Subject: "need" for baptiam |
Bible Note: But, Grace and Truth, if I am going to believe all this stuff I've been reading on the forum about how salvific water baptism by immersion is, I've got to conclude that the thief on the cross was baptized. After all, just because the unique, one-of-a-kind, one and only Son of God told the thief that he would be with Him in paradise doesn't negate the all-important need to be baptized, now does it? Just how the thief pulled it off to persuade the Roman soldiers to let him take a baptizing break remains one of the great unsolved mysteries of all time, but he obviously did it in order to be saved, unless of course, Jesus was only kidding about going to paradise. There's no telling how far the poor thief had to travel from Golgotha to a body of water big enough for him to get immersed in. At all events, it probably wasn't a good day for him to be taking a hike, having been pulled down from a Roman cross. And on the way back from the immersion to the cross, he would have had to toss in a couple of good works, just for insurance, you know. Perhaps he helped a little old lady across the street and tossed a coin to a blind beggar. So, as you pointed out, the Bible doesn't say he was baptized, but it doesn't need to. We know, don't we all, that the blood of Jesus Christ poured out on the cross needs a little goose from us -- water and works -- to make it work. [Caveat, especially new forumites: Any irony you think you see in this post is not a mirage!] --Hank |