The thing that pops off the page for me is that the good thief confessed his sin, that he was worthy of death while uplifting Jesus at the same time with his lips. Confession is the first action toward repentance, in other words a work. And Jesus was simply moved by his humility which is why he entered paradise the same day. Makes sense to me.

Recently coming from a strong Reformed Calvinist background, using the "good thief" narrative as normative for salvation requirements in general is very common in the circles in which I lived, and in which many family members still live. A short video clip by Baptist Calvinist Alistair Begg has kept this in mind of many Protestants ("The man on the middle cross said I could come"). Recently I responded to someone with many of the same points - adding the zinger, "If the 'good thief' wasn't baptized (I also argued that he could have been), perhaps this episode indicates that God considers crucifixion to be an acceptable substitute for baptism." Indeed, the tradition of "baptism of blood" (CCC 1258) may have begun right there at Golgotha.

But he had good works. He defended Christ and testified to his faith in Him in public when most apostles did not.

Longtime Protestant pastor coming into Catholic Church this coming week. Your videos have been great. One tiny note of correction in this video is that you have a slide with Luke 15:17-22 on the top but with the text from Luke 5:17-22. Thanks again Doug.

Those who claim St. Dismas did nothing to warrant salvation weren’t really paying much attention to the Gospel account of his conversion and albeit, very short and very public ministry. He boldly proclaimed Jesus as King, asked to be with him in heaven, confessed and expressed remorse for his sins and admonished and evangelized his wayward brother. In the gospel account I see baptism of desire, the sacrament of confession, true repentance and conversion, and his love of God and neighbor. Many of us, living much longer lives and under far less trying circumstances fail to achieve as much in the spiritual life as he did, in a very short period of time, in a very public way, under very trying circumstances while being crucified. Here’s a link to my video, The Good Thief IS Catholic Theology: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/fp5-iceTuN7ReoE.htmlsi=zgmeWaqms-pq9itK

Great video! I recently watched a video that made a similar case regarding the fact that we aren't given a life story on the thief. Up until that point it never occurred to me that we don't really know if he was baptised or not, if he followed Jesus or not, and so on. You bring up some extra points that make the case even more compelling. I'll be saving this video for future reference for sure!

Good response! You’re very good at clearly laying out the problem and offering your solutions.

Here's a fun one: I'm a Dutch reformed protestant, and mt mate is non denominational/ Pentecostal / Baptist. We are both protestants. He detests infant baptism, while I do not. I was baptized an infant myself. I wonder why UBER protestants will do absolutely EVERYTHING to be in opposition to Catholicism? Us Dutch reformed pride ourselves in being reformed without throwing the baby out with the bath water. At the rate these new protestant sects form, they might eventually even discard the foundational tenets upon which Christianity is built, as many already have. My denomination seems to be one of the few reasonable protestant denomination left along with Lutheranism and Presbyterianism. Also, this is yet another great video from you Douglas.

Your videos are excellent - I'm so happy you showed up on my feed. Liked and subscribed!

Another excellent video, Doug. I shared in on Facebook group of catholics and not catholics. Keep up good work.

Well done Douglas!! Thanks again for contending for the One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church!!

Another wonderful and detailed explanation focused on key issues. Thanks!

Clear and thorough as always! Thanks!

This video was a big help for me. Thank you.

I have never considered that the thief was still under the OT law and covenant. Thanks Douglas. BTW, was the host of the YT channel MidAirFortrace at the university with you under Giesler?

Ten minutes very well spent. Thank you very much.

John 6;29 - Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.” This is the most essential understanding of the work of salvation.

Scott Hahn once said (and I really like this) "We're saved by faith alone but not by faith that is alone" sums up Eph 2:8-10 beautifully and is a good response to Protestants accusing us of working our way into heaven.

So this is the "Short" version of my break down of Douglas beaumonts video I have a sorta deeper explanation of them but it's long........like long lon 1 -The thief was under the Old Covenant -- Wrong Jesus died Before The Thief 2 - The thief might have been baptized -- Wrong kind of Baptism, he wasn't WATER baptised 3- The thief is an edge case - God isn't gonna make an exception for that, Romans 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God. 4- The thief is only one salvation example - That doesn't prove anything, all other examples before the thief were under the Old Covenant 5- The thief did exhibit faith, yes......but works? dunno about that more on reason 5 the "works" the thief did is the same "so called works" we all do, we all acknowledge that Christ was sinless, undeserving of the punishment he endured and we acknowledge that we are sinners who deserve the punishment that Christ endured we do this by default, basically automatically Every Saved person knows that Christ was innocent, we learn that when we are taught that he died for our sins Every Saved person acknowledges that they are deserving of punishment, ---because if you think that you Aren't deserving of punishment, there'd be no reason to turn to Christ If you don't think youre *deserving of punishment* why Trust in Christ's sacrifice if you think you're pure, because Christ's sacrifice is there for people who deserve punishment, If you don't think you are sick, you are not gonna take the cure The Thief did what everyone that's saved has done 1 -acknowledged That Christ was perfect and undeserving of punishment (which he took for us) 2 -acknowledged That we are deserving of that punishment, (we won't accept his sacrifice if we don't) anyone that doesn't acknowledge those 2 things are either unsaved or a literal Toddler that hasn't said more than "mama" because there ain't a saved person that doesn't know those 2 things its not possible to be saved without knowing those things

A new favorite podcast

There is a great deal going on in that one little episode of the good thief. Ignoring what must have been tremendous suffering of his own, he rebuked his fellow thief for mocking Jesus (righteous action). He also acknowledged his own wrongdoing and that his own crucifixion was his just reward for the wrongs he had committed (repentance). He acknowledged that Jesus had done nothing wrong and asked to be remembered when Jesus came into His kingdom (confession of faith/asking for forgiveness).

thank you...I hear this from my Baptist neighbors all the time

I always refute this claim from protestants by saying that there is not proof that Dismas was NOT baptized. Because very llittle if nothing is known about his history. So to use Dismas as an example is void on both (my part and theirs). Other than Scott Hahn, youre the only one that Inhave heard that the Old Testament died in Jesus' crucifixion. Something I also use to debate. You have given me revelation just now.

@4:00 I always wondered about those who hold to an argument from silence regarding other doctrines as well. Do we do x,y, z or do we not do x, y, z. Good thing Christ gave us His Church with a living voice of the Holy Spirit so we don't have to sort this all out. For those who hold to sola scriptura, what are we to do when scripture is silent on an issue? Where is there a chapter and verse that says, "If the scripture is silent do z...?" The catholic response is hold a council like demonstrated in Acts 15.

Thank you for this clarification

I’m Orthodox, the way we’d understand this is quite different from y’all because we reject your belief that mysteries sacraments are by the work works. Rather we would say that in Jesus telling him in an extraordinary way that he was united to Christ he simply was united to Christ. Since we don’t have Jesus appearing to each of us, but rather we have the continuing Ministry of Christ in His Body and there is only 1 Body. We are united to His Body in baptism, chrismation and the Holy Eucharist.

If God grants an exeption to the good thief, it does not mean you or I will automatically get the same treatment. That would be the sin of presumption. God is God, and He can do as He pleases. "How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?" - Romans 11: 33-34 The Blessed Virgin Mary is another example of God making an exception, for she was was born without the stain of original sin. She is Immaculate, but no one else is. God makes the rules and He alone decides. Want to go to heaven? Then do what God commands: be holy as your heavenly Father is holy.

And God is bound by what He says. God is not a liar, nor does He change. Psalms 118:89-90 For ever, O Lord, thy word standeth firm in heaven. Thy truth unto all generations… Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor as the son of man, that he should be changed. Hath he said then, and will he not do? hath he spoken, and will he not fulfill? Malachias 3:6 For I am the Lord, and I change not: Ezechiel 24:14 I the Lord have spoken: it shall come to pass, and I will do it: … Hebrews 13:8-9 Jesus Christ, yesterday, and today; and the same for ever. Be not led away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, … James 1:17 Every best gift, and every perfect gift, is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration.

Have you ever read Dorothy Sayers' "The Man born to be King"? It was a series of plays commissioned by the BBC in WWII dealing with the life and Passion of Jesus. Sayers, a devout Christian and famous writer of the Peter Wimsey tales, has an interesting take on the interaction between Dismas and Jesus, Dismas has pity on Jesus and probably views him as a crazy person and tries to console him out of common human empathy. Sayers implies that Dismas is only humoring Jesus when he requests that Jesus to take him to His Kingdom. He is bewildered and confused when Jesus promises that he will be with Him when he enters Paradise. Dismas is acting out of love (read Charity) and not faith, or maybe faith working through love. Read the book, a wonderful series of plays. I believe that BBC has recently released the audio for them.

I'm no theologian, but AFAIK the Catholic Church teachings differentiate between 'ordinary' and 'extraordinary' for almost everything. Because the Church has to deal with 'normal' people in 'normal' circumstances, so we have 'normal' procedures - the Sacraments, the disciplines. But God is God, and He can dispense Mercy however he wants. E.g. the woman being stoned was told "therefore I do not condemn you; go sin no more". There was no indication of her (presumably Jewish) being baptised nor calling Jesus as saviour. We cannot use that example, and then assume baptism is optional, and not calling Jesus as saviour is also optional. Not even Protestants will agree to that, on the contrary. And Jesus cured the Centurion's servant without the Centurion converting or being baptised. BTW the Centurion story is a classic PROOF of the Catholic teaching on Intercession. The servant was a servant, not even a blood relative; and there's no indication of whether he was a good man or sinful man. We assume if the Centurion interceded, he must be a good man. (Or, in today's twisted rainbow world, they'd say he was the gay toy-boy).

"Hey dude, you ever heard about the thief on the cross?"

Although I agree with you in most areas, the problem, I see you is the inconsistency of the Catholic Church. They talk about the Eucharist, and that scripture does say you were to eat of my flesh and drink of my blood so we have communion and every mass feeding our spiritual man, but we do not drink the blood. The priest night, but we don’t the other issue with the thief on the cross is Abraham was considered righteous because of his faith in God, and that was the only thing that made him righteous. This, of course, was before Moses and the 10 Commandments, and all of the other old testament Jewish law, but Abraham was promised he would be with God and that his descendants would be multiplied more than the grains of sand, so similar to the thief on the cross god, the father’s promise to Abraham was not based on following any sacraments or rules. So you see why I think of the ends broken and contrite heart and humility, honest humility before God, and his faith that God is a good God, and that he is a gracious God that is what I believe the Lord looks sad the heart person and of course good works will follow if you mean this, and continue to strive to give your life to the Lord in service to him all the days of your life. This is my opinion.

I ask Protestants who was baptized in John 4:1-2? Could the thief have been one of them?? Their minds are blown when the have Biblical proof that baptisms were happening prior to the great comission.

I’d also say as an Orthodox, I find it very very very problematic to say that the thief wasn’t a part of the Church. Our understanding of the Church is that Israel is the Church.

I agree that we should not cherry pick parts of the scripture. However, we should also not insert unverified evidence into the story, such as Dismas likely having been baptized.

There are some points here that are missing, and traditional Catholic faith taught us that if you are martyred it is an immediate entrance into heaven, and Mary's appearances throughout the history she also mentions martyrdom is an immediate entrance into heaven. Number two. He spoke to the other thief and said good things about Jesus the holy book says when you talk good about Jesus you are worshiping jesus.. he was worshiping jesus... Number three he accepted Jesus on the cross, and while he was on the cross his blood was shed as a martyr.. number for the holy books talks about martyrdom of the flesh........ Number 5 the holy church teaches us that there are three types of baptism one is water baptism to is baptism of desire and three is baptism by blood the thief on the cross was baptized in blood because he shed his blood and accepted jesus............. When you accept the founder Jesus of the Catholic faith you become a catholic....... Automatically..... Ps. His flesh was also martyred on the cross...... The holy book says call upon the name of Jesus and thou shalt be saved. By the thieves words he called upon the inname of jesus....... Work out your own salvation in fear and trembling....... And that's what he did..

If you get it directly from Jesus while up on cross, you're good. Everyone else must do as he told us. Why would he give us instruction then say, "eh, but whatever is good."

he put his trust and his hope in Christ - that is pretty active faith, according to me

It is rude to laugh, but the RCC needs a better explanation for their belief in sacraments leading to salvation. They can start by differentiating between the baptism of repentance carried out by John, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. The man that was dropped through the roof was included in the "their" who had faith. He was not separate from his friends. If the sacraments are not binding, then they are not a requirement for salvation.

I don't see any terms like faith, believe, etc, in these thief passages, so we must conclude faith wasn't even the key aspect of what saved him. But more importantly, he explicitly is said to have been suffering for his own sins, which completely contradicts the Protestant notion of the Cross, namely penal substitution, and which this erroneous view of the Atonement is the entire basis for faith alone in the first place.

Excellent video. A little add to your item#4. Jesus forgave sins, multiple times before His Sacrifice. He sanctified our Blessed Mother before as well. He did so not only because He was God, but because being God, He is not trapped by time, and the merits of His glorification is eternal. He was crucified even before the foundation of the world. He did not break His own rules or covenant(s). He bound Himself to them. I strongly believe that the thiefs case was under the Old Covenant just like those during His 3 year ministry. . The Protestant is so busy busy busy contradicting, they will rarely listen. There is such a drive to defend a position but will never, or rarely will ever see what their eyes see, or hear what their ears hear. But they are clever enough to realize if they concede any point that is close to their foundational view, there house of cards crumble. . Thanks again!

This is the "desire of baptism" or the "baptism of desire". The Catholic Church teaches that had the thief been given the opportunity to be baptized, he would have done so. Refreshingly, he was counted as saved by God

Really went in to this video with open mind but still have to say not convinced with any of your points. It’s also crazy to me how many people in the comments just won’t let go of their works still trying to shoe horn in works for your salvation. Let go of the pride.

Re: Salvation without Baptism...... 1) It is normative for Christians to be baptized. The Bible nowhere envisions unbaptized Christians. 2) A strong case can be made from this passage that Baptism is not required in all circumstances. Most of my fellow evangelicals would agree with the above, and there is not much daylight between this position and Catholic teaching.

As an Evangelical my view of the penitent thief is simply he was a penitent thief. But something more also, he didn't know Jesus would rise from the dead, nor did he have any reason to think he was the Messiah. But this he did know, Jesus was an innocent man, he wasn't a criminal like they were. And yet everyone was mocking him, and the penitent thief found that to be unacceptable and he defended the innocent in his dying moments. That actually matters to God.

Where IS the evidence that the thief might have been baptized?

According to the Catechism of St. Pius X, The first who opened and entered into heaven was Jesus Christ. Because heaven was closed after Adam transgressed. All Patriarchs, Prophets, and some figures in the old including the Good Thief in the New Testament were waiting in the " PARADISE" It is NOT heaven But "A STATE WHERE THE JUST PEOPLE WERE waiting for the coming Savior, It is known as "THE LIMBO OF THE FATHERS." When Jesus went to "hell" it was not really a hell of eternal damnation but a LIMBO. According to Catholic Tradition Jesus open this Limbo and baptized them and took them all into heaven with Jesus Who was the first person who entered heaven and closed the that Limbo for all eternity. But there is another Limbo today which the theologians seldom told to the people it is "THE LIMBO OF THE CHILDREN" where unbaptized children go due to the Original Sin they acquired, it is not "PURGATORY" for they are not baptized Christians. Heaven is the final place where the Beatific Vision of GOD enjoyed by the Good Angels and Saints(Venerated) and saints(good People), it is not simply as Paradise like What really Jesus meant when He said to the good thief. Thank you.

This is how you are saved according to true Roman Catholicism traditional bible-believing ye must be born of the water end of the spirit.. first is water baptism when you are an infant.. second, you must be born of the spirit, this is when you reach the age of reason which is 7 years old you can invite Christ into your life and repent of your sins. Number 3 faith without works is dead...... You need all three water, invite Christ in, and good works......

The thief did a John 3:16 he believed so he asked.

AGREE. 1) Jesus was with His Disciples when they baptized and "made more disciples than John" (John 4). So between Him and John, they probably baptized hundreds. How do we know if the thief wasn't one of those. 2) Jesus said - take up your cross and follow Him. The thief literally professed belief in Jesus while BOTH of them were nailed to it. No "normal" person could ever believe in someone (Jesus) who was undergoing the same affliction as he, much less ask salvation from him (Jesus). The "thief on the Cross" actually disproves Protestant ideas about it. The thief DID NOT have "Faith Alone" because he was nailed to a Cross when he signified faith in Jesus' Salvific Power. HE.WAS.NAILED.TO.A.CROSS. And Jesus didn't un-nail him, and neither did Jesus prevent his legs from being broken (to die).

I don't know a single Christian that uses the theif on the cross as a "principle" for receiving salvation, rather supporting evidence for faith having all the saving power needed. That seems more like a strawman argument. Here are a lot of other references that line up and harmonize with the situation of the thief on the cross, which I believe is a very rare circumstance: Eph 2:8-9 Romans 4:5 Galatians 2:16 John 3:16 John 6:40 Acts 16:31 Galatians 3:26 Titus 3:5

No, if he would of remained silent on the cross, there is no evidence he would of been saved. Also there is zero evidence the thief never was baptized. Many were baptized in those days.

Obviously!!! He had nothing else tp offer,. Religious paradigmatics will tell you he was a "Special case" but he wasn't in that respect.

Yes He was a Jew and saved under the Jewish religion. He would have been baptised but not Sacramentally Baptised. Nobody went to Heaven until Jesus ascended. The Thief is more than likely held in Purgatory until the ascension of Jesus.

He prob didn’t believe in the incarnation or the resurrection… 😂😂… let’s stop believing that as well

Keep in mind that Jesus Christ, being God, can do anything He pleases. P.S., neither you nor I know whether or not he did any good works before being crucified next to Jesus. You sound awfully sure that he didn't...

This video is definitely reaching. The thief simply recognized in those moments Christ true divinity and all he did was ask Jesus Christ to REMEMBER HIM. Jesus saw his faith alone and he was saved. Period.

The thief is not named in the Bible. The Catholic Church makes so much stuff up. For example, Peter was not the first Pope. James was head of the Jerusalem church, not Peter.

Paradise is in heaven and hades is the place of the dead, otherwise good explination.

The rationalists in the world cannot accept the following passage. "I do not frustrate the grace of God For if righteousness comes by the law then Christ is dead in vain." [Galatians 2:21] Th e elitists meeting at Trent overlooked that passage and many others like it, eg Titus 3:5-7, Romans 4:16, 5:1,10:10, Hebrews 10:38. The Bible does not equivocate on salvation. It is all of grace through faith without works, Ephesians 2;8-9.

Simone Biles would be impressed with this level of mental gymnastics...