The Thief on the Cross

I figure you probably won't accept this, but for those who are reading I'll answer you. Paul is laying down a principle about faith. And then in v.18, he says "BUT I say..." and deals with the question of Israel's rejection and answers the question as to whether they heard the gospel or not. He says they did. And their rejection would be why God would judge them.

 

You said there was no requirement to repent and then be saved. I show that your argument does not stand the test of scripture above.

The text shows that repenting of sin precedes salvation.

You slip back and forth between "Where does it say REPENT of your sins in order to be saved" (thus ignoring the texts above) with "repenting of ALL of your sins is impossible" Which I suppose is an appeal to total recall.

Interesting bait-and-switch but it has not worked as well as you might have at first imagined.

in Christ,

Bob

 

I did not say that Bob; you do not read well, or more likely do not read all my posts.

There is not a text in the NT that says one must repent of their sin in order to be saved. Remember we are talking of salvation.

I have been consistent in my question all along. Where does it say in the Bible that one must repent of their sins in order to be saved. That is the same question I have asked over and over again. I have never strayed from it. The answer is: The Bible never says this. It is a heretical teaching.

There is no bait and switch Bob, but if you don't know what repentance is, then how can you repent? Never does it say to repent of all your sins, but it does say repent. I acknowledge that. But I have already defined repentance.

 

What does the rejection of God by Israel have to do with faith.
And what does it have to do whether or not that faith was given by God or not, which was your original objection.

 

Do any of your texts say "repent of all your sins"? No.
It is an appeal to total recall.
My wife was saved at the age of seven. There are some on this board that testify to being saved at the age of four. If we conclude by those testimonies that the age of accountability is somewhere between those ages, then a person like my self who was saved later in life (in my twenties), could never be saved. It would be impossible. Is it possible for an adult to go back to his childhood and recall every sin from his childhood to his adulthood so that he can repent of each and every sin. We sin every day--365 days a year, whether they be lies, cheating, evil thoughts, words, anger, etc. Can an adult remember ever time he has sinned from his childhood onward so that he can "repent of ALL his sins?
It is an impossibility! It is an unbiblical concept. The Lord never commanded something impossible to do. No one could ever be saved with that condition imposed.

 

The heart/spirit is changed by God through regeneration (John 3). Renewing of the mind is our responsiblity as we are to mature in Christ (Ro 12).

:godisgood:

 

Amen, JSM17.

One cannot repent of all our sins, because we do not know all of them.

An unbeliever can repent of living life outside the will of the Lord, and this happens precisely when a person becomes a believer on Jesus Christ as Lord.

 

Psalms 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:

 

Praise Him! :thumbsup:

Rom 12:2And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

Eph 4:23And be renewed in the spirit of your mind;

Col 3:12Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

1Pe 4:1Forasmuch 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;


:jesus:

 

Repentance unto salvation is simply stated "godly sorrow" (2Cor 7) towards one's sin. The publican is an example of repentance unto salvation...

Luk 18:13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

Calling on God with a broken and contrite heart for one's sinful condition. This is the repentance God is looking for.

Luk 18:14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.


One cannot repent of their sins and then call on God. One needs God in order to repent of their sins.

:jesus:

 

DHK:

The very act of the thief's will to call Jesus Lord, is an act of a contrite heart. To define another as Lord is to define that person as one in possession or authority over another's life.

Even John the Baptist said that Jesus must become important, and he/John must basically fade from the limelight.

The unrepentant will not or cannot acknowledge Jesus as their Lord. It goes cross-grain with the very condition of their soul, or attitude towards the one who is indeed Lord.

As for the books of the N.T. saying that the two theives were throwing disrespectful remarks towards Jesus, and the book of Luke says that one thief was contrite of heart and acknowledged Jesus as Lord, I see know contradiction.

What I do observe is that both thieves were in the beginning of their crucifixion, throwing abuse at Jesus, but in Luke, apparently one of them had a change of heart. Maybe that saved thief listened to what Jesus was saying to the people who communicated with Him. Maybe the change happened, when Jesus said, "Forgive them for they know not what they do"? Remember that even the Roman centurion at the end when Jesus breathed His last, said, "Surely this is the Son of God.".

Many will say, "He is my Saviour.", but I think it will be a much smaller group that says, "He is my Lord and Saviour". Without the full acknowledgement that Christ is master of all things; that all things were created through and for Him, a very important aspect of the God of the bible is missing.

 

Three questions:
1) How did he know that Christ is Lord? I mean, here's a man who has had His clothes taken away from Him, who has a crown of thorns on His head, has been beaten, and is now hanging on a cross suffering in front of whoever wanting to come and see, and these that were looking on were mocking Him. He hardly looked like the Lord then.

2) How did he know that Christ has a kingdom? Not only did Christ not look like the Lord, He certainly didn't look like a king. There's no mention of these thieves hearing the gospel or of Jesus preaching it to them.

3) How did one come to know these things and the other didn't?

 

Jesus was very well-known to the Jews, and most likely this thief knew, well before he was apprehended and crucified who Jesus was or claimed to be.

His ministry was known all over Israel. Thousands flocked to see and hear Him. Why would the thief be exempt from knowing about Jesus?

Don't you think all these folks standing around the hill of Golgotha must of helped the thief realize who was hanging on the cross next to him. Some were grieving, and praying, and others were mocking this man for claiming to be the Son of God.

Also, Pilate had a big old sign placed upon the cross, saying "King of the Jews".

 

If Jesus was so well known, why did the Jews pay Judas 30 pieces of silver to betray Him to them?

Because thousands that heard Him preach didn't believe He is Lord. In fact, many would get mad when He equated Himself with the Father. On top of that, we are never told this man heard Jesus preach. On top of that, this man was railing on Jesus to begin with and then changed and defended Him.

The people that were standing around didn't realize who He was either. Paul says had they known it they wouldn't have crucified the Lord of Glory.

Pilate did indeed place a sign that said that. However, the Jews resented that and wanted it taken down. Regardless, Jesus didn't appear to have a kingdom. The Jews wouldn't have this man to reign over them. He was hanging on a cross facing certain death. There's nothing external that points to Him having a kingdom.

 

The bible said that some believed in Him and some didn't. What's the problem here with the thief on the cross?

Why couldn't he have exercised believing faith in Jesus while hanging there dieing?

In fact dieing has a way of bringing people to their ultimate senses about life, eternity, and their personal eternal destiny.

God seems to use the mode of allowing weakening man in order to convince him that he really isn't an "island" of life unto himself, but really is very needy soul.

Many of condemned man/woman has come to salvation shortly before being put to death. Pending death has a way of waking the human soul to reality and casting out denial.

Why are you struggling with this thief crying out to Jesus!

Haven't you ever had an epiphany in your life?

You have a God given "will" or "chooser", so do the thief.

 

What I am asking is this? How did he know that this man hanging next to him that was also soon to die like him was able to save him? How did he know these things about Jesus Christ? You say it was pending death? Uh, then why didn't the other thief see these things as well?

Hint: read Matthew 16:17

 

Everyone in Israel knew of Jesus and what He was doing in His ministry, why are you having a hard time accepting that this thief didn't also know of Jesus?

So the thief knew that Jesus had proclaimed to be God in the flesh, the Son of God, the Son of Man. I'm repeating what I said in my first or earlier posts.

Why can't the thief be abreast of this knowledge as the rest of Israel was?

You've got me really puzzled. Your responses don't seem to take in what I've presented in my responses to you?

Thieves convicted or not, likely knew of Jesus just as anyone else.

My question to you is this. Why wouldn't the thief know of Jesus, as he was most likely a Jew?

Do you know how the guy next door to you got saved? I don't, and if he didn't tell you, you won't know either.

I don't know what circumstances in his life led up to his believing in faith in Christ for salvation, but it happened.

I don't know the thief's past, where he traveled, if he was in those multitudes that listened to Jesus at the shores of Gallilee, or what.

What is the point of trying to analyze how this thief knew of Jesus. Where is this going?

Seems like your rather "bent" on this thief not being saved?

Some folks walk into a church for the first time in their lives, hear the gospel message, are convicted of their sins, repent, believe on Christ and are saved. Others ponder for years, hearing the gospel and hold out until they are near death or under some final breaking stress in their lives that convinces them that they are "weak and He is strong" and He is really Lord or needs to be Lord of their lives.

 

Where have I once said the thief wasn't saved? He most certainly is for Jesus said, "today thou shalt be with me in paradise." What I'm discussing is how he came to believe in Jesus. Why, if he knew who Jesus was, and believed Jesus was indeed who he said he was, would he rail against the Lord? Obviously something happened that changed this vile sinner's disposition toward the Savior, something that did not happen to the other thief.

 

Your posts have questioned how he could come to salvation if he didn't know who the Man hanging on the cross was?

Why can't different witnesses record different aspects of this prolonged, agonizing day of crucifixion? Luke happened to "key in" on one of the thieves finally coming to his sense, and repenting. That's all.

I've thrown out all kinds of plausible possiblities.

Also I posted that just because two gospel accounts have him railing against the Lord, and Luke's account has the thief acknowledging Jesus as Lord, where is the problem?

So, two of the accounts record both thieves railing against Him, and in Luke's account apparently one of them had a change of hear/mind/will, at the end and realized his folly.

Where's the problem?

Often Mark, Luke, Matthew, and John would records the same accounts with different perspectives of eye-witness recordings.

Luke was a physician, and Mark and Matthew, and John were of different trades, and obviously different temperments.

It's like listening to different witnesses that viewed a crime or accident. They each may highlight in their testimony what they perceived to be the most important, and leave out another important aspect.

As these thieves hung there slowly dieing, couldn't a change of heart/mind happened? Seems like the most plausible explanation.

At first it was, "Get me off this cross, if your God!", but the finality of their lives probably sunk in as they realized that this railing was to no avail, and they had to face their impending deaths. One of them gave up the denial and stubburness and with a contrite and repentant heart called out to Jesus, not to get him off the cross, but to relieve his burdened soul for eternity. Basically that last thief admitted or owned-up to his sinfulness, before the Lord.

Pretty simple.

It's throughout the Mark, Matthew, Luke and John; so many differernt angles of witness testimony about the same happenings. They don't cancel the other if there is a different aspect of the happening, just the author emphasizing by the inspiration of God, another part of the story. The crucifixion went on for a prolonged time period. Railing against our Lord happened, and apparently a change of heart also happened in that timeline.