Thief on the Cross: A New Covenant Believer?

[Sam]

Originally Posted by 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

Thanks, MOW, for those good words.

You said it better than I could.

[MikeinAR]

[QUOTE=Sam;516466]In my opinion, that is a good, sound answer.

Hebrews 9:16-17 speaks of a testament being in force after the death of the testator. Hebrews 4:1-2 says that the Gospel was preached to us (NT) as well as unto them (OT).

Arguing over the sequence of the promise of Paradise to the repentant thief, the death of Jesus, then the death of the thief reminds me of a couple of deep, deep theological questions such as, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" and, "If God can do anything, can He create a rock which is too heavy for Him to lift?"

We need to avoid extremes. We all agree that salvation is by faith. We also agree that faith results in works. If we are not careful we can fall into an extreme position in which we over emphasize the faith aspect so strongly that we could view the Book of James as "an epistle of straw and destitute of evangelical character" as Martin Luther is alleged to have said and we could become loose and careless in our Christian walk. On the other hand, we can fall into another extreme position where unless certain works are accomplished in certain prescribed ways (and we are the ones who define which works and in which ways), the faith is not considered real or sufficient for salvation.[/QUOTE]

Sam, that's a great reminder to ALL of us no matter our positions. That post will preach on Sunday morning my friend!!

[SDG]

Sam what are your views on dispensationalism?

[SDG]

I'd have to agree that we have made the idea of covenant to mean salvation as getting into heaven ... when it always deal w/ relationship and union.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Sam what are your views on dispensationalism?

I pretty well agree with the 7 dispensations as taught by Scofield, Ironside, the Oneness Pentecostal Correspondence Course and others. It makes sense to me that God has dealt in different ways in different times and ages with different people. However, in my opinion, people have always been "saved" by just believing in God. That belief/faith/trust led to acting on the Word of God, but the salvation was based on the faith, not based on their actions.

Dispensationalism teaches that each dispensation ended with judgment and the law ended with judgment upon Jesus. Strong dispensationalists will say that the New Covenant/Testament or the Church Age or the Age of Grace began at Pentecost.

I have problems slicing it that thinly. I realize that when the fullness of times was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, but when Jesus was here in flesh, it was kind of a "mixed" period. I think Jesus acted and lived according to "the spirit of the law" but not according to the "traditional interpretation of the law" held by the scholars and religionists of His day. However, it is my understanding that folks were saved and even "born again" under His ministry before His death but not strictly according to the law.

The Bible says that the law and the prophets (Old Testament?) were until John and after that the Kingdom is preached. Jesus told some that "The Kingdom is among/within you." In my opinion, the kingdom was already starting (and I think the Church also) when John the Baptizer pointed his disciples to Jesus and they left John started following Jesus.


In one way, the church began in the ageless past when we were seen in God's plan (Ref Ephesians 1:3-6) before the foundation of the world.

Believing that the church began when people started following Jesus and submitted to His leadership as a teacher/master does not fit into a neat theological/dispensational package. But, based on His later words in Matthew 18:20 about being with any two or three who were gathered in His name, I think that when Jesus and His motley crew wandered through Israel, they were the church. He was with them in flesh and is now with us in Spirit.

As a side note, when Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, "I WILL build my church," the will does not necessarily mean that since will can be future tense the church had to be future tense at that time. That's how some dispensationists teach it --that by saying "I will" proves that the church wasn't here yet. "I will" could be a statement of intent, meaning I intend to build up my church. And the word translated build is also translated edify in other places so Jesus could just be saying that He intended to build up/edify/strengthen His assembly/church/group of disciples.

Sorry this got so long and that it doesn't fit into a neat package but that's how I see it.

In my opinion, the disciples were saved as they followed Jesus and therefore did not get saved (again) at Pentecost. My belief about the Holy Ghost Baptism or "Pentecostal Experience" is that it is an empowerment or equipping for service promised to a child of God.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Sam

I pretty well agree with the 7 dispensations as taught by Scofield, Ironside, the Oneness Pentecostal Correspondence Course and others. It makes sense to me that God has dealt in different ways in different times and ages with different people. However, in my opinion, people have always been "saved" by just believing in God. That belief/faith/trust led to acting on the Word of God, but the salvation was based on the faith, not based on their actions.

Dispensationalism teaches that each dispensation ended with judgment and the law ended with judgment upon Jesus. Strong dispensationalists will say that the New Covenant/Testament or the Church Age or the Age of Grace began at Pentecost.

I have problems slicing it that thinly. I realize that when the fullness of times was come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, but when Jesus was here in flesh, it was kind of a "mixed" period. I think Jesus acted and lived according to "the spirit of the law" but not according to the "traditional interpretation of the law" held by the scholars and religionists of His day. However, it is my understanding that folks were saved and even "born again" under His ministry before His death but not strictly according to the law.

The Bible says that the law and the prophets (Old Testament?) were until John and after that the Kingdom is preached. Jesus told some that "The Kingdom is among/within you." In my opinion, the kingdom was already starting (and I think the Church also) when John the Baptizer pointed his disciples to Jesus and they left John started following Jesus.


In one way, the church began in the ageless past when we were seen in God's plan (Ref Ephesians 1:3-6) before the foundation of the world.

Believing that the church began when people started following Jesus and submitted to His leadership as a teacher/master does not fit into a neat theological/dispensational package. But, based on His later words in Matthew 18:20 about being with any two or three who were gathered in His name, I think that when Jesus and His motley crew wandered through Israel, they were the church. He was with them in flesh and is now with us in Spirit.

As a side note, when Jesus said in Matthew 16:18, "I WILL build my church," the will does not necessarily mean that since will can be future tense the church had to be future tense at that time. That's how some dispensationists teach it --that by saying "I will" proves that the church wasn't here yet. "I will" could be a statement of intent, meaning I intend to build up my church. And the word translated build is also translated edify in other places so Jesus could just be saying that He intended to build up/edify/strengthen His assembly/church/group of disciples.

Sorry this got so long and that it doesn't fit into a neat package but that's how I see it.

In my opinion, the disciples were saved as they followed Jesus and therefore did not get saved (again) at Pentecost. My belief about the Holy Ghost Baptism or "Pentecostal Experience" is that it is an empowerment or equipping for service promised to a child of God.

I have to leave and get to church and teach midweek Bible Study (in sandals, shorts, and a Tee shirt). I would think that any theologian would find sufficient stuff in my post to refute, so have at it.

P.S. I don't intend to argue about this. I've stated my opinion.

[stmatthew]

Daniel,

Though I gave some rough thoughts, I do not believe I can say that I clearly dealt with this subject and gave an answer as to what I believe.

I think the 1st thing we should do if we are going to identify when the New Covenant took effect is to identify what the New Covenant is. This "New Covenant" is first mentioned by name in Jeremiah Chapter 31.



Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.


Several points to make in this is:

• This "new" covenant was originally to be made with the House of Israel and Judah
• It would be different than the old covenant that Moses presented
• Gods Law would no longer be on the hard tables of stone, but the soft tables of mans heart

Hebrews 8 brings this same text forward and gives greater clarity as to the mediator of this "new" covenant.


Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken [this is] the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
Heb 8:2 A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man.
Heb 8:3 For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices: wherefore [it is] of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer.
Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
Heb 8:5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, [that] thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
Heb 8:7 For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
Heb 8:8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
Heb 8:9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
Heb 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
Heb 8:12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new [covenant], he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old [is] ready to vanish away.


There are many things to consider in Hebrews 8. Again, a few points to highlite are:

• Our high priest, Jesus Christ, is sitting in a place of authority (right hand) in the heavens
• The high priest of necessity had to be IN the holiest of all in order for the sacrifice to be offered upon the mercy seat. Thus our high priest, who offered the sacrifice in the heavens, had to be in the holiest of all in the heavens to offer His blood sacrifice upon the mercy seat in the heavens.
• the first covenant had fault, the new covenant was better, and had better promises

maybe more later...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

First, this is a great thread and a lot of interesting points on all sides. I think the point made by Baron here is extremely important. The correlation between the obedience of circumcision in the OT and obedience of baptism in the NT is undeniable. Scripture bears that out plainly. The more OT I read concerning circumcision, the more I see the mirror image of the two in the OT and NT.

Just as plainly seen, is the point that faith was the central core of salvation that ties the OT and NT together. Faith's role in salvation in the OT is just as vital as it is in the NT. Without faith, I'll promise you no one went through the sacrifice rituals for the remission of sin. The correlation that Baron points out here is worth a lot of study and meditation by all of us.

If one accepts the faith to salvation in NT and OT, then the dispensationalists arguments concerning the thief, as intriguing as they are to me, lose their importance because faith was the key to his salvation regardless of the dispensation.

Gee...someone else mentioned OT circumcision and NT baptism just before Baron, but I can't remember the name.....hmmmmmm

[stmatthew]

Hey Prax,

I know we discussed a little bit back whether there was a remission of sins in the old testament. I believe your view was that sins were not remitted in the old testament. Can you talk to me about how this verse fits into your view. It seems to indicate that the blood of the bulls and goats could purity the flesh.


Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Hey Prax,

I know we discussed a little bit back whether there was a remission of sins in the old testament. I believe your view was that sins were not remitted in the old testament. Can you talk to me about how this verse fits into your view. It seems to indicate that the blood of the bulls and goats could purity the flesh.


Hbr 9:13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

It made them ritually clean, their flesh. It did not make them spiritually clean.