If baptism is required, then the criminals on the cross next to Jesus are not in heaven?

Sincerely,
What About Those Guys?

Dear What About Those Guys,

There are four explanations for Christ’s pardon of the crucified thief in Lk 23:39-43 (He only pardoned one of them; the other one continued to hurl abuse at Jesus – Lk. 23:39).  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. 1. 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.

    I have trouble explaining my relationship with God.  And if someone asks me to tell them what Jesus means to me, I want to know how to explain it.

Sincerely,
Speechless

Dear Speechless,

It is a wonderful thing that you want to be able to explain what you believe and why you believe it.  Peter said that every christian should be ready to give an answer for the hope that is within them (1 Pet 3:15).  We are going to point you to some previous posts that should be of use to you in getting a grasp on why Christianity is the hope of all humanity.

1. Here is an article that gives evidence for God’s existence – “Does God Exist?”
2. Here is an article with evidences that the Bible is God’s Word – “Who Wrote The Bible?”
3. Here is an article which deals with what it takes to become a christian – “Five Steps To Salvation”
4. Here is an article that explains Jesus’ church and all the religious confusion in the world – “Down With Denominationalism”

Those should be enough to give you some verses and answers for many of the basic questions a christian needs to respond to.  Once again, you deserve a pat on the back for wanting to be ready to give an answer for your beliefs.

     Has God ever approved of polygamy?

Sincerely,
Double Vows?

Dear Double Vows,

Polygamy is never directly condemned in the Bible, but it is also never condoned .  It is never treated as the standard… only the exception.  There are scores of examples of monogamy being God’s preference for man:

1. Adam & Eve were designed monogamously (Gen. 2:24).
2. No polygamy existed until seven generations after Adam (Gen 4:19).
3. Noah, the last righteous man of his day, had only one wife (Gen 7:13).
4. It is a qualification for an elder (Tit 1:6).
5. It is a qualification for a deacon (1 Tim 3:12).
6. It is a qualification for a worthy widow (1 Tim 5:9).
7. Every New Testament command for a husband or wife assumes monogamy in the commandments (Mk 10:12, 1 Cor 7:3, Eph 5:33, etc.).
8. The comparison of Christ and the church to a husband and wife relies on a monogamous design for marriage (Eph 5:22-23).
9. God clearly states it as His design for marriage in the New Testament (1 Cor 7:2).

On the same hand, there are multiple examples of the pitfalls of polygamy:

1. Sarah and Hagar fought (Gen 16:4).
2. Rachel and Leah fought over Jacob (Gen 29:30-31).
3. Hannah and Penninah’s rivalry (1 Sam 1:2-6)
4. Solomon’s idolatrous wives (1 Kings 11:4)

God allowed polygamy in the Old Testament because the Old Testament was a tutor designed to lead people toward a better and more permanent covenant (Gal 3:24-25).  David lived in a time when God allowed polygamy even though it wasn’t His long-term preference for mankind.  In the New Testament, we are told God desires for marriage to be between one man and one woman (1 Cor 7:2).

I’ve been just wondering about Deut 22:5; would you explain, please?  Is it okay to wear trousers because I’m just afraid; I don’t want to live a God-fearing life while wearing trousers only to be shunned out of heaven when time comes because I did not heed His warning on it, or does Deut 22:5 have a different meaning?  Thank you and God bless.

Sincerely,
Suited Up

Dear Suited Up,

Deut 22:5 teaches that a woman is not supposed to dress like a man, and a man is not supposed to dress like a woman.  Cross-dressing is a sin because men are not to behave effeminately (1 Cor 6:9), and similarly, women are not to behave in a masculine way.  Deut 22:5 is a generic teaching on the subject of men and women’s clothing that teaches a principle.

In today’s society, women wear pants all the time that are women’s pants.  They are designed for women, look like a woman should wear them, and would look decidedly inappropriate for a man to wear!  If a woman is wearing trousers that are feminine, she is fine.  However, if a man or a woman begins to dress in a way that clearly is against the natural design the Lord intended, that is a sin.

     Has God ever approved of dancing?

Sincerely,
Hip To Be Square

Dear Hip To Be Square,

God says there is a time to dance (Eccl 3:4), but the kind of dancing so often encouraged today is not wholesome.  Modern dancing is designed to be sexually provocative, and it puts young men and women in compromising positions that nurture the sort of behavior and attitudes that lead to sexual immorality and unhealthy relationships.  We are told to flee fornication (1 Cor 6:18), to do things that are honorable (Rom 12:17), and to avoid even the appearance of evil (1 Thess 5:21-22).  School dances, at best, put teens in situations that don’t appear godly, and at worst, can lead to things like pre-marital sex.  When people engage in the type of dancing so often seen in today’s culture, they act in a way that appears indecent and gives room for the lust of the flesh to overpower them (Rom 6:12, 1 Jn 2:16).