The argument of the thief is weak in the fact that Jesus had the authority on earth to forgive sins. As far as the Romans 10 argument, Paul had already addressed baptism earlier in the letter. People seem to forget that these books were written as a letter, chapters and verse were added later. It always amazes me how people will take one verse and use it to try to nullify several other verses.
To me it is rather simple. Christ lived under the old law. The New Law did not come to be until after Jesus death burial and resurrection. Jesus was God and He had power to forgive sins while on earth. Eg. the woman taken in adultey, "Go thy way and sin no more". Jesus acted under the same principle while alive on the cross.
Do you think the apostles were all baptized following the crucifixion? I've never really thought about them being baptized. It doesn't say anything about their baptism in scripture that I recall.
I find this article to be severely lacking in a basic understanding of the truth. Rather than presenting Scripture accurately, it promotes a particular theological agenda while ignoring key biblical texts. Unfortunately, my response is nearly as long as the article itself; however, for those who take the time to read it fully, it will provide genuine edification.
1 Peter 3:21 is a strong and clear verse indicating that salvation is not accomplished through water baptism. The passage explicitly states that baptism is not for the removal of the filth of the flesh. The term “filth” here does not refer to physical dirt but to that which defiles a person—that is, sin (James 1:21). To treat this truth so casually sets the tone for the entire article, revealing a willingness to dismiss Scripture in favor of a predetermined theological viewpoint.
Water baptism has never been a requirement for salvation—whether before the Law, under the Law, during the dispensation of grace, or in the time to come. John the Baptist did not baptize for the purpose of salvation; rather, he preached a change of mind concerning the coming of the Kingdom of the Heavens (Mark 1:4). His baptism was also instrumental in identifying the Messiah, as revealed in John 1:33.
The case of the thief on the cross was not extraordinary in any way. He expressed faith in Jesus as the Messiah, which was the requirement for salvation for all who heard the message concerning the Messiah (Luke 23:42). It is remarkable how many claim that salvation is by faith, yet immediately insert works into the equation—saying, “You must repent of your sins,” or “Confess Jesus.” However, Scripture clearly states that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ’s death on behalf of sins and resurrection three days later (Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). The term “repent” is redefined to justify an emotional response of remorse for sin, while in reality, it means “to change the mind” and has nothing to do with feelings, regret, or sins.
This article then conflates Spirit baptism into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12–13) with water baptism in order to justify the latter as necessary for salvation. However, Romans 6:3–4 clearly refers to immersion by the Holy Spirit into the Christ, through which His death and resurrection are imputed to the believer. Colossians 2:12 also speaks in context of immersion into Christ—not water. Furthermore, the article overlooks Paul’s explicit statement that he was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17), which directly undermines the claim that water baptism is essential for salvation.
Salvation is by grace through faith. As Scripture affirms, it is through believing that Christ died on behalf of our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Any addition to this message—including, but not limited to, “repentance of sins,” “confession,” or “water baptism”—alters the gospel into something that is no longer the gospel (Galatians 1:6–7).
Should we be immersed in water? Yes—but not for salvation. Water immersion is a response of a good conscience before God (1 Peter 3:21).
It is only by gymnastics that you can read “Baptism now saves you” and get “salvation is not accomplished through water baptism.”
Yes, it clarifies that it’s not about getting wet but a statement of the conscience. But that does not mean the second half of the verse contradicts the first.
Since 1 Peter 3:21 clearly defines what is meant by salvation, how can a person read salvation from sins into the passage when it explicitly states that it is not for the removal of the filth of the flesh? There is no contradiction; Peter is clearly stating that water baptism is not for salvation. Do we also ignore that we are washed by the regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, not by water (Titus 3:5)? In addition, we cannot ignore that Paul states he was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17), nor can we ignore that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, after preaching the death and resurrection of Christ, called for them to change their mind and be immersed (referring to water) because of the remission of sins—since Christ was raised, faith in Him now brings remission of sins, not an immersion in water (Acts 2:38). In fact, if Scripture is simply taken in context, nowhere does it state that water baptism brings salvation; it is always a result of belief.
So my comment still stands true—salvation cannot be claimed to be by grace through faith if water baptism, remorse, confession of sins, or any other element is added besides believing that Christ died on behalf of our sins and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. This, of course, includes implying that water baptism is a requirement for salvation.
This is a new “gospel” message that I have not heard before—requesting God's cleansing as a condition for salvation. It is yet another of those “other” gospels which, in reality, is not good news at all. It is certainly not the one that was passed down to us from the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:1–4). Salvation is either by grace through faith or by works; these cannot be mixed (Romans 11:6). And since we know it is not by works, any message that claims salvation by works is not a true gospel (Romans 9:16). This includes adding water baptism as a requirement for salvation. Yes, those who believe that Christ died on behalf of our sins and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures are cleansed—but not by water (Titus 3:5).
Oh, well, that makes sense—paraphrasing allows one to insert what is not actually in the text, thereby making it say whatever one wants. Would it not be better to simply take it for what is written? Water baptism is for a good conscience before God, not for the removal of the filth of the flesh—that is, trespasses and sins. Since it is not for the removal of the filth of the flesh, how then can it be involved in salvation? This salvation pertains to the conscience—it is an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Christ, not a means for the removal of sins. That is literally what the text states.
You wrote this wise statement: "It’s dangerous to build a doctrine on an assumption, but it’s also dangerous to build a doctrine on an exception."
You then went on to assume that the thief's salvation IS an exception. Unless the text itself explains that his was an exception, we should place it alongside every other passage dealing with salvation as true, relevant, and instructive.
We have many examples of people being baptized. We have one example of a man being told by Jesus that he would be saved upon his death, which makes it the exception.
You may be missing the point, my friend. You pointed out that it's a bad idea to build a doctrine on an assumption, but then did exactly that. As you're probably aware, any discussion of baptismal regeneration should be based in ALL of the relevant Scriptures... the passages about baptism and the passages about salvation. The fact that a number of salvation passages do not mention baptism isn't trivial, no matter where we land on a conclusion.
I refer to Romans 6 for the meaning of baptism. I believe the point there is that two things are happening: (1) We are re-enacting the burial and resurrection of Jesus, meaning that the confession of faith is now being performed as a visual confession of our belief in the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (2) We are asking God to bury the old person and raise up a new person.
#1 cannot apply to the "thief" on the cross. You cannot confess that which has not happened.
I put scare quotes on "thief" because that is not likely to be a good translation of the Greek word, but that is a separate discussion.
Note that the two-fold purpose of Christian baptism connects your salvation (#2) to your faith in Christ and His resurrection (#1). You are not asking to be saved apart from that faith and that crucifixion and resurrection.
good thoughts! I think this point you make is good: "Here we see a person clearly being promised salvation by Jesus simply for a confession of Jesus’ innocence and a request to be remembered."
I hadn't thought about it like that, but you're right.
I came across an article last week here on Substack, I think the writer is named Sid? anyhow, he also wrote an article on this, and he pointed out that the thief called Jesus "Lord" and mentioned his kingdom. His thoughts were that this man must have been familiar with Jesus and/or his teachings, a regular person wouldn't have known about the kingdom of Jesus (and it not being of this world), even Jesus' own disciples had trouble understanding this concept. Since we know so little about him, he could have been a follower of John or Jesus at one point and possibly might have turned away. We just don't know. But overall, you are right, he couldn't be baptized into a death that hadn't occurred yet, and Jesus had the power on earth to forgive sins.
Many thanks for your post. Baptism is not strictly essential but is part of a follower of Christ's obedience. I was christened as a child and confirmed as a teenager within the Anglican church. I realised at age 28 (better late than never), that as Christ was himself circumcised as a baby and presented at the temple as a 12 year old, when he said to John the Baptist on presenting himself for baptism that it was fitting to fulfil all righteousness who was I not to follow suit.
In any event I see baptism anagrams to 'bitmaps' which is a digital image form. Baptism is an image of what happens spiritually so people miss out if they do not do it. Blessing always follows from obedience to Christ.
The argument of the thief is weak in the fact that Jesus had the authority on earth to forgive sins. As far as the Romans 10 argument, Paul had already addressed baptism earlier in the letter. People seem to forget that these books were written as a letter, chapters and verse were added later. It always amazes me how people will take one verse and use it to try to nullify several other verses.
To me it is rather simple. Christ lived under the old law. The New Law did not come to be until after Jesus death burial and resurrection. Jesus was God and He had power to forgive sins while on earth. Eg. the woman taken in adultey, "Go thy way and sin no more". Jesus acted under the same principle while alive on the cross.
Do you think the apostles were all baptized following the crucifixion? I've never really thought about them being baptized. It doesn't say anything about their baptism in scripture that I recall.
I find this article to be severely lacking in a basic understanding of the truth. Rather than presenting Scripture accurately, it promotes a particular theological agenda while ignoring key biblical texts. Unfortunately, my response is nearly as long as the article itself; however, for those who take the time to read it fully, it will provide genuine edification.
1 Peter 3:21 is a strong and clear verse indicating that salvation is not accomplished through water baptism. The passage explicitly states that baptism is not for the removal of the filth of the flesh. The term “filth” here does not refer to physical dirt but to that which defiles a person—that is, sin (James 1:21). To treat this truth so casually sets the tone for the entire article, revealing a willingness to dismiss Scripture in favor of a predetermined theological viewpoint.
Water baptism has never been a requirement for salvation—whether before the Law, under the Law, during the dispensation of grace, or in the time to come. John the Baptist did not baptize for the purpose of salvation; rather, he preached a change of mind concerning the coming of the Kingdom of the Heavens (Mark 1:4). His baptism was also instrumental in identifying the Messiah, as revealed in John 1:33.
The case of the thief on the cross was not extraordinary in any way. He expressed faith in Jesus as the Messiah, which was the requirement for salvation for all who heard the message concerning the Messiah (Luke 23:42). It is remarkable how many claim that salvation is by faith, yet immediately insert works into the equation—saying, “You must repent of your sins,” or “Confess Jesus.” However, Scripture clearly states that we are saved by grace through faith in Christ’s death on behalf of sins and resurrection three days later (Ephesians 2:8; 1 Corinthians 15:3-4). The term “repent” is redefined to justify an emotional response of remorse for sin, while in reality, it means “to change the mind” and has nothing to do with feelings, regret, or sins.
This article then conflates Spirit baptism into the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12–13) with water baptism in order to justify the latter as necessary for salvation. However, Romans 6:3–4 clearly refers to immersion by the Holy Spirit into the Christ, through which His death and resurrection are imputed to the believer. Colossians 2:12 also speaks in context of immersion into Christ—not water. Furthermore, the article overlooks Paul’s explicit statement that he was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17), which directly undermines the claim that water baptism is essential for salvation.
Salvation is by grace through faith. As Scripture affirms, it is through believing that Christ died on behalf of our sins according to the Scriptures, that He was buried, and that He rose again on the third day, according to the Scriptures (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Any addition to this message—including, but not limited to, “repentance of sins,” “confession,” or “water baptism”—alters the gospel into something that is no longer the gospel (Galatians 1:6–7).
Should we be immersed in water? Yes—but not for salvation. Water immersion is a response of a good conscience before God (1 Peter 3:21).
It is only by gymnastics that you can read “Baptism now saves you” and get “salvation is not accomplished through water baptism.”
Yes, it clarifies that it’s not about getting wet but a statement of the conscience. But that does not mean the second half of the verse contradicts the first.
Since 1 Peter 3:21 clearly defines what is meant by salvation, how can a person read salvation from sins into the passage when it explicitly states that it is not for the removal of the filth of the flesh? There is no contradiction; Peter is clearly stating that water baptism is not for salvation. Do we also ignore that we are washed by the regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, not by water (Titus 3:5)? In addition, we cannot ignore that Paul states he was not sent to baptize (1 Corinthians 1:17), nor can we ignore that Peter, on the day of Pentecost, after preaching the death and resurrection of Christ, called for them to change their mind and be immersed (referring to water) because of the remission of sins—since Christ was raised, faith in Him now brings remission of sins, not an immersion in water (Acts 2:38). In fact, if Scripture is simply taken in context, nowhere does it state that water baptism brings salvation; it is always a result of belief.
So my comment still stands true—salvation cannot be claimed to be by grace through faith if water baptism, remorse, confession of sins, or any other element is added besides believing that Christ died on behalf of our sins and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures. This, of course, includes implying that water baptism is a requirement for salvation.
He’s essentially saying that it’s not some kind of magic bath, but an act that requests God’s cleansing.
How can anyone be saved without requesting God’s cleansing?
This is a new “gospel” message that I have not heard before—requesting God's cleansing as a condition for salvation. It is yet another of those “other” gospels which, in reality, is not good news at all. It is certainly not the one that was passed down to us from the apostles (1 Corinthians 15:1–4). Salvation is either by grace through faith or by works; these cannot be mixed (Romans 11:6). And since we know it is not by works, any message that claims salvation by works is not a true gospel (Romans 9:16). This includes adding water baptism as a requirement for salvation. Yes, those who believe that Christ died on behalf of our sins and was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures are cleansed—but not by water (Titus 3:5).
It's literally just a paraphrase of 1 Peter 3:21
Baptism now saves you
not as a physical washing
but as an appeal to God to cleanse your conscience
Oh, well, that makes sense—paraphrasing allows one to insert what is not actually in the text, thereby making it say whatever one wants. Would it not be better to simply take it for what is written? Water baptism is for a good conscience before God, not for the removal of the filth of the flesh—that is, trespasses and sins. Since it is not for the removal of the filth of the flesh, how then can it be involved in salvation? This salvation pertains to the conscience—it is an appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Christ, not a means for the removal of sins. That is literally what the text states.
Jack:
You wrote this wise statement: "It’s dangerous to build a doctrine on an assumption, but it’s also dangerous to build a doctrine on an exception."
You then went on to assume that the thief's salvation IS an exception. Unless the text itself explains that his was an exception, we should place it alongside every other passage dealing with salvation as true, relevant, and instructive.
We have many examples of people being baptized. We have one example of a man being told by Jesus that he would be saved upon his death, which makes it the exception.
You may be missing the point, my friend. You pointed out that it's a bad idea to build a doctrine on an assumption, but then did exactly that. As you're probably aware, any discussion of baptismal regeneration should be based in ALL of the relevant Scriptures... the passages about baptism and the passages about salvation. The fact that a number of salvation passages do not mention baptism isn't trivial, no matter where we land on a conclusion.
If only one person receives a specific encounter, he is an exception. No assumption necessary to conclude that.
Never mind, Jack.
I refer to Romans 6 for the meaning of baptism. I believe the point there is that two things are happening: (1) We are re-enacting the burial and resurrection of Jesus, meaning that the confession of faith is now being performed as a visual confession of our belief in the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus. (2) We are asking God to bury the old person and raise up a new person.
#1 cannot apply to the "thief" on the cross. You cannot confess that which has not happened.
I put scare quotes on "thief" because that is not likely to be a good translation of the Greek word, but that is a separate discussion.
Note that the two-fold purpose of Christian baptism connects your salvation (#2) to your faith in Christ and His resurrection (#1). You are not asking to be saved apart from that faith and that crucifixion and resurrection.
good thoughts! I think this point you make is good: "Here we see a person clearly being promised salvation by Jesus simply for a confession of Jesus’ innocence and a request to be remembered."
I hadn't thought about it like that, but you're right.
I came across an article last week here on Substack, I think the writer is named Sid? anyhow, he also wrote an article on this, and he pointed out that the thief called Jesus "Lord" and mentioned his kingdom. His thoughts were that this man must have been familiar with Jesus and/or his teachings, a regular person wouldn't have known about the kingdom of Jesus (and it not being of this world), even Jesus' own disciples had trouble understanding this concept. Since we know so little about him, he could have been a follower of John or Jesus at one point and possibly might have turned away. We just don't know. But overall, you are right, he couldn't be baptized into a death that hadn't occurred yet, and Jesus had the power on earth to forgive sins.
Many thanks for your post. Baptism is not strictly essential but is part of a follower of Christ's obedience. I was christened as a child and confirmed as a teenager within the Anglican church. I realised at age 28 (better late than never), that as Christ was himself circumcised as a baby and presented at the temple as a 12 year old, when he said to John the Baptist on presenting himself for baptism that it was fitting to fulfil all righteousness who was I not to follow suit.
In any event I see baptism anagrams to 'bitmaps' which is a digital image form. Baptism is an image of what happens spiritually so people miss out if they do not do it. Blessing always follows from obedience to Christ.
Very good points. Thanks Jack!
You could also use the healing of the paralytic found in Mark 2:10. But that you may know that the Son of Man has the power on earth to forgive sins.
Good work.