The Thief on the Cross

By Thomas Lane

[Page 123]

     We in the Restoration churches have long maintained that baptism is essential to salvation. We base this teaching upon the belief that the Holy Ghost, who is responsible for transforming condemned sinners into children of God by His indwelling (Rom. 8:14), enters into a person's spirit and life during the sacramental washing of baptism. This belief we base, in its turn, upon Acts 2:38 (among other passages), which reads (as translated by Edgar J. Goodspeed):

Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ in order to have your sins forgiven; then you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

And we consider that of the three possible interpretations of this passage (the Spirit comes at baptism, the Spirit comes upon repentance, or the Spirit comes upon repentance plus baptism), the first interpretation appears to be the most reasonable.

     Although there can be little objection to this interpretation of Peter's words as recorded in the book of the Acts, those who disagree with our position regarding the necessity of baptism to salvation frequently refer to Luke 23:39-43, which relates the story of the thief who was crucified along with Christ but who was granted a place in Paradise because of his faith. "This thief could not have been baptized and he was not," our opponents argue, "and yet we know from the Scriptures that he went to Heaven. How," they challenge, "can you reconcile this fact with your doctrine that a person must be baptized in order to be saved?"

     By this reasoning these people attempt to maneuver us into a dilemma, and, at that, one which, until recently, has confounded me to great extent. If we reply that God made an exception to His policy

[Page 124]

of salvation in the case of the thief upon the cross, we have ascribed to God the attribute of inconsistency. Our only other alternative seems to be the rejection of our position on baptism.

     There is, however, a third and quite valid answer which avoids this difficulty. This alternative follows logically from the premises which we listed at the outset of this discussion; it is thus consistent with Restoration theology. It is this alternative which I propose to develop here.

     Let us begin by referring back to the first paragraph of our discussion. There we explained that: (1) without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit no one is saved; (2) the Holy Spirit takes up residence in a believer during his baptism; and, therefore, (3) baptism is essential to salvation.

     Now let us translate the "thief on the cross" argument into the doctrinal system which uses these three propositions as a frame of reference. We may restate this argument in the following manner in order to make it intelligible under this system: (a) One must have the Holy Spirit in order to go to Heaven (proposition 1, above), (b) The thief on the cross went to Heaven (a fact taken from the Scriptures). Therefore, (c) the thief on the cross received the indwelling of the Holy Spirit before he died. (d) The thief on the cross was not baptized (another fact taken from the account in the Word); therefore, (e) if we assume God to be consistent with Himself and to avoid making exceptions (and we do indeed seek to adhere to this assumption) we must conclude that the Holy Spirit does not assume a place in the believer's spirit when he is baptized, and so there is no basis for the assertion that baptism is essential to salvation.

     Now, what precisely is this that we have just done? We have so far merely re-phrased the argument in terms that make it cogent to the Restoration doctrine of baptism. Why did we bother to do this? Is this not an extraneous move? No, because one cannot attempt to point out a dilemma in another's position (as this argument seeks to do) unless he bases his argument upon his opponent's premises (this is an important principle which will come into play again shortly). And, conversely, in order for the protagonist to get out of his dilemma, he must reply to the dilemma in terms of his premises, as we shall do in a moment. Thus, in order to make it subject to logical examination, it was necessary to arrive at this re-statement of the argument which we are considering.

     In re-stating the argument to make it suitable for logical analysis, we did not in the least distort it or detract from its impact. The dilemma yet remains: either God is inconsistent or our position is faulty. We find neither alternative acceptable, and yet we are compelled to answer the dilemma in terms of the alternatives which it presents. Or are we?

     We can readily avoid the entire argument if we contend that the case of the thief on the cross does not, for some reason, relate to our position regarding baptism at all. And fortunately, we are able to do this. John 7:39 informs us that the Holy Spirit did not begin His ministry of imparting salvation until after Christ was resurrected from the dead. John 20:19-23 explains how that, on the evening of the day of the Resurrection, Christ breathed out the life-giving Spirit upon His followers. Thus baptism did not become essential to salvation until after the Resurrection; in fact, Christianity per se did not begin until after the Resurrection. Thus the thief on the cross was saved under the Jewish faith! In so arguing, we have freed ourselves from our dilemma.

     "But wait a minute," retort the proponents of a non-baptism oriented view of salvation. "Suppose that we refuse to accept your premise that one must be inhabited by the Spirit in order to be saved (proposition 1). Then the dilemma remains!" It remains, but only if we reject our own premise! The reader will recall that principle of logic, basic to our entire discussion, that a dilemma is useful only if it is formulated upon the premises of the party against whose view it is directed. A denial of the proposition that only those who have the Spirit are saved will

[Page 125]

not salvage the dilemma; to the contrary, it immediately eliminates it.

     May we then make any positive statements about the validity of the Restoration position? To he conservative (that is, to avoid unjustified overgeneralizations), we may only observe that, having successfully defended our position against a traditionally troublesome argument, we have proven it to be a more potent position than has been traditionally conceded. And we have thus established yet more fully than before the acceptability of our assertion that one has his "sins forgiven" and receives "the gift of the holy Spirit" when he is baptized in the name of Jesus Christ."

     Editor's Note: Thomas G. Lane may be addressed at 200 LaSalle Court, Loyola University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118.