Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Luke 23:43 And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Luke 23:43 Jesus said to him, "I assure you and most solemnly say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise." [2 Cor 12:4; Rev 2:7] |
Subject: why was the thief saved without baptism? |
Bible Note: Sorry to be slow Kalos. It took me a while to look up and study all the scripture references you gave. (I couldn’t find “IssuesandAnswers” on the Grace to You web site) You (and others) ask, “If baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sin, why didn't Peter say so in Acts 3?” I say, if God inspired Luke to write that Peter said baptism was for remission of sins in the first recorded gospel sermon – the baseline, if you please (Acts 2:38), perhaps He didn’t see a need for Luke to keep on repeating it. The truth of it had already been established . Please tell me how you explain away the fact that the only time in scripture “faith alone” is alluded to, the text says, “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” (James 2). And, please give reasons James would have said, not once but three times, that “faith without works is dead.” My own interpretation is that the righteous works which God requires of his believers are different from “the works of the law” [of Moses]. Compare Eph 2:9 with Eph 2:10. You say, “Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations.” But, when Luke records Paul’s words about his own conversion, he said that baptism was to wash away his sins. Your explanation about Acts 22:16 doesn’t work for me. Much more logical to think the washing was done in the waters of “baptism” rather than in the “calling.” I think this verse is a good example of “calling on the name of the Lord” (doing something by His authority – as we might say, “STOP! In the name of the law!). You say, “Paul states that ‘Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,’ thus clearly differentiating the gospel from baptism.” I ask, aren’t you comparing apples and oranges? There is nothing in this text that indicates that baptism for remission of sins is not a part of the gospel preached, only that Paul didn’t do much of the baptizing. The reason is given in 1 Cor 1:15, “Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name,” and thus lend to the divisions among the brethren. In your Note 1, sixth paragraph, all the examples you give of Jesus forgiving sins happened before his death; before baptism into his death became a requirement for salvation. (Rom 6, Heb 9) There is nothing in the text of scripture that indicates the baptism of the Holy Spirit was for salvation of the Apostles or of Cornelius, et al. It was to furnish the power to usher in the Kingdom of God, to the Jew first, then to the Gentile. I agree wholehearted with these comments of yours: “One of the basic principles of biblical interpretation is the analogia scriptura, the analogy of Scripture. In other words, we must compare Scripture with Scripture in order to understand its full and proper sense. And since the Bible doesn't contradict itself, any interpretation of a specific passage that contradicts the general teaching of the Bible is to be rejected. …Thus we must look for interpretations of those passages that will be in harmony with the general teaching of Scripture.” However, I do not agree with your comment, “Since the general teaching of the Bible is, as we have seen, that baptism and other forms of ritual are not necessary for salvation, no individual passage could teach otherwise.” I see the “general teaching” in Matt 28, establishing Christ’s authority and His command to be baptized, and in Acts 2:38, the first time God’s plan of salvation is presented by the Holy Spirit through the Apostles after the resurrection and ascension of Christ. All other interpretations must be in harmony with that. Not too difficult, if you are careful to weed out the “doctrines and commandments of men” that abound in the religious world today. |