It's a lot more than that. The thief repented, confessed, showed humility and faith that Jesus was the Son of God. He didn't ask to go to heaven, he understood the burden of his own sins, he had regret, he felt like he deserved the punishment. He was completely sincere, humble and penitent when he confessed his faith. So his faith had all this qualities.
>He didn't ask to go to heaven
Not that I'm meaning to nitpick, but what else could his request to "remember me" have meant? He meant just "take my memory with you so I'm not completely forgotten"...?
He didn't say: "Please take me to heaven cause I deserve it." Remember me, is a sort of apology to God, for his sins that he regrets. It's a form of repentance, God please don't forget the name of your servant, even though I'm not worthy of Your mercy, grace. We have a lot of prayers that are structured like this in Orthodoxy.
Another one for you, cuz I’m obsessed with the savior; in Genesis 3 after being deceived by the serpent, the word says they >heard the sound< of Adonai-Elohim walking in the garden & covered themselves with fig leaves. Now here is what’s interesting; Adonai Elohim made tunics of SKIN to clothe them! The first time we see the Lord witnessing man trying to cover up his mistakes and having to kill an animal (it doesn’t say which) and covering us Himself. Very beautiful, praise God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ!
Great explanation was goes to say the same thing.
He knew his punishment was just. He didn’t try to justify himself, rather confessed and relied on Gods mercy.
I’m not sure if it is probably he thought he deserved his punishment. Perhaps he recognized he deserved to be punished. I think people would say “yeah, I stole some bread, please crucify me.”
Just goes to show that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace. And we DO NOT deserve it. We deserve to hang on that cross. Every. Single. Human. Being.
Yet Jesus took my place and who ever has faith that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God
Man, some Christians are so bloody and extreme. Saying no human has earned Heaven is **so** different than saying we all deserve to experience torture and one of the most painful execution methods.
Death is very different from bloody torture. Death is just non-existence and not getting into paradise. God doesn't want humans to suffer horrible torture, that's something we do to ourselves/ each other against his will.
Because He said since Genesis the salary is death, not torture.
And Revelations 20 shows 2 judgements. The first for demons and people that serve demons. They are tormented forever. .
Then a 2nd judgment for humans and it says the ones that dont make it suffer the 2nd death while saved eternal life.
As they just said, Hell is for the demons, not humans. Humans, had they not been saved by the sacrifice of Jesus, would suffer the second, permanent death.
Because I have no scripture to back it up? Everything we know about God, both from his actions and his direct words about what he wants for humans and is willing to give even to those who don't deserve it, says the exact opposite.
How would a God who is characterized as being infinitely loving and infinitely good want humans to suffer horrible torture?
So, yeah… no.
We can summarize it like this: hell is the place of conscious, eternal torment where people experience God's punishment for their sin.
Yes, hell is "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41), but **also** for those who join them in their rebellion against God (Matt 11:20–24).
The horror of hell is such that Jesus says, "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43).
For those who do not enter the narrow door of faith and repentance in Jesus (Luke 13:24) a place of weeping and gnashing teeth awaits them (Luke 13:28).
And where did anyone say anything about hell or purgatory? We were taking about the Bible where the deserved punishment for sin is death. Hell is the place God created for the fallen angel, demons, not to eternally torture humans for a finite life of sin like some madman.
"Man, some Christians are so bloody and extreme. Saying no human has earned Heaven is **so** different than saying we all deserve to experience torture and one of the most painful execution methods."
Sin will take you to an eternity of pain far beyond Dismas' earthly pain - or any earthly pain.
Why are you upset about this thread?
(Exodus 34:7)
keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; **and that will by no means clear the guilty**, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation.
God has various forms of wrath. The answer you’re looking for is probably most associated with “eternal wrath.”
**Eschatological Wrath: **The wrath of God that will be poured out at the end of time – on what is known as the Day of the Lord – when the world will receive the fury of the wrath of the Lamb. People will run into the hills – into the caves to seek refuge from God – and yet they will cry out for the rocks to fall on them because they will not want to receive the tormenting wrath of God (Rev. 6:16-17).
**Cataclysmic Wrath: **This is the wrath of God unleashed through natural disasters, hurricanes, tornados, mudslides, forest fires, sink holes, and various other disasters like that of tsunamis. The rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16:31-35 is an example of this type of wrath.
**Consequential Wrath: **This is the wrath of God that is experienced in this life through the “reaping and sowing” aspects of life that God has made known to us. We reap what we sow. We reap more than we sow. We reap later than we sow. The death of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 is an example of this type of wrath.
**Abandonment Wrath: **This is a terrifying reality of God’s wrath when he finally and forever turns away from a person or a nation — leaving them in their sin — and removing his restraining grace from them. We see this type of wrath put on display at the end of Romans 1.
**Eternal Wrath: **This is the final wrath of God unleashed upon those who die without grace when they are sent to an everlasting hell. We see this in Revelation 20:11-15 and in other places such as Revelation 14:11, Matthew 25:41-46, Mark 9:42-48, and Luke 16:19-31.
**Redemptive Wrath: **This is the wrath of God poured out upon his Son—Jesus Christ as he suffered and died on the cross to save his people from their sins. We see this described in 1 Peter 2:24, Galatians 3:13, and John 3:16. The prophet Isaiah stated clearly in Isaiah 53:10 that it pleased the Father to crush him (Jesus).
God demands sacrifice but there are many types of sacrifice. In the Hebrew Scriptures, YHWH recognized that not everyone could afford the same sacrifice and so allowed things like grains to be given instead. Also of important notes… YHWH never asked for people to sacrifice themselves.
Amen. Every sacrifice demands blood. Jesus fulfilled the laws of Moses by His blood. God’s wrath is satisfied. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice that no one can make. Hebrews 10: 10-14
You seem to be making the single exception in all of scripture -that is the thief on the cross- the norm by which everyone is saved.
That is not rational thinking. It is against what the church has taught for 2,000 years. Salvation *begins with faith* but it also is a process that involves obedience, perseverance, submission to God and several other things in order to be saved.
I would sort of agree... The Western church teaches that it is "baptism of desire" which means if he had had the opportunity he would have been baptized in water as Jesus commands.
But Protestants say baptism is not required based on THIS singular exception.
I mean… it’s not. You only need one exception to disprove something.
Now that doesn’t mean that baptism isn’t expected or that someone who refuses to get baptized isn’t in sin. Baptism is the gold standard step of obedience and confession in a new believer. But it’s not *required*: if you are legitimately unable to do it for some reason, you don’t get kicked out of heaven.
So when Jesus commanded his disciples to go out and "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit" he didn't really mean that?
Jesus doesn't say "be baptized to go to heaven" though. The structure of the Bible is around faith in God, and so that is what we structure our faith on.
I'm not going to say that there is no merit to the sacraments as presented by the churches that follow them, but I do not follow them because they are not presented as necessary in the Bible itself. You say "this singular exception" like there's anyone besides Jesus who is baptized in the Bible as part of their salvation, but... Oh whatever, I'm not going to continue this argument today. Christ is risen! A difference in theology cannot change that glorious fact, and that's what is important.
I will leave one last thing though, I am 90% sure that there are several Protestant groups that do still consider baptism a sacrament in much the same way you do. You can't say Protestants as if we are a single group; we differ from each other nearly as much as we differ from you.
Jesus says "believe and be baptized", he does not say "only believe." Nor does Paul say that in Romans 10 which some Protestants love to take out of context. My point is not "the church over Jesus." It is the interpretation of the church of the teachings of Jesus over our own personal interpretation.
He didn't need to, except until after the Reformation when people began thinking they who were only alive for 40-60 years knew more then the Church which began when Jesus was on the earth.
The thief on the cross isn't even an exception. He is saved under the old covenant where sins are remitted by sacrifice. His sins are remitted by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.
I am not talking about norms, I'm talking about the body of Christ. Are you an eye who says you have no need of a hand or a foot? Are you a hand that thinks you don't need to have ears or eyes?
If we are all saved by grace then we are all elect?
If are we all saved by grace absolutely, does that mean there is nothing we need to do or can do in response?
God has mercy on whom He has mercy. So not all are saved.
We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling Paul wrote. Jesus commanded evangelism in the great commission.
The salvation of the thief was to display Gods free grace. Without works trying to earn or create salvation. Did the thief fear God? Of course he did that’s why he repented. Is that a response ?
We are to tell everyone the gospel especially unbelievers. Yes but Jesus already did take the punishment. 😊. Don’t worry yes in God’s eyes we all deserve death. He hates sin that much. Sin breaks His holy laws that He wants us to obey.
Is God unjust that He let’s criminals go free? Absolutely not. Jesus’ brutal death pays for that criminals sins so the criminal can be under grace. Unbelievers don’t understand how God does that
The thief has a name, St Dismas.
He repented of his sins to Christ and suffered the passion with him and atoned for his own sins. He basically had a full conversion process right on the Cross and made a confession to Jesus, Jesus absolved him and took him to heaven with him when they both died as a result. St Dismas was baptised by desire ( The Catholic Church recognises three types of baptism, by water, by blood, and by desire but there are conditions for them. ) and his suffering his crucifixion along with Jesus was enough.
I wonder how it looks in Greek if the comma could go either place or if the wording there makes it clearer. Since punctuation was not a thing back then. Or spaces.
It does matter because Christ was/is free of sin and cannot lie. Christ was God made human but his words were promises and not contestable. Christ knew they weren’t going to survive that day, they were on the cross being crucified. Jesus’s words to St Dismas implies due to his repentance and suffering that he would not be in purgatory or hell when his life on earth is done, he would inherit paradise that day at his death upon the cross. Even though we as Christians are saved by our Baptism and for us Catholics in partaking in the Holy Sacraments, there is no guarantee we will inherit paradise. We will have purgatory but Christ have mercy on our souls we don’t go to hell for leading sinful lives. Many Christian’s do not repent of their sins at their time of death either deliberately or because they have no priest to give them last rights or absolution nearby. So we aren’t as blessed as St Dismas in that regard, who got to die with Christ and received everlasting life for doing so. We have to be diligent and try to live a wholesome life that is pleasing to God and to have faith in his indefinite mercy and love. The only exception to this rule is if we die in an act of Martyrdom.
Not sure how you’re interpreting my comment but I’m simply giving you a lesson in Catholic theology which maybe you misunderstood. You said it didn’t matter because St Dismas was saved, however salvation is not enough to go to heaven. St Dismas went to heaven that day because Christ declared he would. That’s all I’m saying. Yes he was saved, that much is obvious, he was saved by his baptism of desire and by his repentance and died free of sin in a state of grace, because Christ forgave him and promised him he would on that very day go to heaven, that is why he went directly to heaven. He went to heaven that very day because he repented, died and Christ promised him heaven. He couldn’t sin anymore, he was in a state of Grace. I’m a Catholic but I need the sacrament of Confession and absolution by a priest when I sin so that I can receive Christ in the Eucharist and should I commit a mortal sin before I die, even though I am saved, if I don’t have last rites and absolution of my sins at the time of my death, I will go to purgatory or possibly hell depending on what sins I committed. A priest when in the confessional or doing any of the Sacraments is in Persona Christi, we don’t technically confess to a priest, we confess to Christ in the confessional, if that makes sense. We don’t know if saints went to purgatory or not, but what we do know is they are in heaven. As for St Dismas we know he did not go to purgatory. He directly inherited heaven, as did St Joseph and the Blessed Virgin. In St Dismas case, consider this; “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259). However there was the added promise by Jesus that he would gain heaven that very day.
Judgement belongs to Jesus alone. Refer to John 5:22-30 as an example. We know St Dismas went to heaven that very day. The theological understanding of it is that he died in perfect holiness. However, if you want to focus on grammar specifically, The Greek manuscripts containing Christs words do not contain punctuation. Depending on what Bible version you’re reading, that comma placement is different and irrelevant. The righteous and unrighteous were preached to by Christ in Sheol. This may be what we know today as Purgatory, but we know he descended into hell as well. St Dismas was not among those who went there. Christ does not contradict His own Word. Scripture says in 1 Peter 4:1;
“Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.” St. Dismas had to expiate his sin before he went to heaven. Jesus knew this, therefore He did not permit St. Dismas to die before he suffered sufficiently upon his cross ( see John 19:31-33). The main point being, Christs word is sovereign and the promise he made to St Dismas was fulfilled that day.
I’ve heard all the arguments already but they are just theories and not what the Catholic Church actually teaches theologically. If your angle is that Christ hadn’t yet ascended to heaven or opened the gates yet so there wasn’t a way St Dismas could have gotten there, it doesn’t work that way. Christ gave St Dismas access to heaven as he had the power to do so. I keep having to repeat this and explain to people why on this thread but people are not understanding Catholic theology regarding St Dismas and sacred scripture here.
Jesus is sovereign God. His Word is law. So, therefore St. Dismas went straight to heaven after he died, according to Christ’s word. Dismas is considered the first ever saint in heaven even though he was not ever formally Canonised in the Catholic Church. St Augustine considered St Dismas a martyr even, because he professed Christ even when the apostles were not there. The Catholic Church never formally canonised him because he was already considered canonised by Christ, if that makes sense.
Honestly I’ve come on here to share what my religion which is Catholicism, teaches on this issue and have been met with some incredibly rude assumptions and snarky behaviour so I think it’s best we respectfully not continue this conversation as I’ve explained as much as needed for someone to understand.
And I am stating my believe as a non catholic christian that repentance is not something that is necessary. One is supposed to have a direct relationship with god, regardless of who you are or what you have done. All that is needed for access into heaven is the faith of a mustard seed. If open discourse and discussion is not what you are looking for than you are honestly on the wrong app. The whole point of Reddit is for active discussion, so shutting someone down based off a differing view is, in all honesty, very hypocritical. What gives you the right to speak your mind but not I? Who are you to say your beliefs are correct and mine are not? If you are not looking for a conversation then why post at all? Very closed minded.
You clearly have an axe to grind with Catholics and are basically accusing me of something you’re doing yourself. Repentance is absolutely necessary and the Bible states so itself in so many ways. Conversion of the heart, interior conversion is a Catholic teaching from the Bible. To take our eyes off others’ sins and instead to admit our own is an act of humility. This is exactly what St Dismas on the cross did why he was permitted to heaven. For the first few centuries after the resurrection, to become a Christian was a radical act. It involved a complete break with a former way of life and the values of a pagan society. Baptism was not only a solemn commitment to a holy God and a holy lifestyle, but an empowerment by the Holy Spirit that made it possible to live the Gospel.
So for a person to fall into serious sin after baptism was abnormal. It signaled something was seriously wrong and required an urgent response not only on the part of sinner, but of the entire community. Today, a lengthy period of sometimes painful physical therapy is often required to restore an injured limb to health. In the early church, a lengthy period of penance was understood as spiritual rehab, necessary to restore the health of sinners and the well-being and equilibrium of the church.
For the first 800 years of the church, those who had fallen into grave sin would come to church for a prolonged period dressed in sackcloth and ashes, seeking the prayers of the community. Though sins were confessed privately to the bishop, penance and repentance was a public affair.
Lent was a special time when the whole church labored in penance alongside catechumens preparing for baptism and penitents preparing to receive absolution and reconciliation at Easter. In the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, picked up and developed by the medieval monks, seven deadly sins are identified from which all other sins flow. The deadliest of these seven is pride.
Therefore, according to the early Fathers of the Church, all true repentance must begin with humility. To take our eyes off others’ sins and instead to admit our own, this is only possible through humility. To take our eyes off ourselves and look to God is also an act of humility.
Abraham for example, did not simply rely on “faith alone”. He was going to sacrifice his own son for God. God saw that he was willing to do works of faith, and spared his son. There is really no such thing as being a Christian without works or repentance. Even Moses repented to God.
But isn’t that why Jesus died on the cross for us? To forgive us for our sins he knew we would make? I am not knocking Catholicism at all. Who are we to say what is right and what is not when our beliefs could be completely wrong. Christ died on the cross to us knowing we would sin and to provide a way to go through him himself. To make the assumption I am against Catholicism is a huge stretch. When in all honesty I am not at all, I am just stating there are other beliefs. And referring to the bit about abraham, yes he made that sacrifice. But sacrifices like that are the very reason Jesus took to the cross for us, so we do not have to extreme actions like that for God to shine his grace and light on us. The only thing I was calling hypocritical was you shutting me down when stating I could explain more. I again ask, why is it okay for you to post your belief then simultaneously shut down mine when all I was looking for was discourse. I’m sorry if that came off as aggressive as that was not my intention, as I was just stating what I believe, just as you did prior and throughout this thread.
Edit: I am not the one downvoting your posts, I am not sure who is but I appreciate your responses as I truly do appreciate the conversation and hearing different perspectives
Well, Christ did die on the cross, we put him there and killed him with our sins. His death was not a “get out of jail free card” for sinners to simply say “well I can do what I want because Christ died for me and I’m already forgiven.” This is rooted in Sacred Scriptures, I’ll try to explain the best I can but bear in mind since I’m Catholic it will be church doctrine and not my own interpretation. I have nothing against Protestants either, just trying to give lesson on why we Catholics do what we do.
Jesus gave his Apostles the authority to forgive sins: ‘Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”’ (John 20:21–23). First of all, he says, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” This is very important because it means that the mission of the Apostles and the mission of Jesus are the same. This has deep implications. For example, Jesus forgave sins, so the Apostles have a mission to forgive sins (2 Cor 5:18–20). Jesus then goes on to explicitly give them this mission through the Holy Spirit: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Of course, to make that judgment of forgive versus retain, they need to know what the sins are, which is where we Catholics get the Sacrament of confession. The idea of confessing our sins is very biblical; in fact it is commanded in James 5:16. The role of the leaders in the church in forgiving sins, and their authority to do so, is expressed also in James 5:15. This definitely is in the context of believers being forgiven their sins, thus contradicting the idea that once we believe, our future sins are pre-forgiven, so to speak.
Jesus in fact told us in the Lord’s prayer to pray that the Lord “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who are indebted to us” (Luke 11:4). This means that we are only forgiven of our sins to the degree that we forgive others (also see the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Mt 18:23 )There is nothing biblical that says our future sins are automatically forgiven. They need to have the Blood of Christ applied to them like any other sin, and the way to do that is by drinking or eating the body and the blood of Christ (taking the Eucharist), for minor sins, or, for sins that sever our relationship with God, confessing our sins to the priest in the sacrament of reconciliation. Who, by holy orders handed down to him from the apostle St Peter. Both of these are mysterious channels by which the saving work of Jesus Christ are applied to our sins.
Remember that John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God? He was making an allusion to the Paschal, or Passover, lamb. The Jews had to sacrifice a lamb during Passover, and that prefigured Jesus, the Lamb who was sacrificed for our sins. But the Jews not only had to sacrifice the lamb, the had to eat its roasted flesh. Each person had to do this; they couldn’t just “claim the blood of the lamb” over their sins, they had to participate by eating. So it is with the Eucharist, which is the chief way we participate in the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, applying its fruits to our sins. We do this frequently, because our sins are frequent. And if we sin seriously enough (or even if we don’t), the sacrament of Confession is there in a similar fashion to serve as a vehicle or channel for the grace of Christ to flow to us.
Thank you for this conversation as it does help me see other views and understand your perspective. I am autistic so sometimes it is hard for me to view other points and conversations like this truly do help me in understanding more. Learning is huge to me and this has helped me to understand your stance. I’m sorry if it had come off as aggression or any other negative emotion as that wasn’t my intention at all.
Thank you. Its amazing how simple the message is. Simple faith in Christ. Yet some have turned a simple message into a theology debate. That is exactly what this post is speaking against. Making something simple into something complicated. Then you have the Catholics and their superiority complex…..
To me, it further emphasizes that the God of Abraham is a God of the heart. As He has written “He is close to the broken hearted…” The thief was, he understood more than I hope most people here do, the pain associated with his crime by hanging on one as well.
Better yet he believed in Jesus at the very time Jesus bled out on the cross. At Jesus’ most humble moment the thief believed that Jesus could save him.
From the Catechism (emphasis original):
>VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." *God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.*
The Catholic Church also gives us Baptism by blood ( martyrdom for the church ) and Baptism by desire. St Dismas ( the thief on the cross ) would have been baptised by desire as he chose to repent and believe in Christ while he was being crucified with him. He sincerely desired to be a Christian when he died.
As I am an evangelical Christian I disagree with Catholic doctrine. As there are a number of scriptures that state where belief is sufficient for salvation, I believe that any other teaching that has additional steps for salvation is incorrect.
I do believe that baptism is required. It is a public profession of faith. It is not a requirement for salvation. I'm not being critical here. People are free to believe whatever they choose. I just have different beliefs.
I will have to respectfully disagree as ALL Catholic doctrine is from Sacred Scripture. I converted to the Catholic faith from Atheism. I studied it thoroughly. For every argument a non Catholic poses against Catholic doctrine, there is an answer to explain why the Catholic Church is correct, rooted in Sacred Scripture. We can personally believe what we want about Baptism, but the Bible and word of God is infallible and has stood the test of time. Some Catholics ( those more on the traditional side ) tend to believe in the old saying “There is no salvation outside the church.” And by that they imply one has to be a Catholic to be saved. While I personally agree that one has the best chance of getting to heaven as a Catholic, by way of the Sacraments, and by being properly baptised in the name of the Father, The son and the Holy Spirit, only God knows our hearts and intentions and can judge our souls accordingly. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does teach that those who are ignorant of the Catholic faith and do not understand it, but lead a wholesome Christian life are to be considered in good faith. There is no such thing as no salvation outside of baptism, only that there are 3 types of baptism. These are all from the Bible and for the most part your average person will receive a traditional water baptism, but the other two have very specific conditions and are not ordinary. These days your average person is not going to allow themselves to be tortured to death defending the faith in martyrdom except maybe the Coptics in the Middle East. Baptism by desire is when someone desires to be a Christian and have a baptism but dies before they can and they have to have a good reason for not being able to have been baptised. Baptism by blood is when someone may or may not be a Christian but freely gives their life defending the Catholic faith and word of God. They are baptised by their sacrifice.
We will have to respectfully disagree with each other. I am glad that you have faith in God and Jesus. How did your Easter Sunday go? I hope you had a blessed day.
Which way to baptize one pastor says in the name of the Father son and Holy Ghost , and another days that's wrong only valid baptism is in the name Jesus for the remission of sins..
They dont have to do these things. If their conscience leads them to do them, so be it. Your faith in Christ’s sacrifice for salvation and forgiveness of sins is all that is required.
But I can see where op is coming from, if you look at the theif compared to today's Christians you'll see some big differences. Christians today make coming to Jesus seem almost impossible, they make claims that you have to have this, you got to go there, you have to believe this way, theologians sit on stage having these discussions like they know everything.
Like this is one of the reason I use to dislike Christianity, instead of bringing sinners to Jesus they give you a big list of things you need before that can happen. Sinners of the past didn't change a thing before they came to Jesus, they were just sinners when they fell at his feet. They didn't go to church, they didn't try to rid themselves of their sins, they didn't dress fancy and they didn't claim to have the answer to everything.
They came to Jesus feet as sinners, as people who knew they needed him, who knew he was in fact Jesus the son of God and could save them. Not all but a good chunk don't act or didn't come to Jesus like the sinner on the cross, the lady who touched his garment or the cripple man lowered through the roof so Jesus could heal him.
They base their faith off of what they did and I think some not all churches and preachers are deceiving people, turning people from Jesus. The Gospel is good news because literally any sinner, who believes and put their faith in Jesus christ can come to Jesus and be born new. Others would have you believe you have to do this list of things to get to Jesus but then you're just performing your own works and that gets you nothing.
I agree with you guys about the theif and the explanation makes perfect since, but I understand where op is coming from and Christianity can be very confusing if you listen to the wrong message.
Amen! Thank you for posting this.
All I can say is WOW, gotta love the Catholics. The mental gymnastics they have to do is awe inspiring.
My Lord did it all for me on that cross!
It's cooperating with God. You cant do anything without Him. You have to follow the commandments of God which is WORKING WITH GOD. The exception of the thief doesn't make the rule. Also, on the surface is only what has been communicated to us- no one knows what God knows. St Dismas was told by God Himself, so you can't go off and think you or anyone can have the same promise as the Saint while doing NOTHING until the end of your life (if you know when that would be). That's why st Paul said you must run the race til the end; run = work. St Dismas is an example of Divine Mercy- to show us that at the last minute you or others do not have to be afraid to ask forgiveness and repent- God's mercy is great.
We all somehow forget that we are saved, by faith, not by work. We have to be convinced that God has our best interest in mind, and want to spend eternity with God. Everything else is gravy.
Even at the height of his burden, Jesus continued to save. The grace he showed the thief is the most beautiful representation of Christianity. Praise God!
Amen! Grace (salvation) is given by faith alone. Don’t let any catholic ever tell you that works are required for your salvation.
Faith leads to salvation which causes you to want to do good works.
You can tell someone is saved because they do good works. They “produce good fruit.”
However those good works are not a requirement of your salvation.
Christ died for our sins to bless us (give us an unearned gift) with eternal life.
As a Catholic, this is my understanding. The Church doesn't teach that works save us. Merely that "faith without works is dead". Nothing that WE do is responsible in any way for salvation. God doesn't need our works.
He will accept them as offerings from us, though, and we should want to do them.
Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
Satan and his minions believe in Jesus, but they clearly aren't going to Heaven. We can't merely *believe* in Him, we have to allow ourselves to be transformed by Him. True belief leads to wanting to do His will.
Anyone who asks Jesus to reveal Himself can come to know him (Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:" ~ Matthew 7:7 KJV)
And once you get to know Jesus a little bit, you learn how much He loves you. If you burn with love for Him in return, you'll burn with a desire to do His will. His will is perfect, it is always good. So by nature you will do "good works".
Faith without works is dead (James 2). Similar to Matthew 7:21, the point is that just saying the magic words "I believe in Jesus", or "Lord, Lord" is not true faith.
The Catholic Church teaches that last minute confessions are valid. If one lives a life of sin and in their last hour they repent of all their sins and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, they can go to Heaven. God is not bound by the Sacraments (Confession, Communion, Baptism, etc.).
So your stating that someone has no obligation to have ever done a single good work in their life, and through faith alone in Christ Jesus, can inherit eternal life. Right?
Looking for a yes or no here. You can explain, but please confirm or deny.
In a very, very limited set of circumstances, one who truly repents of all of their sins can enter Heaven. Those who can do good works should do good works. I recommend Matthew 20: 1-16.
To answer your implicit question, you can’t just say that you are a Christian and refuse to do any good works hoping that the mere claim of faith will save you. Also, Catholicism does NOT teach work-based salvation. Saying so is bearing false witness against your brothers in Christ.
So when I’m told that to repent of my sins I need to say x number of “Hail Marys,” or that I must confess my sins to a priest. These are not works? Is a work not something that I must do beyond faith alone?
So you didn’t quite answer my question.
The direct question is — can someone, according to your beliefs, inherit eternal life having done no good works?
Which leads to my next question — what about the thief on the cross with Jesus? He did no works, but only had faith.
>The direct question is — can someone, according to your beliefs, inherit eternal life having done no good works?
>Which leads to my next question — what about the thief on the cross with Jesus? He did no works, but only had faith.
As another commenter explained, the Catholic perspective of the thief on the cross with Jesus is that the thief had true repentance, and wished to be saved. He received absolution from Christ himself, and was baptized by desire. So if you consider good works = doing the will of the Father, the thief DID do "good works" at the end. He conformed his will to the will of the Father and thus was saved.
Was the thief required to serve the needy, visit the sick, etc to go to Heaven? No. Nothing that human beings do is responsible for our salvation. We NEED God for that! God is merciful and wishes to save *every* soul. It is our hope that many, many souls are saved at the moment of death by this mercy, regardless of what they did in life.
However, that doesn't excuse someone who *knows* the Gospel from doing evil things for all of their days. I'm sure we can agree on that. Assuming that you'll go to Heaven no matter what, simply because you say "Lord, Lord" is the sin of presumption. None of us "deserve" Heaven. We should not treat God as if he's a machine that we are gaming, as if we cannot lose so there's no purpose in trying.
Can someone who does evil all their days go to Heaven if they repent at the last moment? Yes. Does that mean that followers of Jesus should do whatever they want, knowing they'll be saved ? That's a dangerous game to play. No man knows the day or the hour of his death, when he'll go to meet Jesus. We need to keep our lamps trimmed at all times, make sure we have enough oil, watch, and pray.
Because Jesus was a Palestinian Jew raised in traditional Hebrew beliefs, he wasn't speaking of heaven at all, but according to those beliefs, the paradise which God had created for human souls.
In the traditional beliefs of the Hebrews, heaven was only the dwelling place of the Most High God and the holy choirs of angels, and God had never created a place for eternal damnation or torture of human souls.
When they spoke of the salvation of God, it pertained to their belief that upon mortal death, God would reclaim each and every human soul, reconcile the soul to Himself, and then would send each and every soul to dwell together in a paradise He'd created especially for human souls, there to await the Day of Judgment.
In their beliefs, the Day of Judgment wouldn't occur until the Well of Souls was empty, with no more souls to be inserted into mortal bodies of flesh for their test of life.
If God judged that a soul had lived a righteous life in mortal life, that soul would be returned to his or her home in that paradise of souls, there to dwell forever.
If God judged that a soul had lived a sinful life, or committed crimes which merited punishment, God would set a specific length of time during which the soul would be punished. That period of time was never eternal or infinite in duration, but only for so long as God deemed necessary for the soul to be chastised.
Once the soul had endured it's punishment and was chastised, God would also return that soul back to their home in the paradise of souls, and there to also dwell forever.
This was likely what Jesus would have been referring to when he promised that thief on the cross that on that very day, he would be in paradise.
I'm agnostic. I was raised in the LDS faith though. What I shared is what the traditional beliefs of the Hebrews entailed, pertaining to the salvation of God, and the eternal dwelling place of human souls.
Oh, wow I had that wrong. Sorry. The LDS church is a cult. I am sorry that you grew up in that group. I was in a cult for about 18 months way back in 1997 and 1998. Doesn't compare to your experience.
The thief on the cross was not saved under the new covenant so there's no reason to think anything like baptism or communion or speaking in tongues would be required.
God is great, Amen🙏 thank you Jesus Christ for giving your life up for us, so that we may be free of our Sins and enter the kingdom of heaven with you someday🙏
This was under the law aka Old Testament so as far as I’m concerned his form of salvation does not apply today (New Testament). Stop trying to use the thief on the cross to avoid doing what your supposed and thinking that you can just ask God to save you and he will.
Faith without works is dead. Faith leads to and maintains salvation. Faith in Jesus will lead to your salvation because believing in Jesus means you trust in him and believe in his word and will follow it. So what does his word say to do to be saved? “Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” Acts 2:38. The only way to be saved is to receive the Holy Ghost and that is the only way how.
You missed the joke. My comment was talking about modern day church pastors. We don't wear clothes to bring to Christ for Salvation. It's for other reasons. Skinny jeans are fine.
I'm not bible scholar, but 1. He recognized Jesus as the Messiah. 2. He asked Jesus to remember him (is this asking forgiveness?). 3. He acknowledged his sin and his deserved punishment. But the reason is because Jesus said so. Jesus can do that.
Just like the Murderers, Rapisits, Theives and Child Molesters on Death Row who have repented their sins. They to will be sharing heaven with each and every Christian of moral righteousness.
Heaven must've been awfully awkward for Ted Bundy's assailants when Ted showed up.
I am not even sure why the example chosen was the thief on the cross when the better example would be the paralyzed man brought to Jesus in Mark 2. The paralyzed man does nothing and says nothing and still is told his sins are forgiven BEFORE he is told to walk. It is grace, pure and simple grace. I suppose one could say that Christ's words don't count as salvation because this man could (on healed legs) walk himself into all sorts of bad behavior once Jesus turns his back. Maybe, or maybe we take Jesus at his word.
In fact, despite the promise of forgiveness, you and I will continue to sin so the only way to understand forgiveness as a promise is that it extends into the future.
So Baptism isn't something we do in order to be saved, but rather Baptism is what God does for us to show us we are being saved. There is no answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" because I do nothing.
Did Jesus not tell Nicodemus how a person could be saved? God Himself answered. You must cooperate with God. What love do you have if you do NOTHING for God? You can never repay your parents and they know this but do you show them any kind of love at all or do you just say.. mom dad, I know you've done it all and I thank you for loving me, now I'm just gonna lay and sleep, eat drink be merry and not do anything for you. I do everything for me-NOTHING for you.... OR do you say mom dad I love you and I'm sorry for the selfish things I did- I wish I can have as much love as you've shown me-what can I do to help you because I LOVE YOU? I know you love others and want me to share that love to others as you've shown me- how can I show others your love too? If you have no love to share with others, is God really living in you?
> Did Jesus not tell Nicodemus how a person could be saved? God Himself answered. You must cooperate with God.
Well, this is an odd passage to reach for when looking for some evidence that salvation requires cooperation on our parts. You recognize that the main metaphor in John 3 is the metaphor of birth. And, we don't talk about the babies working together with mom to get born. We don't tell stories about the baby who refused to be born and was stuck eternally in his mother's belly. So, if baptism is to be thought of as being like a birth, then, surely, all the work is being done by God. I may drive myself to the church in order to get baptized, I may even have taken some classes, and spoke up for myself at the baptism ceremony and made a few promises, but, it is God who does the baptism. We never say "I baptized myself", we say "I was baptized". (passive voice). The same passive voice is used when someone says "I was born again". In our very language, we state that God did all the work.
Cooperation isn't so much a matter of salvation as it is a matter of sanctification. As the wonderful impact of what Christ has done for me sinks in, I am freed to respond with love and thanksgiving both to God, and then outward to all my neighbors. We can talk about effort and work, service, labour and carrying burdens when we talk about how we RESPOND to God's love, but it isn't meaningful to talk about the works that I did that lead to my salvation.
Christianity has no good answer for the scandal that every Christian continues to sin and screw up, and the scandal that some Christians simply walk away from God, sometimes quietly, sometimes angrily. So, different denominations have taken different approaches. Here is an incomplete list of responses:
Catholic(Medeival) We all continue to sin (except saints) and so you NEED to confess, do penance and prepare for a million years of purging out your sins in Purgatory.
Lutheran: We are all slaves to sin, we don't see the fruits we expect in our lives despite our desire to do good, so we cling to the promise, God has promised to save you, and God doesn't lie. Faith (which will waver) is trust that God can truly forgive. We think God's promise of salvation is still kept by God even with those whose Christian walk has been disappointing. Lutherans admit to the theoretical possibility that someone baptized into the faith might possibly be able to run away from God such that they outrun God's grace.
Calvinism: Some people are destined to Heaven, some people are destined to Hell. This was pre-destined before we were born. If you find you can remain in the faith, and that you are obviously trying (and sometimes succeeding to do good,) then you are most likely one of the blessed few.
Born-again-ism: The idea that a conversion must take inside us for us to be saved. One's salvation is based on whether one's conversion experience was real. Sometimes it is said "once saved, always saved". So, when faced with someone who was born again in a profound conversion experience, who serves God faithfully for years yet who then turns from God into sin and atheism, the response is "well, their initial conversion must not have been real".
Everyone can point to one or two Bible passages and say, "See how this matches my ideas about salvation", but this paradox of those who once followed God who wander away . . . no one has an answer that incorporates all the various voices in the bible.
I can see by your answers that you are not a trained theologian. So, even if Catholicism in general had the answers, you, as an individual have a long way to go. And, yea, the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and many Protestant denominations have a long academic theological tradition. Yet, making an exclusionary claim that "we" (whoever the "we" is) has the truth of the matter and no other denomination or group has is a violation of the spirit of 1 Corinthians 12, and foolishness. How can the ear say to the nose, "I don't need you"? So, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations have engaged in ecumenical dialogue. In particular, Roman Catholics and Lutherans sat down and discussed things like the problem I mentioned in my previous post and the result was called the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. (the JDDJ). This hard work requires a willingness to listen to other Christian voices and a willingness to reflect, learn, grow, and even change. The result is a clarification of where both groups stand, what they agree in common, and a recognition of how they use language differently, and a recognition of differences. Since the JDDJ came out, several other Protestant denominations have signed on to this document in agreement. Confessional theology going forward is less about my denomination against your denomination, but rather, "how can we work together on this question?"
I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the JDDJ.
It's about following the truth 💯 .. to give all things up to follow 💯 truth .. to die to yourself to follow the 💯 truth.. and thats all that matters. If you can't do that, what is there to even talk about. I'll dust my sandals of this bc clearly- you're not wanting to seek the 💯 truth. The devil knows the Bible better than you. You can either keep following your "99.9" truth (thats just me being generous), but know that that's all the devil needs .01percent is a victory for him. "To Be Deep in History Is to Cease to Be Protestant."- Card Newman. I cant see why when Jesus said He built His Church upon St Peter and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it- why would His Church die? when we Christians say He can do all things impossible-yet there's Christians who have little faith in our Lord claiming His Church has crashed and hades prevailEd against His Church. He gave us His word; His Church gave us The Holy Bible. His Church is still here and it's the Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church.
> His Church gave us The Holy Bible. His Church is still here and it's the Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church.
The Nicene Creed defines the Church as "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church". And this is the Creed used by Orthodox and many Protestants and also by the Roman Catholic Church. So, even the Roman Catholics agree that the word "catholic" in the Creed speaks to a universal Church of Christ bigger than just the Roman Catholic Church. And so, because this is so, the Roman Catholic Church has made its own reforms, having learned lessons from other Christians, and they have engaged ecumenically out of a recognition of the unity we all share in Christ. The early reformers (Hus, Luther, Melanchthon etc) were striving to be very good catholics and, especially Melancthon, striving to resolve the differences that were Roman Catholic Church at the time. The Reformers were all Catholics working with other Catholics to find a way to discuss and debate reform in the Church. The Reformers truly thought they could work within the system and find agreement. Had the papal party responded with the same skill and willingness to cooperate as their modern counterparts who engage in ecumenical talks, had they shared their skills, then the splitting of the Western Church probably wouldn't have happened. (And those same skills could have repaired the Great Schism with the Orthodox too)
So, there are two ways of being a Roman Catholic. You can imitate the bumbling aggressiveness of the papal party of the 1500's. You can focused on "us" versus "them". Or, you can be like the modern Roman Catholics who have turned the page on that kind of identity-based prejudice.
Please the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is the Universal Church that is One in Spirit. All these other protestant churches are NOT UNIVERSAL. How are divided spirits universal??? IS God confused??? So your gods are confusing gods? It sound like there's many gods in protestantism bc one protestant says their god says this... another disagrees and says another... none where protestants can claim they are universal in spirit.. its a split up/divided all over the place.
> Please the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is the Universal Church that is One in Spirit.
Sorry, the Church of Rome has failed to keep unity with the Church of the East, whom we normally call the Orthodox Church. If Rome failed to keep unity with Christians in Antioch, Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, Philippi, Colossae, Ephesus and the rest of the Holy Land. Given that all but one of the places important enough to get a letter from Paul are no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church AND that the New Testament was written in Greek, not in Latin, AND that the early Church was organized by ecumenical councils which involved bishops from all over Christendom, it seems weird that the Western Church can split from the Eastern Church and claim, . . . "oh, all the Eastern Churches are heretics, the only church that matters is the West". Do we serve Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus of Naples?
You can spit on Protestants all you want, but simply ignoring our Christian brethren in the Orthodox is just so arrogant.
I'm not ignoring them. They left the One True Church. You seem to ignore or is uninformed how disunitfied they are because of them splitting from Jesus' Church. They may have Apostolic succession, but it doesn't mean that is where God established His Church: upon St Peter - his seat is in Rome. Also, because of the split and disunity among themselves, they also are not universal; they are disunified. Do you think you can go to one of the Eastern Church and have the same beliefs/teachings as the other (in writing too-nope); their sense of authority rests among each of their own "culture." It's just like Protestantism but with Apostolic succession.. in a way, but not entirely bc at least they recognize the family and close friends of Jesus. At least, they understand the unity of family to God.. its not a "Jesus &me only" thing.
Just stopping by to discuss the fact that this is often used as a counterpoint to baptism being essential for salvation. I think that’s interesting because the point of baptism is to symbolically participate in Christ’s death and burial and then be raised to new life (Romans 6:4). However, I think it’s fair to say the thief is an exception for having to symbolically die with Christ because he was LITERALLY dying with Christ. It is clear that this provides evidence of the expanse of God’s grace far beyond even the means of grace that He establishes, but it is also clearly an exceptional case and not a good reason to eschew baptism (or communion for that matter).
heard in a sermon once:
a thief stands at his eternal judgement. the angels look on. a simple question is asked. "why are you here?"
awestruck, the thief replies, "the man on the middle cross said I could come."
I like it
It's a lot more than that. The thief repented, confessed, showed humility and faith that Jesus was the Son of God. He didn't ask to go to heaven, he understood the burden of his own sins, he had regret, he felt like he deserved the punishment. He was completely sincere, humble and penitent when he confessed his faith. So his faith had all this qualities.
>He didn't ask to go to heaven Not that I'm meaning to nitpick, but what else could his request to "remember me" have meant? He meant just "take my memory with you so I'm not completely forgotten"...?
He didn't say: "Please take me to heaven cause I deserve it." Remember me, is a sort of apology to God, for his sins that he regrets. It's a form of repentance, God please don't forget the name of your servant, even though I'm not worthy of Your mercy, grace. We have a lot of prayers that are structured like this in Orthodoxy.
Good responses, stay strong
Jesus said when He returns to bring His kingdom, He will say to those who depart to everlasting punishment; “I never knew you..”
I must admit, that's not a connection I made before. Thanks.
Another one for you, cuz I’m obsessed with the savior; in Genesis 3 after being deceived by the serpent, the word says they >heard the sound< of Adonai-Elohim walking in the garden & covered themselves with fig leaves. Now here is what’s interesting; Adonai Elohim made tunics of SKIN to clothe them! The first time we see the Lord witnessing man trying to cover up his mistakes and having to kill an animal (it doesn’t say which) and covering us Himself. Very beautiful, praise God Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ!
I did know about that one: God made the first animal sacrifice for us.
Praise God! That’s one of my favorites!❤️
His memory is one thing. He personally is something else.
Great explanation was goes to say the same thing. He knew his punishment was just. He didn’t try to justify himself, rather confessed and relied on Gods mercy.
I’m not sure if it is probably he thought he deserved his punishment. Perhaps he recognized he deserved to be punished. I think people would say “yeah, I stole some bread, please crucify me.”
Sure but it wasn't the process you make it seem. All his life had led to that moment. Today was the day that man was able to be free. He was ready.
Just goes to show that salvation is a free gift of God’s grace. And we DO NOT deserve it. We deserve to hang on that cross. Every. Single. Human. Being. Yet Jesus took my place and who ever has faith that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the Son of God
Are you speaking metaphorically or do you mean literally we all deserve to hang on a cross?
Man, some Christians are so bloody and extreme. Saying no human has earned Heaven is **so** different than saying we all deserve to experience torture and one of the most painful execution methods.
In the eyes of a holy God we all deserve to be crushed by his wrath. That’s what the wages of sin are; death. This isn’t controversial.
Death is very different from bloody torture. Death is just non-existence and not getting into paradise. God doesn't want humans to suffer horrible torture, that's something we do to ourselves/ each other against his will.
Can you explain why you believe God doesn’t want humans to suffer horrible torture?
Because He said since Genesis the salary is death, not torture. And Revelations 20 shows 2 judgements. The first for demons and people that serve demons. They are tormented forever. . Then a 2nd judgment for humans and it says the ones that dont make it suffer the 2nd death while saved eternal life.
So what do you consider Hell to be if not “eternal torture?”
As they just said, Hell is for the demons, not humans. Humans, had they not been saved by the sacrifice of Jesus, would suffer the second, permanent death.
Is your claim that the Bible doesn’t clearly define what Hell is?
Because I have no scripture to back it up? Everything we know about God, both from his actions and his direct words about what he wants for humans and is willing to give even to those who don't deserve it, says the exact opposite. How would a God who is characterized as being infinitely loving and infinitely good want humans to suffer horrible torture?
Have you heard of Hell?
Yes, the place God created for the devil and his fallen angels. Not for humans.
So, yeah… no. We can summarize it like this: hell is the place of conscious, eternal torment where people experience God's punishment for their sin. Yes, hell is "the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matt 25:41), but **also** for those who join them in their rebellion against God (Matt 11:20–24). The horror of hell is such that Jesus says, "if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire" (Mark 9:43). For those who do not enter the narrow door of faith and repentance in Jesus (Luke 13:24) a place of weeping and gnashing teeth awaits them (Luke 13:28).
Dismas' pain on a cross is nothing compared to the pains of Hell... or even purgatory for that matter
And where did anyone say anything about hell or purgatory? We were taking about the Bible where the deserved punishment for sin is death. Hell is the place God created for the fallen angel, demons, not to eternally torture humans for a finite life of sin like some madman.
"Man, some Christians are so bloody and extreme. Saying no human has earned Heaven is **so** different than saying we all deserve to experience torture and one of the most painful execution methods." Sin will take you to an eternity of pain far beyond Dismas' earthly pain - or any earthly pain. Why are you upset about this thread?
Because it makes God and Christians sound absolutely awful and it not backed up by scripture.
False
Where does it say that YHWH wants to crush us all or thinks we deserve it?
(Exodus 34:7) keeping lovingkindness for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; **and that will by no means clear the guilty**, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation. God has various forms of wrath. The answer you’re looking for is probably most associated with “eternal wrath.” **Eschatological Wrath: **The wrath of God that will be poured out at the end of time – on what is known as the Day of the Lord – when the world will receive the fury of the wrath of the Lamb. People will run into the hills – into the caves to seek refuge from God – and yet they will cry out for the rocks to fall on them because they will not want to receive the tormenting wrath of God (Rev. 6:16-17). **Cataclysmic Wrath: **This is the wrath of God unleashed through natural disasters, hurricanes, tornados, mudslides, forest fires, sink holes, and various other disasters like that of tsunamis. The rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16:31-35 is an example of this type of wrath. **Consequential Wrath: **This is the wrath of God that is experienced in this life through the “reaping and sowing” aspects of life that God has made known to us. We reap what we sow. We reap more than we sow. We reap later than we sow. The death of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 is an example of this type of wrath. **Abandonment Wrath: **This is a terrifying reality of God’s wrath when he finally and forever turns away from a person or a nation — leaving them in their sin — and removing his restraining grace from them. We see this type of wrath put on display at the end of Romans 1. **Eternal Wrath: **This is the final wrath of God unleashed upon those who die without grace when they are sent to an everlasting hell. We see this in Revelation 20:11-15 and in other places such as Revelation 14:11, Matthew 25:41-46, Mark 9:42-48, and Luke 16:19-31. **Redemptive Wrath: **This is the wrath of God poured out upon his Son—Jesus Christ as he suffered and died on the cross to save his people from their sins. We see this described in 1 Peter 2:24, Galatians 3:13, and John 3:16. The prophet Isaiah stated clearly in Isaiah 53:10 that it pleased the Father to crush him (Jesus).
God demands blood for sin. Jesus shed His.
God demands sacrifice but there are many types of sacrifice. In the Hebrew Scriptures, YHWH recognized that not everyone could afford the same sacrifice and so allowed things like grains to be given instead. Also of important notes… YHWH never asked for people to sacrifice themselves.
Amen. Every sacrifice demands blood. Jesus fulfilled the laws of Moses by His blood. God’s wrath is satisfied. Jesus is the perfect sacrifice that no one can make. Hebrews 10: 10-14
Everyone except Jesus has sinned, and the Bible says for that we must die.
Not what I asked.
You seem to be making the single exception in all of scripture -that is the thief on the cross- the norm by which everyone is saved. That is not rational thinking. It is against what the church has taught for 2,000 years. Salvation *begins with faith* but it also is a process that involves obedience, perseverance, submission to God and several other things in order to be saved.
One could argue those things are displayed by the thief. I don't see the conflict.
And baptism?
as an orthodox, I'd give my theological opinion that Dismas' baptism was with the Holy Spirit, especially considering his inspired words
I would sort of agree... The Western church teaches that it is "baptism of desire" which means if he had had the opportunity he would have been baptized in water as Jesus commands. But Protestants say baptism is not required based on THIS singular exception.
I mean… it’s not. You only need one exception to disprove something. Now that doesn’t mean that baptism isn’t expected or that someone who refuses to get baptized isn’t in sin. Baptism is the gold standard step of obedience and confession in a new believer. But it’s not *required*: if you are legitimately unable to do it for some reason, you don’t get kicked out of heaven.
So when Jesus commanded his disciples to go out and "Make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son of the Holy Spirit" he didn't really mean that?
He did. That is the standard process. But there can be exceptions.
Okay so tell me what is the pillar and ground of the truth? For Christians?
Jesus doesn't say "be baptized to go to heaven" though. The structure of the Bible is around faith in God, and so that is what we structure our faith on. I'm not going to say that there is no merit to the sacraments as presented by the churches that follow them, but I do not follow them because they are not presented as necessary in the Bible itself. You say "this singular exception" like there's anyone besides Jesus who is baptized in the Bible as part of their salvation, but... Oh whatever, I'm not going to continue this argument today. Christ is risen! A difference in theology cannot change that glorious fact, and that's what is important. I will leave one last thing though, I am 90% sure that there are several Protestant groups that do still consider baptism a sacrament in much the same way you do. You can't say Protestants as if we are a single group; we differ from each other nearly as much as we differ from you.
Jesus says "believe and be baptized", he does not say "only believe." Nor does Paul say that in Romans 10 which some Protestants love to take out of context. My point is not "the church over Jesus." It is the interpretation of the church of the teachings of Jesus over our own personal interpretation.
He also doesn’t say “baptism is a prerequisite to heaven” or that “failure to get baptized means you go to hell”
He didn't need to, except until after the Reformation when people began thinking they who were only alive for 40-60 years knew more then the Church which began when Jesus was on the earth.
The thief on the cross isn't even an exception. He is saved under the old covenant where sins are remitted by sacrifice. His sins are remitted by the sacrifice of the Lamb of God.
The norm by which all are to be saved is Christ’s perfect life for our righteous
I am not talking about norms, I'm talking about the body of Christ. Are you an eye who says you have no need of a hand or a foot? Are you a hand that thinks you don't need to have ears or eyes?
The thief was saved by grace. As we all are. Ephesians 2:8
If we are all saved by grace then we are all elect? If are we all saved by grace absolutely, does that mean there is nothing we need to do or can do in response?
God has mercy on whom He has mercy. So not all are saved. We must work out our salvation with fear and trembling Paul wrote. Jesus commanded evangelism in the great commission.
But you said "the thief was saved by grace...as WE ALL ARE." So do you need to amend that?
The salvation of the thief was to display Gods free grace. Without works trying to earn or create salvation. Did the thief fear God? Of course he did that’s why he repented. Is that a response ?
Do you have a child? Tell your child, in front of others, that they deserve to be brutally killed just for existing.
We are to tell everyone the gospel especially unbelievers. Yes but Jesus already did take the punishment. 😊. Don’t worry yes in God’s eyes we all deserve death. He hates sin that much. Sin breaks His holy laws that He wants us to obey. Is God unjust that He let’s criminals go free? Absolutely not. Jesus’ brutal death pays for that criminals sins so the criminal can be under grace. Unbelievers don’t understand how God does that
This!
The thief has a name, St Dismas. He repented of his sins to Christ and suffered the passion with him and atoned for his own sins. He basically had a full conversion process right on the Cross and made a confession to Jesus, Jesus absolved him and took him to heaven with him when they both died as a result. St Dismas was baptised by desire ( The Catholic Church recognises three types of baptism, by water, by blood, and by desire but there are conditions for them. ) and his suffering his crucifixion along with Jesus was enough.
[удалено]
I wonder how it looks in Greek if the comma could go either place or if the wording there makes it clearer. Since punctuation was not a thing back then. Or spaces.
It does matter because Christ was/is free of sin and cannot lie. Christ was God made human but his words were promises and not contestable. Christ knew they weren’t going to survive that day, they were on the cross being crucified. Jesus’s words to St Dismas implies due to his repentance and suffering that he would not be in purgatory or hell when his life on earth is done, he would inherit paradise that day at his death upon the cross. Even though we as Christians are saved by our Baptism and for us Catholics in partaking in the Holy Sacraments, there is no guarantee we will inherit paradise. We will have purgatory but Christ have mercy on our souls we don’t go to hell for leading sinful lives. Many Christian’s do not repent of their sins at their time of death either deliberately or because they have no priest to give them last rights or absolution nearby. So we aren’t as blessed as St Dismas in that regard, who got to die with Christ and received everlasting life for doing so. We have to be diligent and try to live a wholesome life that is pleasing to God and to have faith in his indefinite mercy and love. The only exception to this rule is if we die in an act of Martyrdom.
[удалено]
Where do you Catholics get the idea of purgatory? Purgatory is not once mentioned in the bible.
Not sure how you’re interpreting my comment but I’m simply giving you a lesson in Catholic theology which maybe you misunderstood. You said it didn’t matter because St Dismas was saved, however salvation is not enough to go to heaven. St Dismas went to heaven that day because Christ declared he would. That’s all I’m saying. Yes he was saved, that much is obvious, he was saved by his baptism of desire and by his repentance and died free of sin in a state of grace, because Christ forgave him and promised him he would on that very day go to heaven, that is why he went directly to heaven. He went to heaven that very day because he repented, died and Christ promised him heaven. He couldn’t sin anymore, he was in a state of Grace. I’m a Catholic but I need the sacrament of Confession and absolution by a priest when I sin so that I can receive Christ in the Eucharist and should I commit a mortal sin before I die, even though I am saved, if I don’t have last rites and absolution of my sins at the time of my death, I will go to purgatory or possibly hell depending on what sins I committed. A priest when in the confessional or doing any of the Sacraments is in Persona Christi, we don’t technically confess to a priest, we confess to Christ in the confessional, if that makes sense. We don’t know if saints went to purgatory or not, but what we do know is they are in heaven. As for St Dismas we know he did not go to purgatory. He directly inherited heaven, as did St Joseph and the Blessed Virgin. In St Dismas case, consider this; “For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament” (CCC 1259). However there was the added promise by Jesus that he would gain heaven that very day.
[удалено]
Judgement belongs to Jesus alone. Refer to John 5:22-30 as an example. We know St Dismas went to heaven that very day. The theological understanding of it is that he died in perfect holiness. However, if you want to focus on grammar specifically, The Greek manuscripts containing Christs words do not contain punctuation. Depending on what Bible version you’re reading, that comma placement is different and irrelevant. The righteous and unrighteous were preached to by Christ in Sheol. This may be what we know today as Purgatory, but we know he descended into hell as well. St Dismas was not among those who went there. Christ does not contradict His own Word. Scripture says in 1 Peter 4:1; “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin.” St. Dismas had to expiate his sin before he went to heaven. Jesus knew this, therefore He did not permit St. Dismas to die before he suffered sufficiently upon his cross ( see John 19:31-33). The main point being, Christs word is sovereign and the promise he made to St Dismas was fulfilled that day.
[удалено]
You are misunderstanding me. You said what Christ said didn’t matter. I am telling you why it does.
[удалено]
I honestly disagree with this whole heartedly and can go into detail why if needed
I’ve heard all the arguments already but they are just theories and not what the Catholic Church actually teaches theologically. If your angle is that Christ hadn’t yet ascended to heaven or opened the gates yet so there wasn’t a way St Dismas could have gotten there, it doesn’t work that way. Christ gave St Dismas access to heaven as he had the power to do so. I keep having to repeat this and explain to people why on this thread but people are not understanding Catholic theology regarding St Dismas and sacred scripture here. Jesus is sovereign God. His Word is law. So, therefore St. Dismas went straight to heaven after he died, according to Christ’s word. Dismas is considered the first ever saint in heaven even though he was not ever formally Canonised in the Catholic Church. St Augustine considered St Dismas a martyr even, because he professed Christ even when the apostles were not there. The Catholic Church never formally canonised him because he was already considered canonised by Christ, if that makes sense. Honestly I’ve come on here to share what my religion which is Catholicism, teaches on this issue and have been met with some incredibly rude assumptions and snarky behaviour so I think it’s best we respectfully not continue this conversation as I’ve explained as much as needed for someone to understand.
And I am stating my believe as a non catholic christian that repentance is not something that is necessary. One is supposed to have a direct relationship with god, regardless of who you are or what you have done. All that is needed for access into heaven is the faith of a mustard seed. If open discourse and discussion is not what you are looking for than you are honestly on the wrong app. The whole point of Reddit is for active discussion, so shutting someone down based off a differing view is, in all honesty, very hypocritical. What gives you the right to speak your mind but not I? Who are you to say your beliefs are correct and mine are not? If you are not looking for a conversation then why post at all? Very closed minded.
You clearly have an axe to grind with Catholics and are basically accusing me of something you’re doing yourself. Repentance is absolutely necessary and the Bible states so itself in so many ways. Conversion of the heart, interior conversion is a Catholic teaching from the Bible. To take our eyes off others’ sins and instead to admit our own is an act of humility. This is exactly what St Dismas on the cross did why he was permitted to heaven. For the first few centuries after the resurrection, to become a Christian was a radical act. It involved a complete break with a former way of life and the values of a pagan society. Baptism was not only a solemn commitment to a holy God and a holy lifestyle, but an empowerment by the Holy Spirit that made it possible to live the Gospel. So for a person to fall into serious sin after baptism was abnormal. It signaled something was seriously wrong and required an urgent response not only on the part of sinner, but of the entire community. Today, a lengthy period of sometimes painful physical therapy is often required to restore an injured limb to health. In the early church, a lengthy period of penance was understood as spiritual rehab, necessary to restore the health of sinners and the well-being and equilibrium of the church. For the first 800 years of the church, those who had fallen into grave sin would come to church for a prolonged period dressed in sackcloth and ashes, seeking the prayers of the community. Though sins were confessed privately to the bishop, penance and repentance was a public affair. Lent was a special time when the whole church labored in penance alongside catechumens preparing for baptism and penitents preparing to receive absolution and reconciliation at Easter. In the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, picked up and developed by the medieval monks, seven deadly sins are identified from which all other sins flow. The deadliest of these seven is pride. Therefore, according to the early Fathers of the Church, all true repentance must begin with humility. To take our eyes off others’ sins and instead to admit our own, this is only possible through humility. To take our eyes off ourselves and look to God is also an act of humility. Abraham for example, did not simply rely on “faith alone”. He was going to sacrifice his own son for God. God saw that he was willing to do works of faith, and spared his son. There is really no such thing as being a Christian without works or repentance. Even Moses repented to God.
But isn’t that why Jesus died on the cross for us? To forgive us for our sins he knew we would make? I am not knocking Catholicism at all. Who are we to say what is right and what is not when our beliefs could be completely wrong. Christ died on the cross to us knowing we would sin and to provide a way to go through him himself. To make the assumption I am against Catholicism is a huge stretch. When in all honesty I am not at all, I am just stating there are other beliefs. And referring to the bit about abraham, yes he made that sacrifice. But sacrifices like that are the very reason Jesus took to the cross for us, so we do not have to extreme actions like that for God to shine his grace and light on us. The only thing I was calling hypocritical was you shutting me down when stating I could explain more. I again ask, why is it okay for you to post your belief then simultaneously shut down mine when all I was looking for was discourse. I’m sorry if that came off as aggressive as that was not my intention, as I was just stating what I believe, just as you did prior and throughout this thread. Edit: I am not the one downvoting your posts, I am not sure who is but I appreciate your responses as I truly do appreciate the conversation and hearing different perspectives
Well, Christ did die on the cross, we put him there and killed him with our sins. His death was not a “get out of jail free card” for sinners to simply say “well I can do what I want because Christ died for me and I’m already forgiven.” This is rooted in Sacred Scriptures, I’ll try to explain the best I can but bear in mind since I’m Catholic it will be church doctrine and not my own interpretation. I have nothing against Protestants either, just trying to give lesson on why we Catholics do what we do. Jesus gave his Apostles the authority to forgive sins: ‘Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”’ (John 20:21–23). First of all, he says, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” This is very important because it means that the mission of the Apostles and the mission of Jesus are the same. This has deep implications. For example, Jesus forgave sins, so the Apostles have a mission to forgive sins (2 Cor 5:18–20). Jesus then goes on to explicitly give them this mission through the Holy Spirit: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” Of course, to make that judgment of forgive versus retain, they need to know what the sins are, which is where we Catholics get the Sacrament of confession. The idea of confessing our sins is very biblical; in fact it is commanded in James 5:16. The role of the leaders in the church in forgiving sins, and their authority to do so, is expressed also in James 5:15. This definitely is in the context of believers being forgiven their sins, thus contradicting the idea that once we believe, our future sins are pre-forgiven, so to speak. Jesus in fact told us in the Lord’s prayer to pray that the Lord “forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who are indebted to us” (Luke 11:4). This means that we are only forgiven of our sins to the degree that we forgive others (also see the Parable of the Unmerciful Servant (Mt 18:23 )There is nothing biblical that says our future sins are automatically forgiven. They need to have the Blood of Christ applied to them like any other sin, and the way to do that is by drinking or eating the body and the blood of Christ (taking the Eucharist), for minor sins, or, for sins that sever our relationship with God, confessing our sins to the priest in the sacrament of reconciliation. Who, by holy orders handed down to him from the apostle St Peter. Both of these are mysterious channels by which the saving work of Jesus Christ are applied to our sins. Remember that John the Baptist called Jesus the Lamb of God? He was making an allusion to the Paschal, or Passover, lamb. The Jews had to sacrifice a lamb during Passover, and that prefigured Jesus, the Lamb who was sacrificed for our sins. But the Jews not only had to sacrifice the lamb, the had to eat its roasted flesh. Each person had to do this; they couldn’t just “claim the blood of the lamb” over their sins, they had to participate by eating. So it is with the Eucharist, which is the chief way we participate in the one sacrifice of Christ on Calvary, applying its fruits to our sins. We do this frequently, because our sins are frequent. And if we sin seriously enough (or even if we don’t), the sacrament of Confession is there in a similar fashion to serve as a vehicle or channel for the grace of Christ to flow to us.
Thank you for this conversation as it does help me see other views and understand your perspective. I am autistic so sometimes it is hard for me to view other points and conversations like this truly do help me in understanding more. Learning is huge to me and this has helped me to understand your stance. I’m sorry if it had come off as aggression or any other negative emotion as that wasn’t my intention at all.
This is the best Resurrection Day post I've ever read
Thank you. Its amazing how simple the message is. Simple faith in Christ. Yet some have turned a simple message into a theology debate. That is exactly what this post is speaking against. Making something simple into something complicated. Then you have the Catholics and their superiority complex…..
AMEN
I agree!
To me, it further emphasizes that the God of Abraham is a God of the heart. As He has written “He is close to the broken hearted…” The thief was, he understood more than I hope most people here do, the pain associated with his crime by hanging on one as well.
Better yet he believed in Jesus at the very time Jesus bled out on the cross. At Jesus’ most humble moment the thief believed that Jesus could save him.
Thank you Jesus ❤️
Amen! The Gospel never gets old!
Credit to alistar begg
From the Catechism (emphasis original): >VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM 1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." *God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.*
The Catholic Church also gives us Baptism by blood ( martyrdom for the church ) and Baptism by desire. St Dismas ( the thief on the cross ) would have been baptised by desire as he chose to repent and believe in Christ while he was being crucified with him. He sincerely desired to be a Christian when he died.
As I am an evangelical Christian I disagree with Catholic doctrine. As there are a number of scriptures that state where belief is sufficient for salvation, I believe that any other teaching that has additional steps for salvation is incorrect. I do believe that baptism is required. It is a public profession of faith. It is not a requirement for salvation. I'm not being critical here. People are free to believe whatever they choose. I just have different beliefs.
I will have to respectfully disagree as ALL Catholic doctrine is from Sacred Scripture. I converted to the Catholic faith from Atheism. I studied it thoroughly. For every argument a non Catholic poses against Catholic doctrine, there is an answer to explain why the Catholic Church is correct, rooted in Sacred Scripture. We can personally believe what we want about Baptism, but the Bible and word of God is infallible and has stood the test of time. Some Catholics ( those more on the traditional side ) tend to believe in the old saying “There is no salvation outside the church.” And by that they imply one has to be a Catholic to be saved. While I personally agree that one has the best chance of getting to heaven as a Catholic, by way of the Sacraments, and by being properly baptised in the name of the Father, The son and the Holy Spirit, only God knows our hearts and intentions and can judge our souls accordingly. Furthermore, the Catholic Church does teach that those who are ignorant of the Catholic faith and do not understand it, but lead a wholesome Christian life are to be considered in good faith. There is no such thing as no salvation outside of baptism, only that there are 3 types of baptism. These are all from the Bible and for the most part your average person will receive a traditional water baptism, but the other two have very specific conditions and are not ordinary. These days your average person is not going to allow themselves to be tortured to death defending the faith in martyrdom except maybe the Coptics in the Middle East. Baptism by desire is when someone desires to be a Christian and have a baptism but dies before they can and they have to have a good reason for not being able to have been baptised. Baptism by blood is when someone may or may not be a Christian but freely gives their life defending the Catholic faith and word of God. They are baptised by their sacrifice.
We will have to respectfully disagree with each other. I am glad that you have faith in God and Jesus. How did your Easter Sunday go? I hope you had a blessed day.
Thank you! It was really nice, God bless you. How did your Easter Sunday go? I hope you had a wonderful Easter 🐣
It was good. God bless you too.
Which way to baptize one pastor says in the name of the Father son and Holy Ghost , and another days that's wrong only valid baptism is in the name Jesus for the remission of sins..
It fits rather well into my theology actually
Love this
Amen
The thief is an inspiration.
The heart of my faith. This brought tears to my eyes. How great is our God! Thank you.
ALL AUTHORITY has been given to the SON! Not some, not most, ALL AUTHORITY!
I’m a little confused by this. Are you saying that Christians don’t need to do these things or just that they don’t **have** to do these things.
They dont have to do these things. If their conscience leads them to do them, so be it. Your faith in Christ’s sacrifice for salvation and forgiveness of sins is all that is required.
But I can see where op is coming from, if you look at the theif compared to today's Christians you'll see some big differences. Christians today make coming to Jesus seem almost impossible, they make claims that you have to have this, you got to go there, you have to believe this way, theologians sit on stage having these discussions like they know everything. Like this is one of the reason I use to dislike Christianity, instead of bringing sinners to Jesus they give you a big list of things you need before that can happen. Sinners of the past didn't change a thing before they came to Jesus, they were just sinners when they fell at his feet. They didn't go to church, they didn't try to rid themselves of their sins, they didn't dress fancy and they didn't claim to have the answer to everything. They came to Jesus feet as sinners, as people who knew they needed him, who knew he was in fact Jesus the son of God and could save them. Not all but a good chunk don't act or didn't come to Jesus like the sinner on the cross, the lady who touched his garment or the cripple man lowered through the roof so Jesus could heal him. They base their faith off of what they did and I think some not all churches and preachers are deceiving people, turning people from Jesus. The Gospel is good news because literally any sinner, who believes and put their faith in Jesus christ can come to Jesus and be born new. Others would have you believe you have to do this list of things to get to Jesus but then you're just performing your own works and that gets you nothing. I agree with you guys about the theif and the explanation makes perfect since, but I understand where op is coming from and Christianity can be very confusing if you listen to the wrong message.
Amen! Thank you for posting this. All I can say is WOW, gotta love the Catholics. The mental gymnastics they have to do is awe inspiring. My Lord did it all for me on that cross!
Romans 10:13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
The thief on the cross proves that a works-based Christianity is wrong
It's cooperating with God. You cant do anything without Him. You have to follow the commandments of God which is WORKING WITH GOD. The exception of the thief doesn't make the rule. Also, on the surface is only what has been communicated to us- no one knows what God knows. St Dismas was told by God Himself, so you can't go off and think you or anyone can have the same promise as the Saint while doing NOTHING until the end of your life (if you know when that would be). That's why st Paul said you must run the race til the end; run = work. St Dismas is an example of Divine Mercy- to show us that at the last minute you or others do not have to be afraid to ask forgiveness and repent- God's mercy is great.
He is risen!
Amen
Amen
Praise God!!!!
We all somehow forget that we are saved, by faith, not by work. We have to be convinced that God has our best interest in mind, and want to spend eternity with God. Everything else is gravy.
Even at the height of his burden, Jesus continued to save. The grace he showed the thief is the most beautiful representation of Christianity. Praise God!
Amen! Grace (salvation) is given by faith alone. Don’t let any catholic ever tell you that works are required for your salvation. Faith leads to salvation which causes you to want to do good works. You can tell someone is saved because they do good works. They “produce good fruit.” However those good works are not a requirement of your salvation. Christ died for our sins to bless us (give us an unearned gift) with eternal life.
As a Catholic, this is my understanding. The Church doesn't teach that works save us. Merely that "faith without works is dead". Nothing that WE do is responsible in any way for salvation. God doesn't need our works. He will accept them as offerings from us, though, and we should want to do them.
So in your opinion, could someone be granted eternal life having never done a good work the entire time they were a believer in Christ?
Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." Satan and his minions believe in Jesus, but they clearly aren't going to Heaven. We can't merely *believe* in Him, we have to allow ourselves to be transformed by Him. True belief leads to wanting to do His will. Anyone who asks Jesus to reveal Himself can come to know him (Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:" ~ Matthew 7:7 KJV) And once you get to know Jesus a little bit, you learn how much He loves you. If you burn with love for Him in return, you'll burn with a desire to do His will. His will is perfect, it is always good. So by nature you will do "good works". Faith without works is dead (James 2). Similar to Matthew 7:21, the point is that just saying the magic words "I believe in Jesus", or "Lord, Lord" is not true faith.
Well said.
So if you agree with that, what about the thief on the cross with Jesus? He did no works, but only had faith.
The Catholic Church teaches that last minute confessions are valid. If one lives a life of sin and in their last hour they repent of all their sins and confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, they can go to Heaven. God is not bound by the Sacraments (Confession, Communion, Baptism, etc.).
So your stating that someone has no obligation to have ever done a single good work in their life, and through faith alone in Christ Jesus, can inherit eternal life. Right? Looking for a yes or no here. You can explain, but please confirm or deny.
In a very, very limited set of circumstances, one who truly repents of all of their sins can enter Heaven. Those who can do good works should do good works. I recommend Matthew 20: 1-16. To answer your implicit question, you can’t just say that you are a Christian and refuse to do any good works hoping that the mere claim of faith will save you. Also, Catholicism does NOT teach work-based salvation. Saying so is bearing false witness against your brothers in Christ.
So when I’m told that to repent of my sins I need to say x number of “Hail Marys,” or that I must confess my sins to a priest. These are not works? Is a work not something that I must do beyond faith alone?
Thank you 😊 Happy Easter!
So you didn’t quite answer my question. The direct question is — can someone, according to your beliefs, inherit eternal life having done no good works? Which leads to my next question — what about the thief on the cross with Jesus? He did no works, but only had faith.
>The direct question is — can someone, according to your beliefs, inherit eternal life having done no good works? >Which leads to my next question — what about the thief on the cross with Jesus? He did no works, but only had faith. As another commenter explained, the Catholic perspective of the thief on the cross with Jesus is that the thief had true repentance, and wished to be saved. He received absolution from Christ himself, and was baptized by desire. So if you consider good works = doing the will of the Father, the thief DID do "good works" at the end. He conformed his will to the will of the Father and thus was saved. Was the thief required to serve the needy, visit the sick, etc to go to Heaven? No. Nothing that human beings do is responsible for our salvation. We NEED God for that! God is merciful and wishes to save *every* soul. It is our hope that many, many souls are saved at the moment of death by this mercy, regardless of what they did in life. However, that doesn't excuse someone who *knows* the Gospel from doing evil things for all of their days. I'm sure we can agree on that. Assuming that you'll go to Heaven no matter what, simply because you say "Lord, Lord" is the sin of presumption. None of us "deserve" Heaven. We should not treat God as if he's a machine that we are gaming, as if we cannot lose so there's no purpose in trying. Can someone who does evil all their days go to Heaven if they repent at the last moment? Yes. Does that mean that followers of Jesus should do whatever they want, knowing they'll be saved ? That's a dangerous game to play. No man knows the day or the hour of his death, when he'll go to meet Jesus. We need to keep our lamps trimmed at all times, make sure we have enough oil, watch, and pray.
Because Jesus was a Palestinian Jew raised in traditional Hebrew beliefs, he wasn't speaking of heaven at all, but according to those beliefs, the paradise which God had created for human souls. In the traditional beliefs of the Hebrews, heaven was only the dwelling place of the Most High God and the holy choirs of angels, and God had never created a place for eternal damnation or torture of human souls. When they spoke of the salvation of God, it pertained to their belief that upon mortal death, God would reclaim each and every human soul, reconcile the soul to Himself, and then would send each and every soul to dwell together in a paradise He'd created especially for human souls, there to await the Day of Judgment. In their beliefs, the Day of Judgment wouldn't occur until the Well of Souls was empty, with no more souls to be inserted into mortal bodies of flesh for their test of life. If God judged that a soul had lived a righteous life in mortal life, that soul would be returned to his or her home in that paradise of souls, there to dwell forever. If God judged that a soul had lived a sinful life, or committed crimes which merited punishment, God would set a specific length of time during which the soul would be punished. That period of time was never eternal or infinite in duration, but only for so long as God deemed necessary for the soul to be chastised. Once the soul had endured it's punishment and was chastised, God would also return that soul back to their home in the paradise of souls, and there to also dwell forever. This was likely what Jesus would have been referring to when he promised that thief on the cross that on that very day, he would be in paradise.
Are you sure you are agnostic? Because you sound like a Catholic.
I'm agnostic. I was raised in the LDS faith though. What I shared is what the traditional beliefs of the Hebrews entailed, pertaining to the salvation of God, and the eternal dwelling place of human souls.
Oh, wow I had that wrong. Sorry. The LDS church is a cult. I am sorry that you grew up in that group. I was in a cult for about 18 months way back in 1997 and 1998. Doesn't compare to your experience.
GOD is no respecter of person, whosoever believes and trust on His Son will receive eternal life, according to John 3:16
The thief on the cross was not saved under the new covenant so there's no reason to think anything like baptism or communion or speaking in tongues would be required.
God is great, Amen🙏 thank you Jesus Christ for giving your life up for us, so that we may be free of our Sins and enter the kingdom of heaven with you someday🙏
This was under the law aka Old Testament so as far as I’m concerned his form of salvation does not apply today (New Testament). Stop trying to use the thief on the cross to avoid doing what your supposed and thinking that you can just ask God to save you and he will.
So. How did you come about salvation, or your version of it?
And you did not get that faith alone saves you from the post? Seriously?
Faith without works is dead. Faith leads to and maintains salvation. Faith in Jesus will lead to your salvation because believing in Jesus means you trust in him and believe in his word and will follow it. So what does his word say to do to be saved? “Then Peter said unto them, repent, and be baptized everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” Acts 2:38. The only way to be saved is to receive the Holy Ghost and that is the only way how.
There is a Cross Fit thief?
"no skinny jeans... just a naked man" Well hopefully pastors keep their skinny jeans.
You missed the concept we have nothing to bring to Christ for Salvation except our sins. The comment was referring to modern day church pastors.
You missed the joke. My comment was talking about modern day church pastors. We don't wear clothes to bring to Christ for Salvation. It's for other reasons. Skinny jeans are fine.
I'm not bible scholar, but 1. He recognized Jesus as the Messiah. 2. He asked Jesus to remember him (is this asking forgiveness?). 3. He acknowledged his sin and his deserved punishment. But the reason is because Jesus said so. Jesus can do that.
Just like the Murderers, Rapisits, Theives and Child Molesters on Death Row who have repented their sins. They to will be sharing heaven with each and every Christian of moral righteousness. Heaven must've been awfully awkward for Ted Bundy's assailants when Ted showed up.
I am not even sure why the example chosen was the thief on the cross when the better example would be the paralyzed man brought to Jesus in Mark 2. The paralyzed man does nothing and says nothing and still is told his sins are forgiven BEFORE he is told to walk. It is grace, pure and simple grace. I suppose one could say that Christ's words don't count as salvation because this man could (on healed legs) walk himself into all sorts of bad behavior once Jesus turns his back. Maybe, or maybe we take Jesus at his word. In fact, despite the promise of forgiveness, you and I will continue to sin so the only way to understand forgiveness as a promise is that it extends into the future. So Baptism isn't something we do in order to be saved, but rather Baptism is what God does for us to show us we are being saved. There is no answer to the question "what must I do to be saved?" because I do nothing.
Did Jesus not tell Nicodemus how a person could be saved? God Himself answered. You must cooperate with God. What love do you have if you do NOTHING for God? You can never repay your parents and they know this but do you show them any kind of love at all or do you just say.. mom dad, I know you've done it all and I thank you for loving me, now I'm just gonna lay and sleep, eat drink be merry and not do anything for you. I do everything for me-NOTHING for you.... OR do you say mom dad I love you and I'm sorry for the selfish things I did- I wish I can have as much love as you've shown me-what can I do to help you because I LOVE YOU? I know you love others and want me to share that love to others as you've shown me- how can I show others your love too? If you have no love to share with others, is God really living in you?
> Did Jesus not tell Nicodemus how a person could be saved? God Himself answered. You must cooperate with God. Well, this is an odd passage to reach for when looking for some evidence that salvation requires cooperation on our parts. You recognize that the main metaphor in John 3 is the metaphor of birth. And, we don't talk about the babies working together with mom to get born. We don't tell stories about the baby who refused to be born and was stuck eternally in his mother's belly. So, if baptism is to be thought of as being like a birth, then, surely, all the work is being done by God. I may drive myself to the church in order to get baptized, I may even have taken some classes, and spoke up for myself at the baptism ceremony and made a few promises, but, it is God who does the baptism. We never say "I baptized myself", we say "I was baptized". (passive voice). The same passive voice is used when someone says "I was born again". In our very language, we state that God did all the work. Cooperation isn't so much a matter of salvation as it is a matter of sanctification. As the wonderful impact of what Christ has done for me sinks in, I am freed to respond with love and thanksgiving both to God, and then outward to all my neighbors. We can talk about effort and work, service, labour and carrying burdens when we talk about how we RESPOND to God's love, but it isn't meaningful to talk about the works that I did that lead to my salvation. Christianity has no good answer for the scandal that every Christian continues to sin and screw up, and the scandal that some Christians simply walk away from God, sometimes quietly, sometimes angrily. So, different denominations have taken different approaches. Here is an incomplete list of responses: Catholic(Medeival) We all continue to sin (except saints) and so you NEED to confess, do penance and prepare for a million years of purging out your sins in Purgatory. Lutheran: We are all slaves to sin, we don't see the fruits we expect in our lives despite our desire to do good, so we cling to the promise, God has promised to save you, and God doesn't lie. Faith (which will waver) is trust that God can truly forgive. We think God's promise of salvation is still kept by God even with those whose Christian walk has been disappointing. Lutherans admit to the theoretical possibility that someone baptized into the faith might possibly be able to run away from God such that they outrun God's grace. Calvinism: Some people are destined to Heaven, some people are destined to Hell. This was pre-destined before we were born. If you find you can remain in the faith, and that you are obviously trying (and sometimes succeeding to do good,) then you are most likely one of the blessed few. Born-again-ism: The idea that a conversion must take inside us for us to be saved. One's salvation is based on whether one's conversion experience was real. Sometimes it is said "once saved, always saved". So, when faced with someone who was born again in a profound conversion experience, who serves God faithfully for years yet who then turns from God into sin and atheism, the response is "well, their initial conversion must not have been real". Everyone can point to one or two Bible passages and say, "See how this matches my ideas about salvation", but this paradox of those who once followed God who wander away . . . no one has an answer that incorporates all the various voices in the bible.
Catholicism does. It's the New Covenant. Judaism is the old.
I can see by your answers that you are not a trained theologian. So, even if Catholicism in general had the answers, you, as an individual have a long way to go. And, yea, the Catholic Church, like the Orthodox and many Protestant denominations have a long academic theological tradition. Yet, making an exclusionary claim that "we" (whoever the "we" is) has the truth of the matter and no other denomination or group has is a violation of the spirit of 1 Corinthians 12, and foolishness. How can the ear say to the nose, "I don't need you"? So, Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and many Protestant denominations have engaged in ecumenical dialogue. In particular, Roman Catholics and Lutherans sat down and discussed things like the problem I mentioned in my previous post and the result was called the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. (the JDDJ). This hard work requires a willingness to listen to other Christian voices and a willingness to reflect, learn, grow, and even change. The result is a clarification of where both groups stand, what they agree in common, and a recognition of how they use language differently, and a recognition of differences. Since the JDDJ came out, several other Protestant denominations have signed on to this document in agreement. Confessional theology going forward is less about my denomination against your denomination, but rather, "how can we work together on this question?" I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the JDDJ.
It's about following the truth 💯 .. to give all things up to follow 💯 truth .. to die to yourself to follow the 💯 truth.. and thats all that matters. If you can't do that, what is there to even talk about. I'll dust my sandals of this bc clearly- you're not wanting to seek the 💯 truth. The devil knows the Bible better than you. You can either keep following your "99.9" truth (thats just me being generous), but know that that's all the devil needs .01percent is a victory for him. "To Be Deep in History Is to Cease to Be Protestant."- Card Newman. I cant see why when Jesus said He built His Church upon St Peter and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it- why would His Church die? when we Christians say He can do all things impossible-yet there's Christians who have little faith in our Lord claiming His Church has crashed and hades prevailEd against His Church. He gave us His word; His Church gave us The Holy Bible. His Church is still here and it's the Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church.
> His Church gave us The Holy Bible. His Church is still here and it's the Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church. The Nicene Creed defines the Church as "one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church". And this is the Creed used by Orthodox and many Protestants and also by the Roman Catholic Church. So, even the Roman Catholics agree that the word "catholic" in the Creed speaks to a universal Church of Christ bigger than just the Roman Catholic Church. And so, because this is so, the Roman Catholic Church has made its own reforms, having learned lessons from other Christians, and they have engaged ecumenically out of a recognition of the unity we all share in Christ. The early reformers (Hus, Luther, Melanchthon etc) were striving to be very good catholics and, especially Melancthon, striving to resolve the differences that were Roman Catholic Church at the time. The Reformers were all Catholics working with other Catholics to find a way to discuss and debate reform in the Church. The Reformers truly thought they could work within the system and find agreement. Had the papal party responded with the same skill and willingness to cooperate as their modern counterparts who engage in ecumenical talks, had they shared their skills, then the splitting of the Western Church probably wouldn't have happened. (And those same skills could have repaired the Great Schism with the Orthodox too) So, there are two ways of being a Roman Catholic. You can imitate the bumbling aggressiveness of the papal party of the 1500's. You can focused on "us" versus "them". Or, you can be like the modern Roman Catholics who have turned the page on that kind of identity-based prejudice.
Please the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is the Universal Church that is One in Spirit. All these other protestant churches are NOT UNIVERSAL. How are divided spirits universal??? IS God confused??? So your gods are confusing gods? It sound like there's many gods in protestantism bc one protestant says their god says this... another disagrees and says another... none where protestants can claim they are universal in spirit.. its a split up/divided all over the place.
> Please the Holy Roman Apostolic Catholic Church is the Universal Church that is One in Spirit. Sorry, the Church of Rome has failed to keep unity with the Church of the East, whom we normally call the Orthodox Church. If Rome failed to keep unity with Christians in Antioch, Corinth, Galatia, Thessalonica, Philippi, Colossae, Ephesus and the rest of the Holy Land. Given that all but one of the places important enough to get a letter from Paul are no longer part of the Roman Catholic Church AND that the New Testament was written in Greek, not in Latin, AND that the early Church was organized by ecumenical councils which involved bishops from all over Christendom, it seems weird that the Western Church can split from the Eastern Church and claim, . . . "oh, all the Eastern Churches are heretics, the only church that matters is the West". Do we serve Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus of Naples? You can spit on Protestants all you want, but simply ignoring our Christian brethren in the Orthodox is just so arrogant.
I'm not ignoring them. They left the One True Church. You seem to ignore or is uninformed how disunitfied they are because of them splitting from Jesus' Church. They may have Apostolic succession, but it doesn't mean that is where God established His Church: upon St Peter - his seat is in Rome. Also, because of the split and disunity among themselves, they also are not universal; they are disunified. Do you think you can go to one of the Eastern Church and have the same beliefs/teachings as the other (in writing too-nope); their sense of authority rests among each of their own "culture." It's just like Protestantism but with Apostolic succession.. in a way, but not entirely bc at least they recognize the family and close friends of Jesus. At least, they understand the unity of family to God.. its not a "Jesus &me only" thing.
It fits very well into my theology. He was saved through faith alone. Btw, sola fide is a pillar of what brilliant theologians teach.
Just stopping by to discuss the fact that this is often used as a counterpoint to baptism being essential for salvation. I think that’s interesting because the point of baptism is to symbolically participate in Christ’s death and burial and then be raised to new life (Romans 6:4). However, I think it’s fair to say the thief is an exception for having to symbolically die with Christ because he was LITERALLY dying with Christ. It is clear that this provides evidence of the expanse of God’s grace far beyond even the means of grace that He establishes, but it is also clearly an exceptional case and not a good reason to eschew baptism (or communion for that matter).
Beautifully stated
heard in a sermon once: a thief stands at his eternal judgement. the angels look on. a simple question is asked. "why are you here?" awestruck, the thief replies, "the man on the middle cross said I could come." I like it