|
By David Wright The Lukan account of the saved thief on the cross is a familiar story. For many, the robber’s experience has become an unquestioned proof of “salvation by faith alone” (Evangelical code for salvation by belief, repentance, and confession--but not baptism). “Since the thief on the cross was never baptized,” the argument goes, “immersion for the forgiveness of sins is plainly not essential to salvation.” But this reasoning is not as sound as Evangelicals imagine. First, the proposition that the saved criminal never submitted to baptism cannot be maintained with confidence. Perhaps he was immersed at some point prior to his robbery and arrest. The Bible doesn’t say. To emphatically insist that the man had never been baptized at any time is to deny the possibility that anyone could ever break the law after being immersed. The experience of thousands of American prison inmates argues otherwise. Second, the thief’s salvation occurred under OT law. The law of Moses took effect at Sinai. When did the new covenant of Jesus Christ replace it? Was it at his birth, or at the beginning of his ministry? No, it wasn’t. Speaking of the new testament of Christ, the author of Hebrews explains that “a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive” (9:17). Jesus certainly forgave the robber on the cross, but the man was no example of Christian conversion. The penitent criminal received forgiveness before Jesus had died and before the Sinai covenant had been replaced. To learn how early disciples became Christians, one must study Acts, a book which repeatedly emphasizes the salvation role of immersion (e.g., 2:38, 8:36-38, 10:48, 16:33, 18:8, 19:5, 22:16). Rejecting immersion for the forgiveness of sins on the basis of the crucified robber’s salvation is a serious mistake. It is building hope for eternal life on a cracked foundation. |