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 12:24 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 13:16 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 13:20 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 13:21 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 13:38 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto thee
John 14:12 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 16:20 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 16:23 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
John 21:18 I tell you the truth Verily, verily, I say unto you
Anyone else see anything peculiar?
(Words in RED are the way C would have the verse read.)
-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001
Brethren and friends:Now most of the arguments in this thread are based upon the unproven assumption that the thief on the cross was never baptized.
Thus some here argue that people today can be saved in the same way that the "thief on the Cross" was saved but they do not know for sure if the thief was saved without being baptized, now are they? There is as much, if not more, evidence to indicate that the thief may have been baptized at the baptism of John as there is that he had not been baptized ever at all for any reason in his life. But, based upon this assumption these false teachers fallaciously conclude that anyone today can be saved in the same way that the thief on the cross was saved. In order for that argument to have any validity they must prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the thief had never heard John the Baptist, or Christ preach and accepted that baptism which was for the remission of sins. “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4), which both Christ and John lead men to obey.
We are told, “And all the people that heard [him], and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.” (Luke 2:29). Now is it possible for anyone to prove that it was absolutely impossible that the thief could have ever been among “all the people that heard him” and were baptized with the baptism of John? Especially in light of the fact that John preached “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” and Christ did as well.
We are told that Christ was preached throughout all Judea as “lord of all”. “But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. The word which [God] sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, [I say], ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;” (Acts 10:35-37). Now all Judea heard these things and it began from Galilee after the baptism that John preached. Is it not at least possible that the thief had the opportunity to hear John the Baptist preaching that Christ was Lord? Furthermore, during the same time we are told that Jesus baptized more disciples than John. “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) He left Judaea, and departed again into Galilee.” (John 4:1-3). Now, not only did John baptize many of the people of Judea and the region around Jordan but also Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John (though his disciples actually did the baptizing). Is it not possible with all of this baptizing going on during that time that this thief heard either the teaching of John the Baptist or of even Jesus Christ himself and submitted to the baptism, which they were administering?
Now, there are some things said by the thief on the cross that indicates a certain familiarity with the teachings of both John and Jesus. Listen to his words:
“But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation? And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. (Luke:23:39-43).
Now notice the thief indicated the justice of his condemnation which could at least imply that he had at some point before his capture and crucifixion come to repentance about what he had done. Notice also that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance unto the remission of sins”. (Mark 1:4). Then this thief knows for a surety that Christ was innocent. “This man hath done nothing amiss.” Now, those who were evil, sinful, and impenitent men had no such knowledge of Christ. In fact no one can say that a total stranger is innocent! This thief obviously knew enough about Christ to draw the conclusion that he was innocent implying far more than a casual knowledge of this controversial figure! Then he said some very significant words to Christ. He said, “Lord”. Now on what basis did this thief recognize that Christ was not just an ordinary innocent man being crucified unjustly but that he was LORD? Is it not in the least bit likely that he could have heard the teaching of Christ, John, or their disciples who were always teaching that Christ was “LORD”. No band of thieves, who had no knowledge of Christ and had not heard any teaching from Him or about him would have concluded that Christ was “Lord”, now would they? And then he says to Christ, “remember me”. Now on what basis could this thief expect Christ, whom he had learned very likely from the teaching of either John, Jesus or one of their disciples that Christ was Lord for such was the only source of such information, expect that Christ would have any reason to “remember” him? And he says remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom! Now how in the world would this thief have learned that Christ had a Kingdom and that he was, even though hanging upon a cross, coming into it? It was Christ and John the Baptist and their disciples who were preaching “repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”. Is it not possible that this thief had heard them preach of this coming Kingdom of Christ? And would he make such a request of Christ if he did not believe that Christ was coming to a kingdom as taught by himself and John the Baptist? And if this thief had head all of this instruction form either John the Baptist, or Jesus and believed it enough to count upon it in the hour of his death that he might not have also believed what they taught about baptism and have submitted to it? It is indeed possible! Is it possible for anyone to prove that nothing like this ever happened? Some might say that he was a thief and justly condemned for it is proof that such could not have happened. But this is not necessarily so. For this thief could have heard the teaching of John the Baptist or Christ and repented of his stealing and was baptized by them and later convicted of Crimes that he had committed in the past for which he had been forgiven by God but not man? And is it not possible that this thief had repented and been baptized at the teaching of either John the Baptist or Christ and then lapsed back into his old habits and sins. And was convicted for them and then repented before Christ and asked to be remembered by him when he came into his kingdom? And indeed, it is at the very least highly unlikely that he had absolutely no knowledge gained from hearing John or Christ or one of their disciples teaching. For he had knowledge of these things that we know he must have known or he could not have said the things that he said while speaking of and to Christ on the cross.
Unless those who seek to be saved as the thief on the cross was saved can prove that it was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that he had been baptized at the baptism of John they cannot with honesty prove conclusively that this thief was saved without being baptized. And even if they could prove such a thing, if they wish to show that one can be saved without being baptized today, they must also prove that Christ will definitely, without any doubt, save anyone else in exactly the same way that he saved the thief. This they also cannot prove.
They must also prove that the New Covenant, which went into effect after the death of Christ, allows one to be saved just as the thief on the cross was saved, however that was. “ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.” (Heb. 9:15-18).
Now this passage makes it abundantly clear that the New Testament or covenant of Christ was “of no strength” of not in effect, until Christ who is the “mediator” of that new covenant which was of “no effect” while the “testator” (Christ) lived. Which would make it clear that the thief on the Cross, however he was saved, it was not according to the covenant that we are now under for the testator was still alive when he was promised “this day shalt thou be with me in paradise”.
In fact there are some, and I am not one of them, that contend that we cannot even know for sure if this thief was, in fact, saved. While I agree that he was saved we are not certain if he was saved without having been baptized and can never be certain of it. And we are not certain that, even if he were, that Christ would save others in the same way. But our friends would offer to others the hope of being saved while refusing to obey Christ command to be baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38). Even though they are not sure that such is the case nor are they even certain that this thief was saved without having been baptized. Thus on the basis of silence and uncertainty and a complete lack of evidence to support the underlying assumption upon which their argument rests. They yet continue to argue for that which conflicts with the clear teaching of the word of God throughout the New Testament that baptism is in order to the remission of sins and hence necessary to our salvation. For they are certain, without any evidence justify his assumptions that the thief was saved without being baptized! When the truth is that no one, after the death of Christ when he became the “mediator of the New Testament” is going to be saved without being baptized under that New Covenant of Christ. For Christ says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16) and “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38). “And now why tarriest thou arise and be baptized and wash away thy sins calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16). And again, “the like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh but the answer of a good conscience) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (1 Peter 3:21). And numerous other passages, which we recommend that all who are interested in the truth take the time to read. (John 3:3-5; Titus 3:3-5; Eph. 5:25,26; Heb. 10:22; Romans 6:3- 6, 16-18; Col. 2:11-13; Gal. 3:26,27; Acts 8:8-40; Acts 19:1-6; Mark 16:15,16; Matt. 28:19,20; Acts 10:47,48; Acts 16:13-16; Acts 16:30- 34; Acts 2:38).
For Christ and those who love the truth in him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 15, 2001
Faris,Thank you for your comments, as I have stated as plainly as possible my position I feel no need to comment further and gladly allow your post to be the final word. Thank you for your considerate messages.
In reviewing my message to Maria I apologize if I have offended you, as you have been most considerate.
John,
I see something peculiar indeed! This point you make is very compelling - Jesus was saying that the thief would be with Him in Paradise that day.
Brethren and Friends,
The thief on the cross was never baptized in Jesus name. The argument is dead to begin with if he died under the Old Covenant because water baptism was not essential to redemption under the Old Covenant. Yet, in order for the thief to be redeemed under the Old Covenant he must offer a sacrifice, which he did not. Therefore, he was not redeemed under the Old Covenant, but the New, Jesus told him he was going to be in Paradise.
Now looking at the New Testament, water baptism is done in Jesus name and this was not instituted until Matthew 28, AFTER THE RESURRECTION. The only water baptism taking place before Jesus died was the baptism of repentance - UNDER THE OLD COVENANT! And we have already determined that the thief was not redeemed under the Old Covenant.
Thus, any work of water baptism by the thief prior to Calvary could not carry into the New Covenant because; 1) It was a baptism of repentance and not done in Jesus' name. 2) Jesus hadn't been raised yet to institute water baptism in His name. 3) People who had, prior to the resurrection, participated in the baptism of repentance were re-baptized, after the resurrection in Jesus name.
The only conclusion we arrive at is that the thief, having the grace of God shown to him believes on Jesus and is told he will be in Paradise. This being accomplished, without the work of water baptism being observed under the New Covenant, and thus establishing from the very first convert the way in which God has chosen to redeem man.
In Christ's Love
-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001
This point you make is very compelling - Jesus was saying that the thief would be with Him in Paradise that day.True, Barry. And if Paradise is merely an earthly existence, as C (and the Jehovah's Witnesses) claim, Jesus' words on the cross become completely nonsensical. Obviously there must be something more to "Paradise" than an Earthly garden.
-- Anonymous, June 16, 2001
Brethren and Friends:Mr. Hanson has sought to correct the fact that it is indeed at least possible that the thief on the cross could have been baptized at the baptism of John or by the Disciples of Christ. Which was without doubt required by God at that time (Luke 7:29,30) for John’s baptism was from God in heaven and not men. And we are told that “Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (though Jesus himself baptized not, but His disciples). (John 4:2). Now if Jesus did not require baptism for the remission of sins, for he was baptizing for the same reason as John the Baptist and John’s baptism was “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4) then why did he “make and baptize more disciples than John”? So, there is no doubt that God through both John and Christ required baptism “for the remission of sins” and Christ even “made and baptized more disciples than John”. (John 4:2) And despite all of this Mr. Hanson wants us to believe that baptism was not required during that time. Though such baptism was not a part of the Law of Moses it was indeed the will of God and could not be neglected without “rejecting the counsel of God against” one’s self. (Luke 7:29,30).
Now, Mr. Hanson, along with others, has tried to imply that persons who are living under the New Covenant of Christ can be saved today just as was the thief on the cross “without being baptized”. When neither he nor anyone else is able to prove that this thief had never been baptized “for the remission of sins” as was all of those who had been baptized in the baptism of John (Mark 1:4) and of Christ (John 4:2) as follows:
“Brethren and Friends, The thief on the cross was never baptized in Jesus name.”
Now, this is nothing more than a sophism! The baptism of John, as he well knows, was not done in “Jesus name” but it was done to prepare people for the coming Kingdom of Christ and it was essential to the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4; Acts 19:1-6). Yet there is no doubt that the Disciples of Christ, acting as the agents of Christ baptized more disciples than John and they did so by the authority of Christ, which means “in his name”. (John 4:2). Now, unless Mr. Hanson can prove that this “thief” was never baptized at all in his life during this period of time he cannot prove that this thief was saved without being baptized. And he cannot prove any such a thing because there is no evidence that would prove conclusively that this thief was or was not baptized at the baptism of John or baptized by Christ through His disciples. But he makes the above assertion. And he offers absolutely no proof of it whatsoever. Yet he wants you to accept it only because if you do so he thinks that he can persuade you to ignore the command of Christ to be baptized for the remission of sins which was given by Peter on the day of Pentecost. Peter said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for (or in order to obtain) the remission of sins.” (Acts 2:38).
The argument that people are often heard to make is that they believe one can be saved, “LIKE THE THEIF ON THE CROSS”, without being baptized. For this argument to be true one must prove beyond doubt that the thief had never been baptized for the remission of sins. And this no one can do. And Mr. Hanson is proof of this fact for all he can do is claim that the thief was never baptized “IN THE NAME OF JESUS”. Will he agree then that the thief may have been baptized but “not in the name of Jesus”? You may have to ask him that question because he is not talking with E. Lee Saffold at the moment. No one was ever baptized formally “in the name of Jesus” until after the resurrection of Christ and his commission that we “teach all nations baptizing then in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit”. (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:15,16). But large numbers of people in the entire region around Jordan had been baptized for the remission of sins at the baptism of John, which was for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4) while Christ was living. Even Christ made and baptized more disciples than John the Baptist, through his disciples, which was surely done by His authority for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4).
And in order for anyone to prove that the thief was saved, even though he was NEVER BAPTIZED for the remission of sins, he must do more than simply prove that which everyone concedes he was not baptized “IN THE NAME OF CHRIST”. Or that he was not baptized under the commission of Christ with the baptism connected with the New Covenant. (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:16). They must prove that he was saved without being baptized "for the remission of sins" AT ALL. And this Mr. Hanson, and everyone else, has failed to do.
SO we ask you, since Mr. Hanson refuses to talk with us directly, to ask Mr. Hanson if he can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the thief was never baptized at the baptism of John or by one of Christ disciples? Do not let him fool you with his weak and feeble nonsense that he was not baptized in the “name of Christ”. For his argument that persons under the New Covenant can be saved without being baptized just like the thief on the cross depends upon the unproven assumption that the thief was saved without ever being baptized at all. The argument is never stated that “the thief was saved without being baptized in the name of Christ” now is it? Now, if that is how he and others wish to argue; then, it seems that they should state it that way, shouldn’t they? But that is not what they say. They say that the thief was saved without being baptized. And that argument cannot be proven unless it can be conclusively demonstrated that the thief was never, by either John or Christ through their disciples baptized for the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4; John 4:2). Mr. Hanson does not know if the thief had ever been baptized or not, and neither does anyone else. Yet he wants every one of you refuse to obey the commands of Christ to “repent and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”. (Acts 2:38). And thereby risk never having your sins forgiven (as I agree with Brother Faris that this is the true meaning of remit). And if their sins are not for given they will “die in their sins” and be lost eternally because they have not obeyed the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:8,9). And he wants you to take this risk upon his mere assumption that this thief had never been baptized and he was saved under the New Covenant that requires baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38).
Then he said:
“ The argument is dead to begin with if he died under the Old Covenant because water baptism was not essential to redemption under the Old Covenant.”
Now this is pure nonsense. For while it is true that the thief was saved under the Old Covenant it is not true that persons during the time of the ministry of both John and Jesus were not required by God to be baptized for the remission of sins. That is exactly what God had sent John the Baptist to do. And no one can believe Mr. Hanson’s nonsense here without first completely ignoring the simple fact that GOD sent John to baptize and required it of men. For we are told by Luke that those who rejected the baptism of John “rejected the counsel of God AGAINST THEMSELVES by not being baptized of him. (Luke 7:29,30). And though the Old law was still in effect the commands of God through John and Christ were also in effect to prepare people for the soon to come “change in the priesthood which necessitated a change in the law. (Heb. 7: 11-14).
When John the Baptist came preaching in the wilderness water baptism was essential to the remission of sins. (Mark 1:4) For God sent John to baptize for that purpose and those who rejected John’s baptism “rejected the counsel of God against themselves not being baptized of him” (Luke 7:29,30). So indeed John’s baptism was REQUIRED and any who neglected it rejected God’s counsel. And that is the reason so many were baptize by John. “And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.” (Mark 1:5).
Indeed the thief died under the old covenant but he also died during the time when God had sent John to baptize. Thus the baptism of John was "God’s will" for men then, as much as the Law of Moses was God’s will, that men should obey for the remission of sins. And before one can confidently argue that those of us who are living under the New Covenant can be saved just like the thief on the cross without being baptized he must prove: 1) that the thief had not been baptized at all and 2.) that Salvation under the New Covenant can be obtained by the same means as the thief who lived under an entirely different covenant in the first place. And this no one has been able to do especially Mr. Hanson.
Then Mr. Hanson said:
“ Yet, in order for the thief to be redeemed under the Old Covenant he must offer a sacrifice, which he did not.”
Well, now Mr. Hanson does not prove this statement, does he? He expects us to believe it just because he says it is true. And it is not true that the thief must offer a sacrifice but that the priest must offer a sacrifice for him. But let us read what the Hebrew writer said: “For [it is] not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” (Heb. 10:4). And if it were true that this thief were required to do such to have his sins removed Mr. Hanson cannot prove his assertion that the thief had not done it ever in his life -time. In fact, once daily the high priest offered sacrifices for his sins and the sins of the people. “And thou shalt offer every day a bullock [for] a sin offering for atonement: and thou shalt cleanse the altar, when thou hast made an atonement for it, and thou shalt anoint it, to sanctify it. Seven days thou shalt make atonement for the altar, and sanctify it; and it shall be an altar most holy: whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy. Now this [is that] which thou shalt offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: ” (Exodus 29:36-39). “And thou shalt say unto them, This [is] the offering made by fire which ye shall offer unto the LORD; two lambs of the first year without spot day by day, [for] a continual burnt offering. The one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb shalt thou offer at even;” (Numbers 28:3,4).
And a sacrifice was made once a year for sins. “Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service [of God]. But into the second [went] the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and [for] the errors of the people:” ( Heb. 9:7).
“Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.” (Heb. 7:27). And we are certain that this had been done and that offering would have included the thief since he was among the people that the sacrifice was offered on the behalf of, now wouldn’t it? And if that were true how does Mr. Hanson know that he was not saved because of that sacrifice. Which was for the atonement of sins temporarily until the sacrifice was repeated until the God sacrificed His own Son so that all of the sins that had been committed, yearly granted temporary atonement, and then remembered the following year, could finally be forgiven and “REMEMBERED NO MORE. “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” (Heb. 8:12).
Thus the thief’s sins were temporarily atoned for before he even asked Christ to remember him when he came into his kingdom. And when Christ died on the Cross they were actually forgiven and “remembered no more”. Now the truth of the matter is that this thief, as well as all of those who lived faithful to God before the giving of the Law as well as after the giving of the Law of Moses and before the New Testament came into effect was redeemed by Christ. “And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.” (Heb. 9:15). And it is perfectly possible that this is just how the thief was saved as well. For when Christ died he died for the forgiveness of all of the “transgressions” that were under the FIRST TESTAMENT” which would have included the transgressions of this thief for he lived under the “first testament”. But Christ perpetuated the baptism, which began with the baptism of John and continued through the Ministry of Christ, after his resurrection when he made it a part of the great commission. And commanded that those who hear the gospel to be baptized in obedience to it in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (Matt. 28:19,20). And this explains why when one was to be chosen to take the place of Judas it had to be some one who had accompanied with Christ beginning at the baptism of John. “Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.” (Acts 1:22). Baptism for the remission of sins had it very beginning with the baptism of John!
For these that submitted to the baptism of John were the kingdom of Christ in “prospect” if you will. Until the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles at Pentecost and the gospel was first preached under the great commission and “repentance and the remission of sins was preached beginning at Jerusalem”. (Luke 24:45-53). And that Peter told those seeking to know what was required of them to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). And then from Jerusalem (Acts 2:38) to Samaria (Acts 8:8-24) and to the utmost part of the world (Acts 8:35-40; 10:47,48; Acts 19:1-6) baptism was preached as a part of the gospel and all were required to obey it. And not one person after the giving of the great commission by Christ after his resurrection (Matt. 28:19,20; Mark 16:15,16; Luke 24:45-53). Not one person, after that commission was given ever received the remission of sins without “repenting and being baptized” (Acts 2:38) after that time until this very day.
Then Mr. Hanson concludes from his above erroneous and ridiculous reasoning that the thief was redeemed under the New Testament rather than under the Old Testament. As follows:
“Therefore, he was not redeemed under the Old Covenant, but the New, Jesus told him he was going to be in Paradise.”
Now, let us think about this. Mr. Hanson says that the thief was redeemed under the New Covenant. But we are told that the New Testament was not in effect until Christ died. But Christ was still alive when he said to the thief “this day thou shalt be with me in paradise.” Therefore he was not redeemed under the New Testament because it did not become effective until Christ died. Now I wonder if Mr. Hanson could explain to us how it is that the New Testament was effective before Christ died when the scriptures teach that is was of no effect until the death of the testator. (Heb. 9:15)?
Now if this were true, which it most certainly is not, then it would have been necessary for the thief to be baptized. For that is definitely required under the New Covenant.
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, [even] unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matthew 28:19,20).
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15,16).
But the scriptures teach that the New Covenant did not come into effect until the death of Christ, the “testator” as follows:
“ And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.” (Heb. 9:15-18).
Now, Mr. Hanson, in order to prove that the thief was saved under the “New Covenant” that he was saved after the New Covenant went into effect. You must show that Christ was dead when he said “”this day thou shalt be with me in paradise”! And according to the scriptures the thief was saved while Christ was still alive. And therefore he was saved before the New Covenant went into effect. For there is no doubt that Christ was still alive when he said to the thief “this day thou shalt be with me in paradise”. Therefore Christ, before the New Testament, was “of force” and when it was “of no strength” and before it was “dedicated with the blood of Christ” made that statement to the thief. Yet
Nevertheless, Mr. Hanson would have you to believe that the thief was saved under the New Covenant and not the old covenant. Though he offers no reasons for us to believe his nonsense except that he says it. I chose to believe what the inspired writer of the book of Hebrews, who had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit says instead of what the uninspired Mr. Hanson, who does not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit says about it.
Now this passage (Heb. 9:15) makes it abundantly clear that the New Testament or covenant of Christ was “of no strength” or not in effect, until Christ who is the “mediator” of that new covenant which was of “no effect” while the “testator” (Christ) lived. And there is little doubt that Christ was alive when he said to the thief, “this day thou shalt be with me in paradise”. Which would make it clear that the thief on the cross, however he was saved, it was not according to the covenant that we are now under. For the testator of THAT COVENANT was still alive when he was promised “this day shalt thou be with me in paradise” hence the New Covenant was not in effect yet and the thief was redeemed prior to the New Testament coming into effect. Which means he was redeemed under the old covenant. No covenant is of effect while the testator of it is alive according to the inspired writer of Hebrews, Mr. Hanson notwithstanding!
SO the thief was redeemed under the old Covenant. And during the time when God required people to be baptized in water for the remission of sins at the baptism of John in order for them to be accepted into the kingdom of Christ. And that kingdom did not come until the day of Pentecost after the death and resurrection of our Lord. And what Mr. Hanson cannot do is prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the thief had never been subject to the baptism of John at all.
And Mr. Hanson also must also prove that the New Covenant, which went into effect after the death of Christ, allows one to be saved just as the thief on the cross was saved, however that was. Now since he cannot do that he comes in here claiming falsely that the thief died under the New Covenant which the Hebrew writer says did not become effective until Christ died. And the thief was saved while Christ was still alive therefore he could not have been saved under the New Covenant, which was not in effect until Christ died on the cross.
Then he says:
“Now looking at the New Testament, water baptism is done in Jesus name and this was not instituted until Matthew 28, AFTER THE RESURRECTION.”
Now just here Mr. Hanson forgets that, “John was in Enon baptizing because there was much water there”. And that John’s baptism was “for the remission of sins” and that it was the will of God and anyone who rejected it rejected the “counsel of God against themselves” (Luke 7:29,30). And this baptism was not “done in Jesus Name” but to prepare a people for entrance into the Kingdom of Christ when it came and they were told to believe in Christ who would come after. (Acts 19:1-6). And this was the baptism that was required by God (Luke 7:30) before the death of Christ. And this is the baptism that we are talking about in relation to the thief. And since the thief died during the time that these things were required of God he could not have been expected to be baptized in the name of Christ until the baptism of Christ was instituted after his resurrection in Matthew 28:19,20.
Now all that lived after the resurrection of Christ and the institution of this baptism in the name of Christ are indeed commanded by Christ to “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Which means that even if the thief on the Cross was saved without being baptized, which no one can prove is actually the case, that those who live under the New Covenant cannot be saved in the same way as the thief. Who lived and died before the New Covenant was effective.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“The only water baptism taking place before Jesus died was the baptism of repentance - UNDER THE OLD COVENANT!”
Let us allow the word of God to be more accurate than Mr. Hanson has been here. The baptism taking place before Jesus died on the cross was the “John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.” (Mark 1:4). Mr. Hanson does not want you to notice how he conveniently leaves out things he does not want you to know. He did not want to say that this baptism that was required of God prior to the death of Christ was a baptism of repentance “FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS”. (Mark 1:5). He would choke to death before he could say those words about any baptism, even the baptism of John, now wouldn’t he? He knew that this is what the Bible taught but he just could not say it now could he? Ask Mr. Hanson, folks, for he is not speaking to us at the moment, if he can say that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance “FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Mark 1:4)? Then you can watch him CHOKE. He cannot admit that any baptism was FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS, now can he? And what is interesting is that Jesus Christ “Made and baptized more disciples than John (though Jesus baptized not but his disciples). (John 4:2). So there was plenty of baptism for the remission of sins during the ministry of Christ and John the Baptist and even more after the resurrection of Christ, which was done in His name.
Then he says:
“ And we have already determined that the thief was not redeemed under the Old Covenant.”
Now just how did Mr. Hanson “determine” that? We have determined no such thing? This thief was saved before Christ died, which means that he was indeed redeemed under the old covenant. But what proof has Mr. Hanson given that this thief was redeemed under the New Covenant? I have not seen any have you? He just says, “we have already determined that the thief was not redeemed under the old covenant”. I do not know who make up the “we” that he is talking about but it does not include anyone who demands proof of what they believe. For he has not offered one shred of evidence to indicate that such nonsense is true. Read this verse again:
““ And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a testament [is], there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament [is] of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first [testament] was dedicated without blood.” (Heb. 9:15-18).”
The New Covenant could not have been “of force” until after the testator (Christ) was dead. And the blood of Christ had dedicated it until he was dead. And therefore it was of “no strength” AT ALL while the testator (Christ) liveth”. When Christ told the thief “this day shalt thou be with me in paradise” Christ was alive and therefore the Old Covenant was still in force and the New Covenant was of no force because the testator was not dead. And it was of “no strength” because the testator (Christ) was alive. So it is impossible that the thief was redeemed under the New Covenant.
Then he says more without any proof of its truthfulness as follows:
“Thus, any work of water baptism by the thief prior to Calvary could not carry into the New Covenant”
Notice that he calls “water baptism” a work without offering any evidence from the scriptures. But it is a work of God as is faith. (Col. 2:11-13; John 6:29) because it is work that God commands. But it is not a “work of righteousness that we do ourselves” of our own accord without God or faith in Him.
But what does this have to do with the thief being saved by Christ while he was alive which was under the old covenant for the New covenant did not come into effect until after the death of Christ.
And where does the Bible teach that the remission of sins obtained at the Baptism of John (Mark 1:4) and of Christ (John 4:2) “could not carry into the New Testament? WE know why Mr. Hanson needs to believe it but where does the BIBLE say it? He does not know, now does he? We wait to see it he will answer us about this matter.
Then he says:
“ because; 1) It was a baptism of repentance and not done in Jesus' name.
Well, again we notice that Mr. Hanson deliberately leaves out portions of God’s word that he does not like. He again says that John’s baptism was a baptism of repentance. And indeed it was but he does not want you to know that is was a “baptism of repentance FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Mark 1:4). He does not want you to know that because if it was for the remission of sins then there would have been no need for those who were baptized in the baptism of John prior to the death of Christ to be baptized again, now would there? The only one’s that had to be baptized again were those who had been baptized in the baptism of John after the resurrection of Christ. There is no evidence or reason to believe that those who had been baptized at the baptism of John prior to the death of Christ had to be baptized again. Those in Acts 19:1-6 were Ephesians and they were not subjects of John’s baptism prior to the death of Christ.
2) Jesus hadn't been raised yet to institute water baptism in His name.
In deed this is true which would only mean that any argument that men can be saved without submitting to the baptism of Christ because the “thief on the cross was not baptized” would be ridiculous. For those on this side of the resurrection are not in the same condition as the thief who was on the other side of the resurrection. For the thief died before Christ was raised from the dead. He died on the same day as Christ. Which would mean that he died before the baptism required by Christ in the great commission. This would mean that those of us under the New Covenant and the commission of Christ, which requires baptism, couldn’t be saved in the same way as the thief who, according to Mr. Hanson, was not required to be baptized? Now I believe that he was required to be baptized and we have no way f knowing whether he was or not. But he could have been and I have given evidence that Mr. Hanson ignored to discuss that indicates that he may have been baptized at the baptism of John. In either case, however, he was not under the same requirements as those of us under the New Testament.
Then he says something else he cannot prove:
“ 3) People who had, prior to the resurrection, participated in the baptism of repentance were re-baptized, after the resurrection in Jesus name.”
He cannot prove this from anything that the scriptures teach. WE can show that those who were baptized in the baptism of John after the resurrection of Christ we required to be baptized again in the name of Christ (Acts 19:1-6). But there is no evidence whatsoever that those who had been baptized at the baptism of John prior to the resurrection of Christ ever were required to be baptized again.
Then he says:
“The only conclusion we arrive at is that the thief, having the grace of God shown to him believes on Jesus and is told he will be in Paradise.”
Now, if this is the “only conclusion” that we can arrive at where is the proof of it? And if this is the only conclusion that Mr. Hanson can arrive at why does he preach another conclusion? Why does he conclude that the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized? For that is not a part of the “only conclusion” that he says “we” can arrive at? It is a fact that such is not the “only conclusion that we can arrive at, now isn’t it?
Then, after saying that the above is the “only conclusion we can arrive at” he draws yet another conclusion as follows:
“ This being accomplished, without the work of water baptism being observed under the New Covenant, and thus establishing from the very first convert the way in which God has chosen to redeem man.”
Now this is a completely different and other conclusion than the “only conclusion” that he claims he can arrive at. And he does not prove that the thief was never baptized in water for the remission of sins. And he has failed miserably to prove that the thief was the first person redeemed “under the New Covenant”. And he deliberately ignores that this thief was redeemed before Christ died which means that the New Covenant was not yet in effect. (Heb. 9:15). So he could not have been the first one redeemed under the new covenant. And there is absolutely no evidence that this thief was the “first convert “the way that God has chosen to redeem man”.
Mr. Hanson would have you to believe that the thief was saved under the New Covenant. But the Hebrew writer says otherwise (Heb. 9:15). I will believe the Holy Spirit who spoke through Hebrews instead of Mr. Hanson who speaks from his own imagination and his deliberate defiance of the commands and doctrine of Christ our Lord. For again it was Christ who said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved:” (Mark 16:16) And Peter said, “ Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001
John,It is not "me", as said. "My" sources were quoted. It is the original textAs I said, only in the vesre in question does "today" appear, so there is no precedence set for the placement of the comma.. Since the NIV and newer KJV were posted, now post the older KJV or YLT, WE, 5th century Syrian text translation, etc. What do they say? Do they agree or not?
Again, Paradise has not been restored.
-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001
John,As for the Witness beliefs, you said "C (and the Jehovah's Witnesses)", please note the quote I made refered to a Lexicon dated 1877, well before the Jehovah's Witnesses or thier forerunner, the Bible Students, had any impact on the way people viewed this verse.
-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001
John,Just for clarification, my original thoughts on the subject of "Paradise" began many years ago in the study of architecture. Specifically the architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright as he was influenced by his understanding of the Unitarian faith, of which this was a part. The Unitarians have been around much longer that "Jehovah's Witnesses", And. their beliefs have been around much longer that that. Albeit many beliefs have changed in the past 100 years also since combining with the Universalist.
-- Anonymous, June 17, 2001
To All:It has been asked:
"Now, unless Mr. Hanson can prove that this "thief" was never baptized at all in his life during this period of time he cannot prove that this thief was saved without being baptized."
Let us take a look. Mark 1:4,5
"John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, CONFESSING THEIR SINS."
Luke 3:8
"BRING FORTH THEREFORE FRUITS WORTHY OF REPENTANCE, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."
I suppose some will need a definition of REPENTANCE? To turn from your sin. John even goes on to state "bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance".
IF the THIEF on the cross had been baptized for the remission of sins and he had REPENTED then someone answer this question for me….
WHY WAS HE ON A CROSS AS A THIEF?????
If he had been baptized for the remission of sins, had repented of his sin and was living right, bearing fruits worthy of repentance - then any logical person would deduce that he would no longer be a thief. Yet the inspired words of Holy Writ call him a thief. He would NOT be a THIEF if he had REPENTED, he would be living righteously bearing the FRUIT of REPENTANCE, which would mean he would not be on the cross as one bearing fruit of UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.
It is obvious desperate people grasp at straws when their own theories do not pan out.
The THIEF on the cross was not baptized for the remission of his sins, the facts and evidence telling us he was still a thief, thus he was not saved because of his good works or acts of obedience but just as every person is redeemed, by grace through faith NOT of works lest any man should boast.
Thus we have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the THIEF on the cross had never been baptized for the remission of sins upon his REPENTING from his sin as he was not bringing forth the fruit of repentance. I will bolster my position with a quote from Mr. Saffold…
"And if their sins are not for given they will "die in their sins" and be lost eternally because they have not obeyed the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:8,9)."
It is something that Mr. Saffold would mention obeying the gospel and then contradict himself by saying that the man dying on the cross IS a thief. Either the "thief" was baptized for the remission of sins, REPENTED of his sin (which would include theft!) and then OBEYED THE GOSPEL (brought forth the fruit of repentance) or, he had not been baptized, repented, living right and was always a thief.
Yet we see him dying on a cross as a thief, which means he had NOT been baptized and repented of his sin. Either he was baptized and repented or he wasn't. The facts tell us, he did not repent was not bringing for the fruit of repentance, that would evidence a remission of sins, and thus was not water baptized.
According to Mr. Saffold, a person who does not obey the gospel is not saved, thus, the thief in not obeying (thou shalt not steal) has not been saved. Which means he was not water baptized, and even if he were water baptized, is proven to be a thief, and the baptism was not done in faith. Thus, the THIEF in not living in obedience has proven that he was not water baptized.
I could continue to belabor the point, however, it would be fruitless because this is not a forum for discussion but a medium of people bashing.
Someone may ask "people bashing"? You judge for yourself…Mr. Saffold writes…
"Then Mr. Hanson concludes from his above erroneous and ridiculous reasoning that the thief was redeemed under the New Testament rather than under the Old Testament."
Would a person who is interested in dialogue belittle others by claiming their reasoning is "ridiculous".
I believe that "fruit of righteousness" would be to love their neighbor as themselves, unless Mr. Saffold would like to characterize his own intelligence in such a derogatory manner I would suggest that Mr. Saffold has yet to obey the commandments of Jesus. Thus, according to his own logic, he is not a disciple of Christ because he has not purified his soul in obeying the truth via the command to love.
Also, I have requested that Mr. Saffold attempt to communicate in a respectful manner and apparently he is not capable - another failure to obey the command of Scripture?
1 Peter 3:15
"But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect"
I have amply proven the point. The THIEF had not produced fruit of righteousness that would evidence repentance following water baptism.
This evidence is strengthened by the FACT that Jesus did not institute baptism in His name until AFTER the resurrection.
To address this point of the testator being dead in order for the covenant to be in effect….Jesus had died BEFORE the thief…thus making the covenant in full effect! Simple enough. Jesus knew He would die first thus bringing the thief under the New Covenant and prompting Him to say, TODAY you will be with me in Paradise.
John 19:33
"But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:"
Mr. Saffold feels the need to continue to state his points with arrogance and harshness - perhaps a result of attempting to gain his salvation by good works? As the Scriptures plainly state "not of works, lest any man should boast" - their should be not hint of pride in our lives because we are incapable of working our way to heaven. Yet when one believes they have contributed, a sense of pride and arrogance wells up and we have boasting and the belittlement of others. I leave the decision to those with discernment to judge for themselves - who is showing the fruit of repentance in the simplest context of this conversation?
Next, I made the statement…
"People who had, prior to the resurrection, participated in the baptism of repentance were re-baptized, after the resurrection in Jesus name."
Then Mr. Saffold goes on to bolster my point with Scripture….Acts 19:1-6. These new believers had been baptized by John and Paul had to re-baptize them in Jesus' name.
Finally,Mr. Saffold I will ask you, refrain from the silly comments and stick to the point.
I can only continue to express to you the love of Christ. As I am deserving of punishment, but because of the Grace of God have received forgiveness for my sin through faith, I am no better than any other person on this planet and thus am extremely grateful.
In Christ's Love,
-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001
Mr. Saffold,I have taken some time today to respond to one of your messages on this thread, however, if you cannot communicate in a respectful manner I will have to do here what I have had to do on the other thread.
Thank you.
In Christ's Love,
-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001
Barry,How do you harmonize that the thief was told "that day" with the the Scriptures that say "that day" Jesus was dead? And for at least three days he was in "hell"? And that the kingdom (Acts) had not been establised according to his followers question of when it would be?
curious?
-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001
I realize that many will not agree with me on my position regarding this issue, but here it goes.Paradise, is what some have called "Abraham's Bosom".
"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."
I have made this connection.
One verse that sheds light on this subject is Ephesians 4:8-10
"Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)"
The Scriptures tell us that before Christ ascended He first descended and led captivity captive.
We have Abraham's bosom in close proximity of hell, as we learned from Jesus in his account of Lazarus. Those who died in faith before Christ went to Abraham's bosom or Paradise and awaited the time when Jesus came and led these in captivity to heaven. As Christ was in the grave 3 days - the former thief arrived in Paradise a very short time after Jesus and when Jesus led them to heaven the thief went with him.
And there is my 2 cents.
In Christ's love,
-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001
Mr. Hanson:You have said:
“Mr. Saffold, “I have taken some time today to respond to one of your messages on this thread,”
Well Mr. Hanson it is nice to talk with you again finally! We will give serious consideration to what you have said in response to one of our messages and it does not really matter to us whether you have chosen to be “respectful” or not. We will examine it to see if you have done a better job at offering some evidence to support your assertions in it than you have thus far in all of your other attempts to foster your false doctrines upon us.
Then you say: “ however, if you cannot communicate in a respectful manner I will have to do here what I have had to do on the other thread.”
Now, I have no idea what you are talking about with this statement. It is your perception that I have been disrespectful toward you. The truth is that I have no respect for your false doctrines that are contrary to the doctrine of Christ and never will. And if you expect that by “threatening” to “do here what you have done in some other unnamed thread” will change my disgust for your rebellion against Christ our Lord and the truth taught by Him you are woefully mistaken. You can do whatever you think you can, Mr. Hanson, but we will resist and refute your false doctrines as often as we have the opportunity and time to do so no matter what you do in any thread.
I am happy however that you appear at least to have recovered from your delusional state wherein you had deceived yourself into believing that you had an experience with the Holy Spirit wherein he supposedly filled you with “his overwhelming love”! Ha! Now that you have realized the futile pathetic uselessness of that particular tactic and that it did not work out so well I am eager to see just how well your new tactic of misrepresentation, anger, and innuendo will work! At least I will say that the honesty of that tactic will surely be far more refreshing than the hypocrisy of your previous one!
For Christ and those who love the truth in Him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001
C;Your objection to Jesus being in Paradise/Heaven and being in "Hell" at the same time stem from two things: your misunderstanding of the concepts of Paradise, heaven, hell and hades, as Barry has pointed out, and not remembering (or perhaps not accepting) that Jesus is God, and therefore possesses the attribute of Omnipresence. ("Wherever two or more are gathered together in my name, there I am ...") Therefore he could easily be in Paradise with the Thief and simultaneously in "Hell" if he so chose. (If you do not believe Jesus was God made manifest, then I stand with F.F. Bruce and say, "Your God is too small.")
As far as Paradise being a future earthly place, the apostle Paul refutes that when he talks of a man (most likely himself, using a modest tone speaking in the third person), who was caught up to Paradise. He did not speak of it as being a future event, some sort of time travel, but a present actuality. He also says that this Paradise he was at was the "third heaven." Three things are called heaven in Scripture. The first heaven being the atmosphere, the second being the starry host, the third being God's dwellingplace.
-- Anonymous, June 18, 2001
Brethren and Friends:Mr. Hanson has addressed us all in an attempt to prove that the thief on the cross was not ever baptized at either the baptism of John or by the Disciples of Christ. (John4: 2). He quotes my word as follows:
“To All: It has been asked: "Now, unless Mr. Hanson can prove that this "thief" was never baptized at all in his life during this period of time he cannot prove that this thief was saved without being baptized."
Now in the above quotation of my words I have stated that if Mr. Hanson cannot prove that this thief was never baptized in his entire life then he cannot prove that the thief was saved without being baptized. And to this Mr. Hanson obviously agrees for he sets out to do that which he agrees that he must do in order to prove that the thief was saved without being baptized. Let us now examine his efforts and see how well he has “proven” that the thief was NEVER baptized by anyone in his entire life.
He begins by quoting the following verse of scripture:
“Let us take a look. Mark 1:4,5 "John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, CONFESSING THEIR SINS."
Well, does this passage prove that the thief was not among those who were baptized by John confessing their sins? No, it does not. It only shows that which Mr. Hanson does not believe. He does not believe that baptism can be “for the remission of sins” now doesn’t he? But he quotes for us a passage that demonstrates that John’s baptism was indeed for the remission of sins even though he does not believe it to be true. Maybe he will tell us. If the thief had been baptized would he have received the remission of his sins as that was the purpose of this baptism?
Then he quotes Luke as follows:
“Luke 3:8 "BRING FORTH THEREFORE FRUITS WORTHY OF REPENTANCE, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham."
Again does this verse say that John the Baptist or Christ disciples never baptized the thief for the remission of sins? No, it does not. It only gives further emphasis to the fact that John’s baptism was to be combined with repentance for the remission of sins just as is the baptism under the commission of Christ. For Peter said, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS.” (Acts 2:38).
But he makes the following unfounded inferences from these two verses as follows:
“I suppose some will need a definition of REPENTANCE? To turn from your sin. John even goes on to state "bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance".”
Well, again Mr. Hanson is wrong. WE really did not fail to understand the definition of repentance. We do indeed know and agree that it means to “turn from your sins”. But does this fact prove that the thief was not baptized at the baptism of John? Does it prove that he had never turned from his sins? When we turn from our sins God will forgive us there is no doubt. But if our sins involved breaking the just laws of society our repentance, though gaining for us the mercy and forgiveness of God will not necessarily gain for us the forgiveness of the law of men in society. We may still be required to “pay the utmost fathering” of any debt that we owe society. And God has not promised to spare us from the judgement of men in this regard, now has he? So, the fact that this thief was punished by the society in which he lived for crimes that God may have forgiven him for having committed if he had been baptized of John. It would not prove that he had not repented or that he had never been baptized, now would it? It would only prove that he was punished by man for crimes that God had forgiven him for having committed. So, the thief’s punishment is no evidence that he had not heard John the Baptist or Christ preach, repented and was baptized in accordance with their teaching, now is it?
But despite this obvious truth Mr. Hanson says:
“IF the THIEF on the cross had been baptized for the remission of sins and he had REPENTED then someone answer this question for me…. WHY WAS HE ON A CROSS AS A THIEF?????”
Well Mr. Hanson, though we have answered this for you in our above comments, as well as in our original post concerning this subject which you conveniently ignored we will answer it for you yet again. He was on the cross as a thief because he had been guilty of stealing, as he himself stated that he was being punished justly while stating that “this man (Christ) had done nothing amiss”. This thief was indeed guilty of stealing and was being punished for having committed that Crime. And that is why he was on the cross AS A THIEF! For the simple fact that he had been a thief. The thief himself admits as much, which is something that impenitent men do not generally do unless they are forced to. But this does not prove that he had not repented of the crimes he had committed and was baptized by John the Baptist, his disciples or by Christ through his disciples for the remission of sins (Mark 1:4; John 4:2) now does it? It only proves that even if the thief had repented and had been baptized by John and God had forgiven him and he was now living right. Such repentance and baptism though it would obtain God’s forgiveness it would not prevent the Roman government. A government which was not only capable of crucifying an innocent man but was also capable of refusing to forgive a guilty man who had repented. We must not forget that the Roman government was opposed to the concept of forgiveness and the Christian ideas of forgiveness and offering mercy to the penitent. They were punishing men they perceived as having been criminals for crimes they were convinced that they had committed. It is entirely possible that this thief could have repented, submitted to the baptism of John and in his very act of repentance made himself known as a thief to the authorities and was found guilty and though God forgave him men did not. No one can prove that this was not possible or that it could not have occurred, now can they? So Mr. Hanson, the thief was on the cross as a thief because that is the crime that he was not only guilty of having committed. But it was also one that he was found to have been guilty of by the government of Rome and he was receiving the punishment required by law for his crime. It is indeed that simple. But because he was punished for that Crime does not prove that he had not repented of having committed it along with his other sins that he could have confessed at the baptism of John. In fact does Luke not tell us that the people were baptized of John “CONFESSING THEIR SINS”? And is it not possible that in the process of confessing their sins they also would confess certain crimes as well? And is it not possible that the authorities could have found this to be a convenient time, place and means of convicting some of them of crimes especially if they were trying to hinder the work of John, Christ and their disciples? Thus it could have been, and neither Mr. Hanson nor I can know whether this happened or not, now can we? We do not know and cannot know for God does not reveal it to us. We cannot know, and therefore cannot confidently deny the possibility that this very thief was found out to be a thief by virtue of the fact that when coming to the baptism of John or submitting to baptism under Christ disciples he confessed that he was a thief. And having done so it may have been found out by the authorities and he was taken by the them judged and condemned to die for his crime of which his own confession had proven him guilty? The fact that he was a thief and that he even admits his own guilt on the cross may or may not be just another good reason for thinking that he may have indeed been baptized at the baptism of John! But it definitely does not PROVE “beyond any doubt” as Mr. Hanson would like to believe that he “was not ever baptized” now does it?
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“If he had been baptized for the remission of sins, had repented of his sin and was living right, bearing fruits worthy of repentance - then any logical person would deduce that he would no longer be a thief.”
Now, we have shown how the fact that this thief may have no longer in the eyes of God been living the life of a thief he was nevertheless, because of his guilt crucified as a thief in the eyes of the Roman government. And the inspired word of God calls him exactly what he was. He was a thief. And the word of God calls him this because of its accuracy in stating the reason why he was on the cross. He was indeed crucified because he was a thief.
Then he says:
“ Yet the inspired words of Holy Writ call him a thief.”
Indeed he is called accurately by the word of God a thief. And no one denies it. But this fact does not prove that he had never been baptized in his life by either Christ disciples or the disciples of John now does it? For such were some of us who are now Christians and though we have repented of our sins and been baptized is it not possible that the government could yet prosecute us for crimes that we committed before that time if the “statue of limitations” has not expired? In fact, would is it not possible that we could in the process of seeking to make restitution for our past crimes that we could be proven to have been guilty of crimes by our own admission. And renewed commitment to telling the truth and be punished by a government that does not have “forgiveness” at the forefront of it’s system of justice? And if anyone were to give an accurate accounting of our punishment for the crime would they not justly call us a thief even though we had repented? And God was giving an inspired historically accurate account of what happened on that day and was therefore correct in stating that this man was a thief and the fact that he had repented would not change that in the least as far as the historical record was concerned. One could not go back over the Roman files and find a record of the punishment of a man who was a “penitent thief” but one who was in fact a thief.
But Mr. Hanson goes on to explain why he thinks the fact that God’s inspired word calls him a thief is proof that the thief could not have repented and been baptized as follows:
“ He would NOT be a THIEF if he had REPENTED, he would be living righteously bearing the FRUIT of REPENTANCE, which would mean he would not be on the cross as one bearing fruit of UNRIGHTEOUSNESS.”
Indeed this is true but only if he remained faithful to his new course of life that began with his repentance and baptism. This man, if he had repented and if he were living righteously bearing the fruit of righteousness would not actually BE a thief anymore. But he could still, because of his past life and in the context of explaining the reason he was being crucified be accurately described as a thief. Much like a person today can be called a convicted felon even after he had paid his debt to society especially in the context of explaining his being punished for something he had done in his past that had for years gone unnoticed until he had repented and confessed it.
But Mr. Hanson overlooks yet anther possibility with his above statement. For he says if this thief had repented he would be living righteously”. How does he know that to be truth? He would have been living righteously if he had not repented and turned back to his old ways some time afterward! His turning back to his old ways some time after his repentance does not mean that he never repented in the first place now does it? Well, we do not know how long it may have been from his possible repentance and baptism to his being found guilty of a crime and his being punished for it. He may have sincerely repented and was baptized and then later fell back into his old habits of life. We have an example of this happening to Simon in Acts 8. Read it for yourself.
“But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: To whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God. And to him they had regard, because that of long time he had bewitched them with sorceries. But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs, which were done. Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they [their] hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and [in] the bond of iniquity. Then answered Simon, and said, Pray ye to the Lord for me, that none of these things which ye have spoken come upon me.” (Acts 8:9-24).
Now from this example we see that Simon was baptized. And from the fact that under the gospel those who were proper subjects of baptism were those who had rented of their sins (Acts 2:38). It is clear that Simon had repented of his sins and was baptized just as were all of the Samaritans to whom Phillip had preached the gospel. And Simon was the kind of man that liked to put himself forth as being the “great power of God”. And we see that after he had been converted and had received the Holy Spirit through the laying on of the apostles hands he still fell back into his old habits of thinking and attempted to by the “gift of God with money”. Now the fact that he had repented and had been converted and was baptized did not prevent him from turning back to his former sinful habits of thought. Now did it?
Therefore, even if this man had repented and been baptized at John’s baptism would not have necessarily prevented him from turning back into his old sinful life and actually return to being a thief now would it? But his words to Christ on the cross, which we have explained and Mr. Hanson has failed to respond to indicate quite a bit of knowledge by this thief about Christ. And his coming kingdom and that the thief had reason to believe that Christ might remember him when he came into it. Is not even remotely possible that this thief could have been baptized at the baptism of John and later turned back to his old ways? Such things happen every day. Why would it have been impossible for this thief to have actually been a thief who had been baptized at the baptism of John and later turned back to a life of Crime and was now being punished for it? And he then asks Christ to remember him when he comes into his kingdom? Now, I cannot prove any of these possibilities. I have said as much in my previous post. But they are possibilities and unless and until Mr. Hanson or anyone else can prove that such was IMPOSSIBLE they cannot prove that this thief had never been baptized. I cannot prove that the thief was baptized. But I am not arguing that he was saved because he was baptized at the baptism of John. I have only stated that no one can affirm and prove that the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized. For no one can prove that he was not baptized. And Mr. Hanson has made a feeble effort to do so but has failed miserably. For just the fact that he was crucified as a thief does not prove that he had never been baptized in his life, now does it?
For Christ and those who love the truth in him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001
Brethren and Friends I now continue and complete my response to Mr. Hanson's post as follows:Then Mr. Hanson says:
“It is obvious desperate people grasp at straws when their own theories do not pan out.”
Indeed this is true. For that is the reason why men grasp at the straw that the thief on the cross was saved without being baptized even though there is no evidence that he was never baptized. For their human theories that we are saved by faith ONLY just do not “pan out” do they? But we are not grasping at any straws in this case. We are simply asking our friends who have made the statement that the thief had never been baptized to prove that it is true. For we are more than willing to accept that such may be the case and even if it were it would not change the fact that we must be baptized for the remission of sins. For the scriptures say, “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38) And Christ said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”. (Mark 16:16) So after the resurrection of Christ he stated that he would save those who believed and were baptized. And he did not promise to save anyone without baptism. And he did not point to the thief and say I will save you like he was saved without being baptized, now did he? It just might be that he knew that the thief had been baptized. But we do not know and neither does Mr. Hanson or anyone else whether the thief on the cross was baptized or not. But if one is going to tell their fellowmen, family, friends and relatives that they can be saved without being baptized as the Lord Commanded them to do. Because the thief on the cross was saved and he was not baptized. They had better be able to prove not only that the thief was NEVER baptized, they must also be able to prove that Christ will save anyone else in the same way today even though he said, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” (Mark 16:16).
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“The THIEF on the cross was not baptized for the remission of his sins, the facts and evidence telling us he was still a thief,”
Well again Mr. Hanson speaks without offering any evidence to prove his point. As we have shown above the fact that he was a thief does not prove that he had never in his life repented and submitted to baptism at either the hands of the disciples of John or Christ. AS we have stated he could have repented and been baptized for the remission of sins and still have been called a thief in the context of describing why he was crucified on the cross. For repentance brings the forgiveness of God but it will not release anyone from their responsibility before the Law of the land for crime committed though they had long since repented of them. Or he could have repented and been baptized for the remission of sins and later returned to his old habits of life and was caught and crucified for his crimes.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ thus he was not saved because of his good works or acts of obedience” No one is talking about the thief being saved by “good works” nor are we talking about his being saved by “acts of obedience alone. WE are discussing whether Mr. Hanson can prove that the thief was saved without having been baptized. And he has yet to prove to us that this thief could never under any circumstances whatsoever been baptized at the baptism of John. He has tried and though his efforts were feeble they were sincere. But they just do not prove that the thief could never have been baptized at John’s baptism. Now do they.
Then he says more that he cannot prove:
“ but just as every person is redeemed, by grace through faith NOT of works lest any man should boast.”
Indeed when we by faith obey the command of Christ to be baptized we are saved by “faith through Grace”. If we look at the fact that Ephesians 2:8 says, “by grace are ye saved through faith”. Then we look to how the Ephesians were saved “by grace through faith” we find that it included baptism. Read it for yourself. Look at acts 19:1-6 when the Ephesians were “saved by grace through faith”. There we are told of a man who had come to Ephesus teaching the baptism of John long after the resurrection of Christ and his commanding that men be baptized in his name had been in effect.
“And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, [and] mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus. This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John. And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Pricilla had heard, they took him unto [them], and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace: For he mightily convinced the Jews, [and that] publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.” (Acts 18:24-28).
Now this was proof that long after Christ had given the great commission and the baptism of John was not longer in effect there were still men who had been baptized at the baptism of John still teaching it for they knew nothing else. Apollos was one of these teachers. And we are told that Pricilla and Aquilla taught him the way of the Lord more perfectly but nothing is said that he had to be baptized again, absolutely nothing. And we do not know but this could have been because he had been baptized during the time when the baptism of John was in effect and it was God’s will those men so be baptized. For God would not promise them remission of sins upon being baptized by John and then not fulfill his promise, now would he. But God, after the resurrection of Christ promised the remission of sins only to those who would “repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38). And thus those baptized in the baptism of John without being baptized in the name of Christ would no longer be granted the forgiveness of their sins. And for this reason it would be necessary for Christians to correct those who were still baptizing according to John’s baptism after the baptism in the name of Christ was required. But, as in the case here of Apollos they would not have to baptism them again if they had been baptized at the baptism of John before Christ died and was raised and instituted baptism in the name Christ.
But in the next chapter Paul also runs into some people who had been baptized in the baptism of John. And these most likely were among those who had been taught by Apollos at Ephesus the baptism of John only. This is what the inspired record tells us of how they were saved by grace through faith.
“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples, He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost. And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism. Then said Paul; John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him, which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid [his] hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.” (Acts 19:1-6).
Now here Paul finds some more disciples. And he asked them, “have ye received the Holy Spirit since ye believed? And they said that they had not even heard that there was a Holy Spirit! And then Paul recognized immediately that something was wrong with their baptism! SO he asked, “unto what then were ye baptized? And they said JOHN”S BAPTISM. And Paul said to them that “John verily baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him that is on Jesus Christ. Then when they heard this they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they received the Holy Spirit after Paul laid his hands upon them.
Now these disciples, who may have been taught by Apollos or someone else like him, were required to be baptized in the name of Christ for it is very likely that they had been baptized in the baptism of John after it had no longer been in effect. Thus we have Apollos who was taught the way of the Lord more perfectly who was not, as far as the record is concerned required to be baptized again. And these in Ephesus who were “saved by grace through faith” according to Paul’s words to them (Eph. 2:8) when they were baptized in the name of Christ. Thus when we look at how the Ephesians were originally converted or “saved by grace through faith” in Acts 19:1-6 we see that it was when they were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. So if you want to be saved by Grace through faith as were the Ephesians to who Paul wrote the words, “by grace are ye saved through faith” (Eph. 2:8) you must be baptized in the name of Christ for that is how they were saved by grace through faith. You cannot do it, as Mr. Hanson would have you to do it. You cannot be saved by grace through “faith ONLY” as Mr. Hanson falsely teaches.
Then M. Hanson is very proud of his feeble attempt to prove that the thief was NEVER baptized as follows:
“Thus we have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the THIEF on the cross had never been baptized for the remission of sins upon his REPENTING from his sin as he was not bringing forth the fruit of repentance.”
Well, we can see that Mr. Hanson has adamantly affirmed his above statement but we do not have from him any proof at all much less proof “beyond a shadow of doubt”! For we have shown from our above response to his nonsense on the thief that his assumptions are without any basis in fact whatsoever. His only argument is that because the thief was a thief he could not have ever been baptized in his life! Now that is circular reasoning. He says the thief was never baptized. And we asked how do you know and he says because he was a thief. And the assumption is that we would all just know that it is impossible for a person who is a thief to have ever repented in his lifetime! And if we ask how do you know that he had never been baptized again we are told that he was a thief. And no thief could have ever been baptized by John the Baptist least of all the thief that Mr. Hanson. Who is so desperately grasping at straws must be able to use to support his false doctrine of salvation by faith ONLY. For he cannot possibly admit that his foolish contention that man can be saved without obeying the Lord’s command to be baptized is based upon the assumption that this thief had never been baptized. And when he is asked to prove that the thief had never been baptized the only reason he can give is that he was a thief. But the fact that he was a thief proves nothing at all about whether he had ever in his lifetime repented of being a thief and it certainly proves nothing about whether he had ever been baptized. AS we have shown above. There is no proof that this thief had not repented and was baptized and later convinced of these crimes by the Romans and punished for them even though he had been forgiven by God.
And we have further shown that is very possible that this thief had genuinely repented, was baptized and forgiven and later turned back to his life of crime. And unless Mr. Hanson can prove that these things could not ever under any circumstance have actually occurred then he has not removed all “shadow of doubt” as he pretends and imagines that he has done.
Then he says:
“ I will bolster my position with a quote from Mr. Saffold… "And if their sins are not for given they will "die in their sins" and be lost eternally because they have not obeyed the gospel. (2 Thess. 1:8,9)."
Now that is funny! I do not have a sense of humor at all but this one does make me laugh! Indeed it is true that if ones sins are not forgiven they will indeed die in their sins. But that does not bolster Mr. Hanson’s position concerning his assertion that the thief on the cross had never been baptized in the least. For he has not proven that the thief had never repented of his sins and that he had never been baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins.
And it does not bolster his position that we are saved by grace through faith ONLY either. SO we cannot see how this passage could “bolster any of Mr. Hanson's affirmations concerning the thief. In fact, it disproves his notions. For if the thief had never repented he would have died in his sins for Christ will not forgive the impenitent sinner. Yet Mr. Hanson claims that the thief was SAVED. Therefore even he must admit that this thief had REPENTED even though he is still called by the inspired word of God a “thief”! It is indeed funny how the legs of the lame are often unequal, isn’t it? He says the thief was called a thief therefore he could not have repented. And then he seeks to “bolster his argument from “Mr. Saffold” who quoted Jesus who said “if their sins are not forgiven they will die in their sins” Even though he argues that the thief was saved. Was he saved without being forgiven Mr. Hanson? Was he forgiven without repenting of his sins? No, Mr. Hanson the fact that he was saved is proof enough in itself that he had repented of his sins and it is also a strong reason to believe that he may have repented at the baptism of John. Now we do not know when he repented we only know that he did repent. For Christ said, “I tell you nay, but except ye repent ye shall all like wise perish” (Luke 13:3-5) And we are told, that Christ commands all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30) and all men every where would include the thief on the cross. And the problem is that Mr. Hanson spends a lot of time claiming that the thief could not have repented because was on the cross as a thief. But he adamantly affirms that he was saved. Are we to conclude that this man was saved without repenting of his sins? And if he could not be saved without repenting of his sins how does Mr. Hanson know when he repented of his sins? He could have repented long before he ever went to the cross if he had confessed his sins at the baptism of John and Mr. Hanson is helpless to prove that it was impossible, now isn’t he?
Then he says:
“It is something that Mr. Saffold would mention obeying the gospel and then contradict himself by saying that the man dying on the cross IS a thief.”
There is no contradiction here. It is possible, as I have explained above that the thief had repented and been baptized at the baptism of John and later fell back into his old sins. And thus he would actually be a thief on the cross. And it is also possible that he had repented and confessed his sin at the baptism of John. And that he was crucified as a thief and the inspired record accurately describes the facts concerning why the authorities crucified him as a thief even though God had forgiven him of his sins prior to that time. For the fact that he was forgiven would not prevent his being punished for his crimes and his being punished as a thief. And there is no way that God could have told us why this person was being crucified without telling the truth that he was crucified as a thief. But this fact would not mean that he had not repented and that he had never been baptized for the remission of sins at the baptism of John.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“Either the "thief" was baptized for the remission of sins, REPENTED of his sin (which would include theft!) and then OBEYED THE GOSPEL (brought forth the fruit of repentance) or, he had not been baptized, repented, living right and was always a thief.”
Our above argument sufficiently deals with this. It is also perfectly possible that the thief repented and was baptized for the remission of sins was forgiven and later punished for crimes that he had long since repented for having committed. And it is also possible that he repented and was baptized for the remission of sins and later returned to his sinful life like Simon the sorcerer and was then turned to Christ on the cross penitently for forgiveness. WE do not know. But one thing is for certain; Mr. Hanson is a long way from proving that this is impossible. And the fact that the thief is called a thief does nothing to make these possibilities impossible! The two possibilities offered by Mr. Hanson that is listed above are not the only possibilities that are available now are they?
Then he says:
“Yet we see him dying on a cross as a thief, which means he had NOT been baptized and repented of his sin.”
Again we have show this to be false to the core. The fact that he was dying as a thief does not mean he HAD NOT repented and that he had NEVER BEEN BAPTISED at the baptism of John now does it? For what if he had at one time repented and was baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins and then later returned to his life as a thief? Is it impossible that he would be dying on the cross as a thief if this happened? Is it impossible that this happened? If it is impossible we have not heard any proof of it from Mr. Hanson, now have we?
And do not forget that Mr. Hanson contends that this thief was saved on the cross, doesn’t he? Is he therefore contending that this thief was saved without even repenting of his sins? And if he did repent of his sins can Mr. Hanson prove to us WHEN he repented?
Then Mr. Hanson speaks profoundly as follow:
“ Either he was baptized and repented or he wasn't.”
Now there is a brilliant piece of work isn’t it brethren? Why that is so brilliant that everyone simply must agree! Indeed we do agree! Either he was baptized or he wasn’t. Now that is a fact! And the truth is that neither Mr. Hanson nor myself can prove which one it is, now can we? But in order for Mr. Hanson to claim that people today can be saved without being baptized “LIKE THE THIEF ON THE CROSS” he must prove that the thief could not have been and never was baptized. And thus far he has failed miserably to do so.
Then Mr. Hanson says: “ The facts tell us, he did not repent was not bringing for the fruit of repentance, that would evidence a remission of sins, and thus was not water baptized.”
What facts tell us this Mr. Hanson? You have not pointed to any facts, which conclusively demonstrate that the thief never repented and was never baptized. And even you say he was saved. Was he saved without even repenting for having lived the life of a thief? I do not think so. For Christ demands repentance of every man even the thief. SO do tell us Mr. Hanson how this thief could be saved without repentance and prove to us that he had NEVER REPENTED. Where are the so-called “facts” that prove the thief was saved while he was an impenitent sinner. And explain the justice of God in saving one impenitent sinner on one side of the cross and neglecting to save the other impenitent sinner on the other side.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“According to Mr. Saffold, a person who does not obey the gospel is not saved, thus, the thief in not obeying (thou shalt not steal) has not been saved.”
“No my friends it is not “according to Mr. Saffold. It is according to the word of God. For we are told, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;”
And this refers to those who lived after Christ was raised from the dead and the gospel began to be preached beginning at Jerusalem. (Luke 24:44-49). It does not apply to the thief who lived under the old Covenant as we have already discussed. But that does not change the fact that the baptism of John was required of men during the time that this thief lived. For we are told that those who rejected Johns baptism rejected the “counsel of God against themselves. (Luke 7:29,30).
But Mr. Hanson fails to understand what the gospel is. “Thou shalt not steal is not a part of the gospel of Christ it is from the Law of Moses. Indeed under the Law of Christ or the LAW of faith (Romans 3:27) Christians are forbidden to steal. But “thou shalt not steal is not the gospel of Christ. Paul tells us what the Gospel is as follows:
“Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:” (1 Cor. 15:1-4). Thus when one obeys the gospel of Christ he must obey the “death burial and resurrection of Christ and there is only one way to do that as were are told by Paul in Romans 6:3-6; 16-18. When we are baptized we are buried with Christ and raised with him to walk a new life. But the thief was not required under the Old Testament law to “obey the gospel”.
So even though he had sinned by stealing he could have repented and been baptized for the remission of sins at the baptism of John. And the fact, as we have shown above that he was crucified as a thief does not prevent this at all. In fact, is it not interesting that the thief does not ask Christ to SAVE him? He says to Christ, “LORD” now how did this thief know Christ was LORD? And he, instead of saying "SAVE ME" he says “remember me”? Why would this thief have any expectation that a total stranger should remember him? And then he says, “when thou comest into thy kingdom” Now how did the thief know that Christ had a kingdom and that he was coming into it even though he was dying on the cross? No, my friends there is entirely too much knowledge here concerning Christ and his mission for this thief to have been one who had never heard at least the preaching of either John the Baptist, Christ, or their disciples. And if he believed those things so that he would depend upon them at his death is it not at least possible that the thief could have been baptized at the baptism of John for the remission of sins? One thing is certain, no one can prove that this is impossible and Mr. Hanson has not given us any good reasons to believe that the thief was never baptized. We have neither need nor any reason to believe that he was baptized but Mr. Hanson desperately needs to prove that he was not. For his false doctrine that men can be saved today without being baptized just like the thief on the cross depends upon it.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“Which means he was not water baptized,”
It means no such thing. If a man steals some thing after having been baptized doe s that mean he had never been baptized at all? No it does not. And it does not mean that his baptism was insincere necessarily either. For men have often proven that they can be very sincere and filled with faith today and later be quite the opposite, can’t they?
Then he says:
“and even if he were water baptized, is proven to be a thief, and the baptism was not done in faith.”
This is not true either as we have shown from the example of Simon above. For the scriptures says he believed (meaning he had faith) and he was baptized (Acts 8:9-12) and he later sinned by seeking to buy the gift of God with money and was in the “gall of bitterness and the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:9-24). SO the fact that one is baptized and later is proven to have sinned in any way, including being a thief does not prove that his baptism was not done in faith. For Simon was baptized in faith and later sinned. And the thief on the cross could have done the same thing for all that Mr. Hanson knows and has been able to demonstrate to us in his response.
Then he becomes delusional again as follows:
“ Thus, the THIEF in not living in obedience has proven that he was not water baptized.”
Hogwash! Mr. Hanson just because one turns from the faith does not prove he had never been baptized! Now that argument is so pathetic that it hardly deserves any response. Living in disobedience would not prove anything about whether one has been baptized or not. It may well prove that he is not faithful to his original determination to serve Christ but it does not prove he was never baptized.
“I could continue to belabor the point, however, it would be fruitless because this is not a forum for discussion but a medium of people bashing.”
Nonsense Mr. Hanson! The reason you do not continue to “belabor” the point is that you have only made one argument to prove that the thief was never baptized and it is tantamount to the fact that he was a thief is proof that he could never have been baptized. And the reason you cannot discuss it further is that you have run out of things to say and you are tired of repeating the same old helpless argument over and over. And we are thankful that you have finally gotten tired of repeating your futile argument knowing al along while repeating it that it is so easily answered! Ha!
No, Mr. Hanson this forum is indeed a discussion forum and the only thing being bashed in our discussion is your pathetic arguments and feeble attempts to support the erroneous false doctrine of salvation by faith ONLY. I have said nothing personally about you in this forum except the one time that you lied to us and that was not personal by informative.
Then you say:
“Someone may ask "people bashing"? You judge for yourself…Mr. Saffold writes… "Then Mr. Hanson concludes from his above erroneous and ridiculous reasoning that the thief was redeemed under the New Testament rather than under the Old Testament."
Now that is a good example of how wrong you are about people bashing. Yes friends read what I said to Mr. Hanson. I did not “bash Mr. Hanson you will notice that I bashed his argument. I said, “Then Mr. Hanson concludes from his above erroneous and ridiculous REASONING…” I did not bash the person of Mr. Hanson but rather the reasoning or argument of Mr. Hanson. And in doing so I spoke the truth about his arguments.
But Mr. Hanson thinks that I belittled him because I belittled his reasoning.
“Would a person who is interested in dialogue belittle others by claiming their reasoning is "ridiculous". “
Yes indeed a person who is interested in “dialogue” is very much willing to belittle those who pretend to want dialogue but then avoid it by being ridiculous in their reasoning as Mr. Hanson has often done. And every time you reason in a ridiculous manner Mr. Hanson I will call it what it is. But remember it is not your person that I am attacking but your reasoning.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“I believe that "fruit of righteousness" would be to love their neighbor as themselves, unless Mr. Saffold would like to characterize his own intelligence in such a derogatory manner I would suggest that Mr. Saffold has yet to obey the commandments of Jesus.”
Mr. Hanson, I have often characterized even my own reasoning when I found it to be ridiculous in very derogatory and truthful terminology. Because the one thing that a man can easily do is to become so proud of his intellect that he can miss the truth by a mile if he is too proud to admit when his reasoning is ridiculous. So, yes, anytime that my reasoning proves to be ridiculous I would appreciate anyone telling me that it is ridiculous if they are willing to take the time to show me why it is ridiculous. You are welcome to refer to my reasoning in the same manner but I will expect you to follow it with evidence that makes you believe it is such. That is what I do to others, including you and I do not expect anyone else to treat me any differently. SO, the fact is that Mr. Saffold has indeed followed the commands of Jesus. For I am indeed treating others the way I would like to be treated. I would appreciate others who would care enough to stay up late at night and find ways in which my reasoning is flawed or even ridiculous and spend time to show me the way of the Lord More perfectly. And the fact that you do not appreciate such is only a reflection upon your self- centered nature. You are more concerned with yourself and how you are being treated than you are in the truth and how it is being treated.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ Thus, according to his own logic, he is not a disciple of Christ because he has not purified his soul in obeying the truth via the command to love.”
Oh, I do love and I obey the command to love all the time Mr. Hanson especially when I spend these later hours writing to correct your pathetic errors. It is love for God, Christ, and the truth and the doctrine of Christ and the cause of Christ and all of the lost men of the world and the church and my brethren that moves me to write these things. But I would not expect you to understand love from that perspective. All you can see is that “sweetness is love”. But the truth is that love is often self-sacrificing and stern!
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“Also, I have requested that Mr. Saffold attempt to communicate in a respectful manner and apparently he is not capable - another failure to obey the command of Scripture?”
Mr. Hanson I am communicating in a correct manner and my respect is reserved for the truth. No man who shows disrespect toward the doctrine of Christ is going to be approached in a respectful manner by those who love the truth. Indeed it may be true that I am just not “capable” of showing great respect for one that despises the truth and the doctrine of Christ as those who teach false doctrines. 1 Peter 3:15 "But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" Now the above passage is referring to how we are to treat honest persons who ask us for a reason for the hope that is in us. It is not referring to how we are to treat false teachers who come to us in “sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are raving wolves”. For we are told how we are to behave toward those who do not bring the doctrine of Christ as follow:
“Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into [your] house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.” (2 John 9-11). So, Mr. Hanson should not expect that we will “bid him Godspeed” for we will not be a partaker in his evil deeds.
Then he says:
“I have amply proven the point.”
No Mr. Hanson you are imagining things again. You have proven nothing but that you are incapable of proving anything.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ The THIEF had not produced fruit of righteousness that would evidence repentance following water baptism.”
The thief may have produced much fruit of righteousness that you know nothing about Mr. Hanson before he returned to his life of crime. And even you admit that he was saved but you forget that no one will be saved from sins without repenting that they may be blotted out (Acts 3:19; Luke 13:3; Acts 17:30). So your assumptions about “fruit” are barren and “fruitless” indeed!
Then he says:
“This evidence is strengthened by the FACT that Jesus did not institute baptism in His name until AFTER the resurrection.”
This proves nothing about whether the thief on the cross was baptized or not and therefore cannot strengthen your feeble argument in any way whatsoever. It is true that Christ did not institute baptism in his name until AFTER his resurrection. But God did send John the Baptist to prepare the way of the Lord and make his paths straight. And he came preaching a repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand and he cam baptizing “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4) and Christ baptized more disciples than John (John 4:2) so there was a lot of baptizing going on during the ministry of John and Christ. And after the resurrection that same baptism in water became essential to salvation (Mark 16:16) and required the same “repentance and baptism for the remission of sins. The primary difference was that now it was being done in the name of the father, son and Holy Spirit.
Then Mr. Hanson continues:
“To address this point of the testator being dead in order for the covenant to be in effect….Jesus had died BEFORE the thief…thus making the covenant in full effect!”
Now this pathetic argument is so foolish and indeed ridiculous that it is hard to respond without breaking out in a burst of laughter! The thief was saved before our lord died on the cross. Indeed Christ died before the thief but he said “this day thou shalt be with me in paradise BEFORE HE DIED now didn’t he? And if that statement was a promise of salvation as you claim that it is then the thief was saved before Christ died, now wasn’t he? I would characterize your above argument as down right STUPID!
Then Mr. Hanson continues his absurdities:
“ Simple enough. Jesus knew He would die first thus bringing the thief under the New Covenant and prompting Him to say, TODAY you will be with me in Paradise.”
Hogwash! Tell us Mr. Hanson, according to your false doctrine, the thief would have been saved the “moment he believed”. Was this the case with this thief? Was he saved according to your false doctrine of salvation by faith only the moment that he believed? If so then he was saved before Christ died. But the truth is that you have not proven that he could not have been saved before he even came to the cross by repenting and being baptized at the baptism of John. And you have not proven that he was not saved when Jesus said this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. Were those words from Christ a promise of salvation or not? If it was then it is obvious to any thinking person that Christ said those words while he was yet alive, didn’t he?
Then Mr. Hanson continues:
“John 19:33 "But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:"
This only proves that Christ died before the thief it does not prove that Christ did not save the thief before he died, now does it?
Then we are back to Mr. Hanson's false accusations as follows:
“Mr. Saffold feels the need to continue to state his points with arrogance and harshness - perhaps a result of attempting to gain his salvation by good works?”
No, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Saffold is not seeking any salvation by good works alone. He is seeking it the way the scriptures teach him to seek it by a living faith that is wrought with works and perfects it. (James 2:22) For we are told that Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that obey him (Heb. 5:8,9). And ye see then how that by works a man is justified and not by faith only” (James 2:24). Mr. Saffold has been save in obedience to the gospel of Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4) as we all those who in the new testament received the remission of sins by “repenting and being baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). And he is not expecting to be saved by having a discussion with Mr. Hanson. He is hoping to help Mr. Hanson and those like him to turn from false doctrine that they might be saved in obedience to the gospel of Christ.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ As the Scriptures plainly state "not of works, lest any man should boast" - their should be not hint of pride in our lives because we are incapable of working our way to heaven.”
No one has said that we could “work our way to heaven” unless you believe that such is what James meant. But we do not. We believe that faith wrought with works will justify a man as does Paul and James. We believe that it is not by faith only nor by works only but by a faith that works through love (Gal. 5:6).
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ Yet when one believes they have contributed, a sense of pride and arrogance wells up and we have boasting and the belittlement of others.”
No one believes that we have “contributed” Mr. Hanson. We simply believe we have obeyed Christ our Lord as he commanded us because we love him. And obedience is essential to salvation because Christ is the author of eternal salvation to all them that OBEY HIM. (Heb. 5:8,9). And those who teach false doctrines belittle themselves and worse they belittle Christ who is the truth. For not only did grace come by Jesus Christ but GRACE AND TRUTH (John 1:17).
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ I leave the decision to those with discernment to judge for themselves - who is showing the fruit of repentance in the simplest context of this conversation?”
WE too will leave that to the judgement of those who know the truth.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“Next, I made the statement… "People who had, prior to the resurrection, participated in the baptism of repentance were re-baptized, after the resurrection in Jesus name."
I have already discussed this above in this post. Not all of those who were baptized at the baptism of John had to be baptized again and I gave the example of Apollos who was taught the way of the Lord more perfectly but was not required to be baptized again so far as the record is concerned.
And then Mr. Hanson said:
“Then Mr. Saffold goes on to bolster my point with Scripture….Acts 19:1-6. These new believers had been baptized by John and Paul had to re-baptize them in Jesus' name.”
Mr. Hanson is again imagining things. I have not gone on to “bolster his point at all. As I have shown above these disciples had to be baptized in the name of Christ because they were likely baptized by one like Apollos in the baptism of John after the death of Christ when baptism in the name of Christ was instituted. But there is no evidence that those who were baptized for the remission of their sins at the baptism of John ever needed to be baptized again.
So, my quotation of the above scripture does not “bolster” Mr. Hanson's argument in the least. Now I admit that his argument needs quite a bit of “bolstering” for it is indeed week and for this reason he is constantly seeking help from me in bolstering it. But he fails miserably to get any help from anything that I have said thus far.
Then we reach his final remarks as follows:
“Finally,Mr. Saffold I will ask you, refrain from the silly comments and stick to the point.”
Mr. Hanson cannot point to a single work that I have said that was a silly comment now can he? And his problem is not that I do not stick to the point. He is whining because I “stick him with the point” and that is the reason for his complaining and whining as if he has been sorely mistreated! But it is his pathetic and feeble arguments that have been justly attacked and not his person.
Then he says:
“I can only continue to express to you the love of Christ.”
Now brethren and friends you should know that one who does not teach that which is true cannot “express the love of Christ” to anyone. For truth and lies do not mingle together. And when Mr. Hanson lied to us claiming that he had never said that salvation was by faith only he was not expressing the love of Christ. And when Mr. Hanson teaches that one can be saved with obeying the command of Christ, “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16). And the command to “repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38). He cannot be expressing the love of Christ but rather the lies of Satan.
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“ As I am deserving of punishment, but because of the Grace of God have received forgiveness for my sin through faith,”
Indeed we are saved by God’s grace and through faith but we are not saved by faith only as Mr. Hanson falsely teaches and he did not obtain forgiveness by faith only as he has been trying to teach. But at least he has learned now not to say we are openly we are saved by faith ONLY for he knows that is not taught anywhere in the scriptures, doesn’t he! If one has not repented of sins he will not be forgiven of them no matter how much faith he has. (Acts 3:19) and if he refuses to be baptized he will not receive the remission of sins for baptism in the name of Christ is indeed FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS” (Acts 2:38).
Then Mr. Hanson says:
“I am no better than any other person on this planet and thus am extremely grateful.”
WE have no doubt that this is true. And we are not better than anyone is either and have never said that we were. But the truth of God’s word concerning obedience to the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1-4; 2 Thess. 1:8,9). And obedience to Christ who is the author or eternal salvation to all them that obey him (Heb. 5:8,9). Are far superior to the false doctrines of men concerning salvation by FAITH ONLY taught by our friend Mr. Hanson.
Brethren do not forget that James said:
“YE SEE THEN HOW THAT BY WORKS A MAN IS JUSTIFIED AND NOT BY FAITH ONLY”. (James 2:24).
For Christ and those who love the truth in him,
E. Lee Saffold
-- Anonymous, June 19, 2001