The Case of the Thief on the Cross

In debates I have had with ministers of the "Church of Christ" over whether water baptism is essential to being saved (they affirming that it is and I affirming that it is not), I have, like other apologists, brought up the case of the thief on the cross who was saved by a penitent faith alone without being baptized and without any good works. The rebuttal to this argument has always been to say that the thief on the cross died before the new covenant came into effect and water baptism is a requirement for salvation through the new covenant. They cite the words from the book of Hebrews where the writer says that it is after the death of the testator that a testament is of force. (Heb 9: 16-17) So they argue that since the thief died before the new covenant, he had to be saved by the old covenant. There are, however, several reasons why this rebuttal doesn't "hold water." 

First, Jesus, the "testator" died before the thief. The thieves had their legs broken in order to hasten their death. When the Roman soldier came to Jesus to break his legs, he saw that he was already dead and even pierced his side to confirm it. When blood and water came out of the side as a result, it was proof that he had indeed already died. So, Jesus died before the thief died and so the new testament was in effect at the time when the thief died.

Second, these same ministers will say that when Jesus said to Nicodemus "you must be born of water and of the Spirit" that "born of water" means born by means of water baptism. This was about three years before his death and the official beginning of the new covenant. Why would Christ be telling Nicodemus how to be born again or saved three years into the future? Likewise, when we read that John the Baptist preached "baptism of repentance for remission of sins" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3) these same ministers will say that this means that baptism in water was the way sins were remitted or forgiven and yet this too was three years before the death of Christ. So, the argument that the thief on the cross did not need to be baptized because he lived and died before the new covenant (testament) came into force is negated by their own admission.

Third, no one prior to the coming of Christ was saved by the law, by the old covenant. That is the teaching of the book of Hebrews. They were saved by the new covenant even before its ratification. That is why the new covenant is called the "everlasting covenant." (Heb. 13: 20)

One "Church of Christ" apologist in response to the case of the thief on the cross wrote: "there is not one single shred of scripture anywhere in all of the Bible which says this thief was not baptized." (See here)

Of course you would expect such a reply from those who say water baptism is essential to salvation. He has to affirm that the man had been saved in the past and had been baptized, then had lost his salvation, and then obtained it again shortly before he died on the cross. But, the prima facie evidence is that the thief had never been saved, never had believed in Christ nor was ever baptized. When the thief was first put on the cross he railed on Christ just as the other thief. Matthew 27:44 and Mark 15:32 state that both of them reviled Christ. Sometime after this however we see a change in him, we see him experiencing contrition and repenting and expressing faith in the lordship and kingship of Christ. 

The same writer said further:

"During his personal ministry, Jesus possessed the authority to forgive men’s sins personally and directly...While Jesus was alive on earth he had the authority to forgive sins. At the time of his death, however, his authority to forgive sins was transferred to His testamentary “will” (Hebrews 9:15-17). And the terms of that covenant specify baptism as a condition for the forgiveness of sin (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21, etc.). What that means is that While Jesus was alive on earth, He had the authority to forgive sins directly. Jesus is not alive on earth anymore. He has been resurrected and now lives in heaven. What He left behind was His new Testament or new Covenant. This new covenant specifies how sin is to be forgiven. The thief had his sins forgiven before Christ died on the cross. It is not possible today for anyone to be forgiven of their sins by Jesus Christ before He died on the cross. Whether or not the thief was baptized or not really makes no difference to us at all."

I am amazed at this line of argument. Jesus lost his power to forgive sins directly apart from water baptism? Where is that in scripture? The scriptures he references do not say it. He argues that since the new covenant came into effect upon the death of Christ no one can be saved who is not baptized and Christ cannot forgive anyone who is not baptized. Incredible! While he was here on earth baptism was for the remission of sins, was essential for being born again (i.e. "born of water"), but Christ could remit sins and people could be born again without it? It is ironic that these ministers of the "Church of Christ" could argue this way seeing one of their mottos is "we speak where the Bible speaks and are silent where it is silent." Surely the minister we are examining is speaking where the Bible does not speak and is adding to the word of God.

I would hate to be somewhere dying and praying to God to forgive me of my sins, and repenting and believing and confessing, and not able to be baptized! Here is what the apostles taught:

“To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him will receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10: 43 nkjv)

Here faith alone is declared to be the only condition for forgiveness. Of course, true faith always has repentance joined to it and is why we speak of penitent faith. It also shows that Christ still could forgive sin to those who believe after he ascended to heaven.