The good thief

[PJM]

=sulliaa8;9272565]My wife was looking at John Martignoni's website yesterday and came across this response to faith and works regarding the good thief.
Here is the link for more clarification ].
So the response was good but it really seemed to me that the explanation went a little far to fit the Catholic belief. In essence he said, that by raising himself up enough to speak in defense of Jesus, despite great pain, he had in fact accomplished a work. So, he showed his faith, accomplished a work and was babtised by desire".

Because baptism has three acceptable forms: of Water and the HS; of Blood [Maytardom for Christ], and of Desire for those for whom the Norms are NOT POSSIBLE but have thenecessary Faith and Hope. The Good Theif was PROMISED BY GOD personally that his retentance and Desire WERE sufficient. Are to to question God?

My confusion comes from my understanding of justification, which I admit I am still trying to fully comprehend. So, I would have thought that by essentially repenting, believing and being baptised (even by desire) he would be justified when death came,
Fratus Tuus in Christo

Purgatory is a temporary place for purfication. NEVER permnant.

Any understanding of how salvation takes place and what is necessary for it that does not agree with what the CC [and therefore God] teach is wrong.

Salvation is a lifelong PROCESS that requires many Crosses and many steps.

But be assured only "believing" in Christ while the essentail FIRST step, is just that. ONLY the first necessary step. Baptism, keeping ALL of the Commandments [which are catagoroes of sin; not the complete list]; Obeying those who God has appointed in His stead [the RCC], not unlike Abraham, Moses, Daivid, the Prophets ect, Accepting and advantaging the Sacraments especially Forgiveness of Sins [God's WAY.John 20:19-23;] and the Real Presence: Mt. 25; Mk.14; Lk.22, John 6 and 1st. Cor.11.

IF you'd like further info send me a Private Message.

God Bless and THANKS for your POST!
pat/PJM

[sulliaa8]

Originally Posted by John Martignoni

Actually, if you read that answer again, I think the problem is not that the "explanation went a little far," as much as it is that you read much more into it than was actually there. For example, you talk about the thief being baptized by desire, yet there was nothing in the explanation about Baptism of Desire. There is no claim made in that explanation that the thief was baptized by desire. There is also nothing said about justification nor about Catholic teaching on salvation.

The explanation was not meant as an explication of Catholicism, it was simply a negation of one particular Protestant argument. The Protestant argument is that the Good Thief did no works and was not baptized, yet was saved, so neither works nor Baptism are necessary for salvation. The response in the "2-Minute Apologetics" was simply that that argument holds no merit whatsoever, as 1) the Good Thief, by speaking out in defense of Christ, did indeed do a good work; and, 2) that the requirement of Baptism for salvation had not yet been instituted. Which means the Protestant argument fails in both parts. That's it, nothing more. Nothing in that explanation that tries to "fit Catholic teaching" to the situation.

If you want something about justification and the process of salvation, go to the "Debates" page at www.biblechristiansociety.com and read the Justification debate.

Thank you for replying John, I was going to ask the question on your website but I saw you were not taking any apologetics emails at this time. Also, I read your response again and I see that I did miss your point on baptism, my wife and I were speeking about the works aspect and I interjected my view on baptism by desire. So I apologize for my post coming off as your view instead of my own.
As to your second point, the question on your site begins as "Catholics say that faith and works are necessary for salvation and that one has to be baptized in order to be saved..." The point of the question is a challenge to Catholic teaching on Faith, works, and salvation. So, even though you may be nullinfying a Protestant argument, the motive for doing so on an apologetics website is to also demonstrate why the Catholic teaching does not fail on this point. I can see your point regarding baptism but I respectfully stand by my view that whether or not his speaking in defense of the Savior should be considered a work doesn't matter and is not neccessary to "fit Catholic teaching".

Originally Posted by itullian

this,

plus........give the guy a break for God's sake. HE'S HANGING ON A CROSS. Christ could see he was genuine so he saved him. no need to quibble. HE did it.

Sometime the simplest answer is the best answer!

[sulliaa8]

Originally Posted by PJM

Because baptism has three acceptable forms: of Water and the HS; of Blood [Maytardom for Christ], and of Desire for those for whom the Norms are NOT POSSIBLE but have thenecessary Faith and Hope. The Good Theif was PROMISED BY GOD personally that his retentance and Desire WERE sufficient. Are to to question God?



Purgatory is a temporary place for purfication. NEVER permnant.

Any understanding of how salvation takes place and what is necessary for it that does not agree with what the CC [and therefore God] teach is wrong.

Im with you here, thank you for the explanation on the different forms of baptism, it does help.
Yes, purgatory is temporary I just wanted to stress that the Dismas or myself would not go straight to heaven , and would still have to atone for the temporal effects of the sins during our lives.

IF you'd like further info send me a Private Message.

I will probably take you up on that.

God Bless, and thanks everyone for your input.

[tarboy]

Hi sulliaa8
I think you are right and John is wrong. His explanation perpetuates the belief that works actually purchase salvation, rather than being just an indicator of salvation. Obedience without faith does nothing, but true faith causes obedience.

Originally Posted by sulliaa8

My wife was looking at John Martignoni's website yesterday and came across this response to faith and works regarding the good thief.
Here is the link for more clarification http://www.biblechristiansociety.com.../two_minute#31.

Anyway, its not that I think John is wrong of course, only that the explanation is not really neccessary to fit Catholic teaching. I appreciate any responses to help clarify this for me.

Fratus Tuus in Christo

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by tarboy

Hi sulliaa8
I think you are right and John is wrong. His explanation perpetuates the belief that works actually purchase salvation, rather than being just an indicator of salvation. Obedience without faith does nothing, but true faith causes obedience.

How does one have obedience without faith? That is, who does one obey if one doesn't have faith in this Who?

[John Martignoni]

Originally Posted by tarboy

Hi sulliaa8
I think you are right and John is wrong. His explanation perpetuates the belief that works actually purchase salvation, rather than being just an indicator of salvation. Obedience without faith does nothing, but true faith causes obedience.

Of course John is wrong. He's always wrong. That Martignoni guy is such a dweeb. I don't even know why they let him on this site. But, in his defense, I would say to read his "2-Minute Apologetics" that sulliaa8 originally commented on, and see if there is something in there that actually has anything that remotely resembles him saying that "works actually purchase salvation." And then read his earlier post on this thread again and see if there is anything in it that says, "Works actually purchase salvation." Could you be referring to the part where he said, "Grace saves?" Or, maybe it was the part where he said, "Faith is necessary for salvation?" Please don't put words in his mouth. I know him quite well and when people put words in his mouth it causes him to curl up in the fetal position and start sucking his thumb again, which the doctor says isn't good for him.

So, works are "just an indicator of salvation," eh? So, if an atheist does good works, that indicates he's saved? Did you get this "indicator of salvation" thing from Romans 2:6-7, perhaps? Isn't that where it says God will render unto every man according to his faith alone that his good works have indicated he has? Or maybe that was from James 2:24 which says, "You see that a man is justified by faith alone and his works are just an indicator of that?"

So, I'll put the question to you: If the Good Thief had not opened his mouth to defend Jesus, do you contend that Jesus would have still turned to him and said, "Today you will be with me in Paradise?"

[PRmerger]

Originally Posted by John Martignoni

1) You would agree with me on Baptism - great! So you agree with me that the Protestant argument that tries to use the example of the Good Thief to prove Baptism is not required for salvation, is an argument without merit, since the New Testament requirement of Baptism for entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven (John 3:3-5) had not yet been instituted at the time of the Crucifixion

I think that the Protestant argument regarding the Good Thief is without merit for another reason: how do they know that he wasn't baptized? It might be helpful if a Protestant could show the verse that says that St. Dismas was saved but never baptized.

Thank you for being so agreeable.

In my experience, JonNC, is almost always agreeable. Ever the gentleman. He's the real thing, even if he's not a Catholic!

[John Martignoni]

Originally Posted by sulliaa8

As to your second point, the question on your site begins as "Catholics say that faith and works are necessary for salvation and that one has to be baptized in order to be saved..." The point of the question is a challenge to Catholic teaching on Faith, works, and salvation. So, even though you may be nullinfying a Protestant argument, the motive for doing so on an apologetics website is to also demonstrate why the Catholic teaching does not fail on this point. I can see your point regarding baptism but I respectfully stand by my view that whether or not his speaking in defense of the Savior should be considered a work doesn't matter and is not neccessary to "fit Catholic teaching".

Well, thank you for explaining to me what I really meant to say and what my motives were for doing so. You are most kind. I always hate it when I think I'm doing what I thought I was doing, but I was actually doing what someone else thought I was doing.

Okay, let's try this one more time, and then I shall take my leave, Kreskin. The argument is, "The Good Thief did no works, yet received the promise of Paradise, so that means works are not necessary for salvation." My response is to show that the Good Thief did indeed do a work, so the argument does not hold. In other words, I negated the argument by showing that the premise is false. Having shown that the premise is false, which renders the conclusion invalid, there is no need to even address the conclusion about whether or not works play a role in salvation, so I didn't.

I negated the argument, period. I do not make any positive assertion regarding Catholic teaching. I do not say the Good Thief "purchased salvation" by his works. I do not say the Good Thief received Baptism of Desire. I do not try to "fit Catholic teaching" to the situation of the Good Thief. I do not eat green eggs and ham. 'Nuff said...

[John Martignoni]

Originally Posted by JonNC

Didn't say that his defense had nothing to do with his salvation. It would have nothing to do with it were it not for grace through faith.
Yes, I think it is possible had he not spoken up, though certainly he is blessed by doing so.

Jon

I agree that without faith, it would have nothing to do with it. And, without grace, one cannot have faith or do any good works, so without it salvation is not possible.

So, since you didn't say his defense of Jesus had nothing to do with his salvation, are you saying that his defense of Jesus did have something to do with his salvation?

And, you really want to contend that if the Good Thief had not spoken up for Jesus, that Jesus would have still turned to him and said, "This day you will be with Me in Paradise?"

Would it have been recorded in the Bible as, "One thief cursed and taunted Jesus and the other did not. So, Jesus turned to the one who did not curse Him and said, 'This day you will be with Me in Paradise.'"

[Sullymom13]

Originally Posted by John Martignoni

Well, thank you for explaining to me what I really meant to say and what my motives were for doing so. You are most kind. I always hate it when I think I'm doing what I thought I was doing, but I was actually doing what someone else thought I was doing.

Okay, let's try this one more time, and then I shall take my leave, Kreskin. The argument is, "The Good Thief did no works, yet received the promise of Paradise, so that means works are not necessary for salvation." My response is to show that the Good Thief did indeed do a work, so the argument does not hold. In other words, I negated the argument by showing that the premise is false. Having shown that the premise is false, which renders the conclusion invalid, there is no need to even address the conclusion about whether or not works play a role in salvation, so I didn't.

I negated the argument, period. I do not make any positive assertion regarding Catholic teaching. I do not say the Good Thief "purchased salvation" by his works. I do not say the Good Thief received Baptism of Desire. I do not try to "fit Catholic teaching" to the situation of the Good Thief. I do not eat green eggs and ham. 'Nuff said...

Good morning gentlemen! So, as the cause of all this arguing, I thought I would put my 1.5 cents in. I am the wife of Sulliaa8. I read your original article on the "Good Thief" and LOVED IT. I would consider myself a novice Catholic, as I have only recently returned to the church. (being confirmed on the 26 of this month!!!) I have been asked by many Protestant friends why we Catholics are so hung up on the "works" thing...don't we know that it is by faith and grace alone that we are saved...and it almost ALWAYS ends up in a "well, the Good Thief did no works and so I don't have to either..." statement. After which I would go curl up in the fetal position in the corner and suck my thumb, which the doctor says is not good. AND THEN I read your article and it was a very refreshing take on a commonly used theme. I turned to my amazing husband and said "This article just made my day!" The Good Thief DID do a work!
Fast forward to today. I have been reading through this thread and I am shaking my head. First, let it be known that the sinister Sulliaa8 is not trying to debunk your idea, not in the slightest. He simply wanted to ask fellow Catholics their take on the necessity of fitting the Faith+Works+Grace formula to the Good Thief, (not that your article was necessarily trying to do that, but a silly novice like myself might do just such a thing!) as it is also taught by the Catholic church that Believe+Repent+Baptism by desire+Grace (get hit by a bus) still can equal salvation, it is just not the preferred method. My husband was only looking out for me, that I not get so hung up on the Faith+Works+Grace that I end up missing the point that Salvation is not a mathematical equation. The view that the Good Thief did no "works" and so I don't have to either is an equally flawed idea. The Catholic message that I get is that "one is not saved by faith or works alone...but rather by submitting ones entire self to the God who loves us and letting the "works" be a reflection of the appreciation of that love. "
Now with all that being said, I hope that we can agree (or agree to disagree) and remember that we are playing for the same team. Like I tell my 7 year old, no fighting in the dugout (at least not while the other team is watching)
Much love and respect to you, John, always a fan!

Cecilia

[John Martignoni]

Originally Posted by Sullymom13

Good morning gentlemen! So, as the cause of all this arguing, I thought I would put my 1.5 cents in. I am the wife of Sulliaa8. I read your original article on the "Good Thief" and LOVED IT. I would consider myself a novice Catholic, as I have only recently returned to the church. (being confirmed on the 26 of this month!!!) I have been asked by many Protestant friends why we Catholics are so hung up on the "works" thing...don't we know that it is by faith and grace alone that we are saved...and it almost ALWAYS ends up in a "well, the Good Thief did no works and so I don't have to either..." statement. After which I would go curl up in the fetal position in the corner and suck my thumb, which the doctor says is not good. AND THEN I read your article and it was a very refreshing take on a commonly used theme. I turned to my amazing husband and said "This article just made my day!" The Good Thief DID do a work!
Fast forward to today. I have been reading through this thread and I am shaking my head. First, let it be known that the sinister Sulliaa8 is not trying to debunk your idea, not in the slightest. He simply wanted to ask fellow Catholics their take on the necessity of fitting the Faith+Works+Grace formula to the Good Thief, (not that your article was necessarily trying to do that, but a silly novice like myself might do just such a thing!) as it is also taught by the Catholic church that Believe+Repent+Baptism by desire+Grace (get hit by a bus) still can equal salvation, it is just not the preferred method. My husband was only looking out for me, that I not get so hung up on the Faith+Works+Grace that I end up missing the point that Salvation is not a mathematical equation. The view that the Good Thief did no "works" and so I don't have to either is an equally flawed idea. The Catholic message that I get is that "one is not saved by faith or works alone...but rather by submitting ones entire self to the God who loves us and letting the "works" be a reflection of the appreciation of that love. "
Now with all that being said, I hope that we can agree (or agree to disagree) and remember that we are playing for the same team. Like I tell my 7 year old, no fighting in the dugout (at least not while the other team is watching)
Much love and respect to you, John, always a fan!

Cecilia

Dear Cecilia, please do not take my arguments as meaning that I believe your husband to be "sinister" or that I hold some sort of animus against him (or any of the other folks on here) or any such thing. Nothing could be further from the truth. Well, maybe a few things could be further from the truth, but not many. Anyway, my main purpose in forays such as this is to help people learn how to better argue. When someone can put together a proper argument, they are much more effective as apologists/evangelists than they are if they can't put together a proper argument.

And when I say "argument," I mean it in the classical sense of the word - a disputation for the purpose of seeking truth. Not some angry exchange of words. Now, when I argue, my words are blunt and to the point, but never angry. Some people may take them that way, but there's nothing I can do about that. So, again, please don't think any ill will has been generated here.

And, the way I teach someone to improve their argumentation skills, is to argue with them. I try to force people I engage with - Catholic and non-Catholic alike - to focus their thoughts, to pay closer attention to what the other guy is saying and not make unwarranted assumptions, and to make sure the logic of their arguments is consistent. And, with Catholics, I try to get them used to being disagreed with and to taking a few punches - and not curling up into the fetal position when challenged.

Iron sharpening iron, as it were. So, no need to shake your head. Just a training exercise, no live fire...[Were I one to use smiley faces, which I am not, I would insert one here.]

[John Martignoni]

Cecelia, one more thing: check out the "Debates" page of my website (www.biblechristiansociety.com) and read the debate on "Faith and Works in Justification" that I had with Dr. Joe Mizzi, and also check out Issue #175 on the "Newsletter" page, on whether or not we can "merit" eternal life.

[JonNC]

=John Martignoni;9310831]I agree that without faith, it would have nothing to do with it. And, without grace, one cannot have faith or do any good works, so without it salvation is not possible.

agreed, John.

So, since you didn't say his defense of Jesus had nothing to do with his salvation, are you saying that his defense of Jesus did have something to do with his salvation?

I would say so. Works are the important fruits of faith. Not unlike St. Peter's statement of faith, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".

And, you really want to contend that if the Good Thief had not spoken up for Jesus, that Jesus would have still turned to him and said, "This day you will be with Me in Paradise?"

Would it have been recorded in the Bible as, "One thief cursed and taunted Jesus and the other did not. So, Jesus turned to the one who did not curse Him and said, 'This day you will be with Me in Paradise.'"

Perhaps no words would have been spoken at all, and he would, that day, have been with Christ in Paradise.

Jon

[John Martignoni]

Originally Posted by JonNC

Perhaps no words would have been spoken at all, and he would, that day, have been with Christ in Paradise.

Jon

Perhaps, but we never would have known about it, would we? So, you are left with pure speculation on that point. Which makes it seem all the less speculative that the Good Thief's speaking up for Christ, his "work" on the cross, was indeed in some way necessary to his receiving the promise of being that day with Christ in Paradise, doesn't it?

In Matthew 9:20-22, was the woman healed of her 12-yr. hemorrhage by her faith alone? What say ye?

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by John Martignoni

Perhaps, but we never would have known about it, would we? So, you are left with pure speculation on that point. Which makes it seem all the less speculative that the Good Thief's speaking up for Christ, his "work" on the cross, was indeed in some way necessary to his receiving the promise of being that day with Christ in Paradise, doesn't it?

In Matthew 9:20-22, was the woman healed of her 12-yr. hemorrhage by her faith alone? What say ye?

Ah, John, it doesn't matter what I say.

And behold a woman who was troubled with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment. 21 For she said within herself: If I shall touch only his garment, I shall be healed. 22 But Jesus turning and seeing her, said: Be of good heart, daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour.

Jon