You've mentioned before that we all should be baptized if we expect to enter the gates of Heaven.  What is your take on the thief on the cross beside Jesus?  He, the thief, asked Jesus to remember him, and Jesus answered, “Today you shall be with Me in Paradise”.

I suppose the thief may have been baptized previously, before he took on a life of crime, or was Jesus giving this guy a break this one time?

Sincerely,
Question From The Jury

Dear Question From The Jury,

There are four explanations for Christ’s pardon of the crucified thief in Lk 23:39-43.  All of them fit in perfect harmony with the necessity of baptism and the New Testament teachings that salvation begins at baptism (1 Pet 3:21, Acts 2:37-38, Mk 16:16, Rom 6:3-4).

1. The first explanation you have already mentioned.  This thief may very well have been baptized by John the Baptist (Mk 1:4) or one of Jesus’ disciples (Jhn 4:1-2).  We simply don’t know enough about this thief to say whether he was or wasn’t baptized.  It is always faulty to build a doctrine off an assumption.  To say that we don’t need to be baptized because that thief wasn’t baptized is an assumption.
2. The thief was physically unable to be baptized.  2 Cor 8:12 tells us that God only holds us accountable for what we are physically able to do.  That thief didn’t have the capability to get off that cross and be baptized.  The argument could be made that he was excused from the law of baptism the same way that a mute man would be excused from the command to “confess Christ with your tongue” (Rom 14:11).  This isn’t the best argument of the four, but it is a valid point worth considering.
3. While Jesus was here on earth, He had the authority to forgive sins as He saw fit (Matt 9:6).  This thief was no different than any of the other people whose sins were verbally forgiven by Christ as He walked this earth (Lk 7:48-49, Lk 5:20).  Since Jesus is no longer on this earth… baptism is the only other way to have your sins removed.
4. The command to be baptized for salvation is a New Testament command.  Those who are baptized become a part of the church (Acts 2:41).  If we are being technical (and there is a time for technicalities), the church and the New Testament law didn’t come into effect until after Jesus died and rose from the grave.  Until Jesus’ death and resurrection, the laws of the Old Testament would have still been in effect.  That thief wasn’t bound to the law of baptism (a New Testament law) because Jesus hadn’t yet died.

No matter which argument seems the sturdiest to you (they all have merit), the thief on the cross example doesn’t negate the necessity of baptism today.

Question: Are we TRULY saved by faith alone, and what is a "true Christian"?

Hello, my name is (omitted), and I am a christian (Protestant).  I had always believed that we were saved by "faith alone," but I read an article that talks about 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and states that those sins can keep you from heaven.  Furthermore, in that same article, they say this:

"However, a true Christian will always repent, will always eventually return to God, and will always resume the struggle against sin.  But the Bible gives no support for the idea that a person who perpetually and unrepentantly engages in sin can indeed be a Christian."

Based off of that, it seems they are saying that even if you have faith (believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior), you have to do "good works" by "repenting" in order to be called a "true Christian" and keep your salvation.

To sum it all up:

I'm confused.  If there is a Christian that practices the sins in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 without repenting (good works), and even if they believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, is the Bible saying that they are not "true Christians", thus they are not saved?  If that's the case, then aren't we saved by faith + good works instead of just "faith alone"?  Thanks.

Sincerely,
Working On My Faith

Dear Working On My Faith,

The Bible says that we are saved by faith (Eph 2:8), but it never says that we are saved by faith only.  The Scriptures mention a lot of things that are involved in our salvation.  We are saved by hope (Rom 8:24).  We are saved by baptism (1 Pet 3:21).  We are saved by the love of the truth (2 Thess 2:10).  All of these things are involved in your salvation.

We are told that in order to be saved, we must believe in Jesus (Jhn 3:16), repent of our sins (Acts 2:38), be baptized (Mk 16:16), and continue to grow in the knowledge of Christ through the Bible (2 Pet 3:18).  Faith is hearing what God says (Rom 10:17)… and then acting upon it.  James says that faith without works is dead (Jas 2:17).  It is impossible to be a faithful person and live an unrepentant life.  Faith is more than belief; even the demons believe in God (Jas 2:19).  Faith is belief combined with action.  We must be hearers and doers of God’s Word (Jas 1:22).  1 Cor 6:9-10 lists a multitude of unrepentant lifestyles.  If someone continues to live a life of sin, they are not faithful, and God will condemn them.

I keep getting conflicting info on this, and I ache for clarification and truth.

God commanded His people to observe the Sabbath and Feast days (even Jesus and His disciples did), and whoever believes on Jesus' name are His people.  Jesus didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it and make it better (with His gift of the Holy Spirit and circumcision of our hearts), and so the law still stands.  Why do so many christians think it is okay not to observe them?

Because I am not a Jew, is it crazy/worthless for me to observe these days?  I'm only trying to follow Jesus' examples.  What is so wrong with that?

Sincerely,
Eaten Up By This

Dear Eaten Up By This,

Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament law when He died upon the cross (Lk 24:44-47).  The Old Testament law was a tutor to lead us to Christ, but now that Christ is here, we are no longer under that law (Gal 3:24-25). We are told to not worry about feasts and festivals in the New Testament (Col 2:16).  Jews kept the feast days; christians keep the New Testament, the law of Christ (Gal 6:2).

The recent series of posts on creeds got me thinking about a few more questions.  It seems like there's a tendency to make concise statements of important beliefs such as "speak where the Bible speaks; be silent were the Bible is silent," "No creed but the Bible," or "To be saved one must hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized and remain faithful."  It seems like sayings such as the Apostle's Creed or the Nicene Creed can be tweaked a little, so that they agree with Scripture as much as these shorter sayings do.  What's fundamentally different about saying, "We are a church that accepts this modified version of the Apostle's Creed" versus "We are a church that speaks where the Bible speaks and is silent where the Bible is silent?"

Sincerely,
Catch Phrase

Dear Catch Phrase,

The difference between a creed and a concise statement of beliefs is often subtle, but it is also important.  Creeds often start out as simple statements meant as “sermonettes” on Bible topics, but eventually, they take on a life of their own.  A creed is defined by the dictionary as ‘a set of beliefs or aims that guide someone’s life’.  A creed is created when someone takes a commentary on the Bible and turns that commentary into a stand-alone doctrine.  There is a difference between saying, “To be saved one must hear, believe, repent, confess, be baptized and remain faithful… here let me show you in the Bible where it says that” and simply stating something as doctrine without Biblical proof.  Creeds are created when a statement becomes authorized as a specific standard for a church.  A creed is a statement of belief that is treated as an accepted authoritative standard separate and apart from the Bible.  There is nothing wrong with making concise statements about important beliefs… we just better be ready to back them up with the authority of the Scriptures.  Otherwise, we will be guilty of going beyond what God wrote (1 Cor 4:6).

Why do the majority of Christian/Non-denominational/Protestant (Evangelicals especially) base a majority of what they talk about on Malachi 3:10?  Why is there such an importance placed on giving money to a church, TV program, or some charity?  When all we see are rich pastors walking around in $500 suits and a big gold and diamond encrusted ring? Okay, so I understand that God gave us what we have, and we are to share the fruits of our labor, but some pastors teach as if this is the ONLY thing in the Bible.  What about compassion for the penniless?  Oh, right, then they'll bring up the little old lady that gave her last two pennies and how magnanimous of her that she gave all she had, and we are only being asked to give 10%; how positively horrible of me.  Doesn't God know that I am broke?  Doesn't He understand that if I don't pay my rent, I end up homeless?  Doesn't He understand that you can't squeeze blood from a turnip?  Okay, so a miracle will happen?  But how am I supposed to believe that God *wants* me to be financially well-to-do?  I should think He has more pressing issues (like forgiving a sinful world) than whether or not I am going to have a financial breakthrough.  Am I wrong, because it seems to me Jesus never asked for money, neither did any of the twelve (with the exception of Judas and the thirty pieces of silver); in fact, weren't they poor and only had the clothes on their back and what they could carry with them?  Didn't Jesus tell them that this is how they were to live?

Sincerely,
Money Mad

Dear Money Mad,

You are absolutely 100% right.  A large portion of evangelists today teach what is called “the prosperity gospel”.  Mal 3:10 is one of their favorite verses because it is so easy to twist out of context.  Yes, God blesses us when we obey Him.  Yes, God blesses us when we contribute financially to His work… but those blessings aren’t always financial.

James tells us that the poor are often the most spiritually rich because they have learned to trust in God for their daily needs (Jas 2:5).  The church at Laodicea was financially wealthy, and that was their downfall because it led to pride and a sense of self-sufficiency (Rev 3:17).  The riches that really count are spiritual ones (Matt 6:19-21).  These preachers that tell people to “give so that they can get” are snake oil salesman.  They are of the same character as the Pharisees who “devoured widows’ houses” (Mk 12:40).

If this is the type of church that you are attending… there is a better and more godly way.  Yes, we should give of our finances… but that isn’t the totality of the Bible message – it isn’t even the majority of it.  We would be happy to help you get in touch with a faithful congregation in your area that teaches the truth.  After all, the church is supposed to be the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim 3:15) – not the pillar and ground of the financial world.  E-mail us (askyourpreacher@mvchurchofchrist.org) with what part of the world you live in, and we will do our best to get you in contact with a congregation in your area.