With that said, I noticed today that you wrote three very good comments on three different articles. I am going to break with my own tradition and respond to them–not because I disagree with all or part of what you wrote, but because you took the courtesy to write three comments that were very well-thought, and I think that deserves the courtesy of a response!

In reference to this post, I would like to point out that my comments were not about the necessity of baptism. My point was only that Mark 16:16 should not be used to try to prove the necessity of baptism.

Your comments about the thief on the cross are informative and well-received; thank you for taking the time to write. I would like to point out that Jesus died before the thief did. When Jesus died the Veil in the Holy of Holies was torn. I think that you would probably agree with me that the tearing of the Veil signified the passing of the Old Covenant and the entrance of the New.

If you do agree with me on that, then we would also have to agree that the thief died under the New Covenant, not under the Old.

The views about the thief on the cross are many and varied, though, so I don’t want to get into it too much. I just want to reiterate two things: 1) the main point of this article was that Mark 16:16 should not be used to try to prove baptism; 2) the thief on the cross went to Heaven without being baptized, and he did it even though he died after the Old Covenant had passed and the New had been ushered in. The implications of the second point are far-reaching for the UPC. Here’s why:

For someone who believes that belief in Chris is sufficient for salvation, then the thief on the cross poses no problem for them. On the other hand, a person who believes that a person has to be baptized in Jesus’ Name and speak in tongues to be saved, and they believe that is the *only* way a person can be saved, then the thief going to Heaven under the New Covenant, without being baptized at all or speaking in tongues, is a huge problem. Why? Because it means that God is willing to lay down a rule of salvation and then break that rule at His will. That would definitely seem to make God a “respecter of persons.”

Thanks again for your comments, Leonard. I am going to block any future comments on this article about the thief on the cross because it is so far off subject. That goes for everyone, not just you. I just wanted to make sure both sides were presented. Perhaps in the future I’ll write an article about the thief on the cross and the problem that it poses for UPC soteriology, and then the comments about it will be fair game :)

God bless, and thank you again for taking the time to write,
Josh

Heb 9:16
For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

Heb 9:17
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.

The thief was under the dispensation of the law.

We can also understand why Elijah can be carried into heaven without baptism or receiving the Holy Ghost. He too was under the dispensation of the law.

If we believe that before entering into the tabernacle, the washing of the priest at the golden lever was a type of baptism, then we can understand that God would not show a type in the Old Testament and then not fulfil it in the New Testament.

When Moses struck the rock twice, he broke the type of calvary. He was only to stike it once, (one death on calvary) and the result was his not being allowed to enter into the promised land.

I hope that you find this informative.

Sincerely,
Leonard Rafferty