Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Thus was not saved by the Old Covenant?

Hebrews makes it clear BY the OT or the law of Moses nobody was saved

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Hebrews makes it clear BY the OT or the law of Moses nobody was saved

Very vital point.

Galatians also.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Very vital point.

Galatians also.

Exactly. We have patriachs being justified by faith before Moses gave the law and after Moses gave the law.

[SDG]

Praxeas... all others ... I would like to also ask:

are there .... is there ... requirement(s) to enter this New Covenant? What is it/are they?

Do these actions save us? How does New Birth enter this discussion of the New Covenant?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Praxeas... all others ... I would like to also ask:

are there .... is there ... requirement(s) to enter this New Covenant? What is it/are they?

Do these actions save us? How does New Birth enter this discussion of the New Covenant?

I look at water baptism like OT circumcision. It was necessary to do. It did not necessarily bring you into covenant but it was a necessary sign or seal of the covenant.

Or maybe it was part of what brings one into covenant...even the NT speaks of saved and repentance, saved and confession, saved and baptism...I don't know how and it probably does not make much sense but maybe one is saved at faith...then saved at baptism etc etc.

Abraham had faith and was justified by faith but as James says we can see how he was justified by his works as well. God already know Abraham's heart...why allow him to go all the way to the top of Mt Moriah and nearly slay his son?

Anyone not circumcised was cut off from Israel.

This opens the door into what I read Dr Segraves once argue about the removal of the body of sins of the flesh.

Forgiveness or washing might be two pronged. There is God's heavenly accounting, but then there is our own conscious. Just some thoughts

[Baron1710]

I think this thread has progressed enough that we can safely say that all who were saved under the Old Covenant were saved by faith and that their salvation was perfected in the death of Christ. The thief on the cross regardless of the covenant was saved by faith. The reason it doesn't matter is because people are saved on both sides of the death of Christ on the basis of their faith and His work. The Scripture is clear that the path to salvation has always been the same. Faith.

It is clear in Scripture that circumcision was about obedience. Circumcision alone however accomplished nothing. It was faith that was the issue, and people of faith under the Old Covenant were circumcised. People of faith under the New Covenant are baptized. Faith is the issue. Baptism does nothing on its own, it saves no one. Abraham was saved by faith apart from circumcision, but through obedience was circumcised. Believers today are saved through faith and are baptized out of obedience. The Thief is a perfect example, he was neither baptized nor circumcised after belief. Salvation is at faith under both Covenants.

Romans 4:3-13
3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

5But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

12And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.

13For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

9Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

10How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I believe part of the covenant includes Jesus sitting on the throne and ruling. There would be no covenant if Jesus died. His blood ratifies it like all others covenants but was not active until Jesus sits down on the right hand of power. This shows his eternal Priesthood which is essential as part of the covenant.

So it was ratified at his death but not put into place until he ascended and sat next to the Father. I could be wrong but part of the element of the covenant was his eternal priesthood

I believe you're right. Not only does Peter say Jesus sat on the right hand of God but that it was from there He sent forth the Holy Spirit, a promise of God prophesied by Joel. Acts 2, Jer 31

The new covenant went into effect on the day of Pentecost in Act 2. We are now all taught of the Lord. The Holy Spirit we receive by faith which is evidenced by tongues is our teacher.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

So this would be at his exaltation ...correct ... after his ascension? How would you term it?

Do you have scripture to substantiate the eternal Priesthood aspect of your argument?

This would differ from saying it was in effect immediately after his resurrection ... I believe ... and prior to Pentecost.

Thoughts on the thief?

He's an exception to the rule during a period of flux.

[TRFrance]

Dan, maybe I missed it,but I didn't see you give your opinion on this yet.

So if you don't mind, can you tell us... when did the New Covenant take effect, in your view?

[ManOfWord]

OK, I'll put in a few cents worth of thought:

When I was a "solid" 3 stepper, I used to say that we can't make a doctrine out of an exception, when it came to the thief on the cross. I now see that God was doing what He always has done, "having mercy on whom He will...."

First off, most Christians believe that the Jews have the same view of salvation that they do. i.e. that salvation takes place at a "point." Perhaps when one decides to become a Jew or at brit milah (circimcision) etc. The Jews didn't and don't have that type of view.

We superimpose our views, so many times, over upon Judaism as if we know what they believe. I am not a scholar when it comes to Judaism, but I have studied it for over 15 yrs. In my study, one thing which shocked me and caused me to do further reading was the fact that the Jews don't and haven't believed that obedience to the law "saves" them or ushers them into the afterlife.

Remember, Judaism came FIRST and is the foundation that everything else is laid upon. No one in the Jewish community would have thought that the thief is finally saved because of the testator viewpoint. They would have thought that the thief was saved because of the mercy of God.

The Jews believed that one followed the law BECAUSE he/she was Jewish not to BECOME a Jew. So, following the "original intent," which is what I believe we should do, one gets baptized etc, BECAUSE they are a Christian not to BECOME one. In other words, they follow the Word not to BECOME a child of God, they do it because that is what a child of God does.

Jesus said, "If you love Me, keep my commandments."

I am not and never have been a proponent of "easy believism." If you are a child of God, you have surrendered your life to Him. If not, it doesn't matter how many times you get baptized or speak in tongues.

No relationship = you're TOAST
Relationship = salvation
Salvation = following Him