•1:37 PM
How do you reconcile Romans 10:13 and the thief on the cross with your insistence on baptism as being necessary for salvation?
Todd Clippard
Whatever one reads in Acts pertaining to baptism and what one reads in Romans 10:13 must harmonize. The Bible is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), therefore it does not contradict itself.
There is a verse in Acts 2 that is the same as that in Romans 10:13 Acts 2:21: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Later in Acts 2:38, Peter says one must repent and be baptized in order to receive remission of sins. Being saved and receiving remission of sins refer to the same thing, since one cannot be saved without remission of sins. Thus, repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for remission of sins (v 38) must have some connection to "calling on the name of the Lord" (v 21).
Consider also an inspired commentary on the phrase "calling on the name of the Lord." In Acts 22:16, Paul retold his conversion account. In so doing, he noted that he received the following instructions from Ananias: "And now why tarriest thou? Arise, and be baptized, washing away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." Coupled with the information in Acts 2, we can now understand without doubt what it means to call upon the name of the Lord. It means to submit to God by being baptized for the remission of sins.
The thief on the cross cannot be used as an argument against the necessity of baptism for a number of reasons:
1) The thief on the cross was saved because Jesus spoke his sins forgiven (Luke 23:43). Jesus had power while on earth to remit sins (Matthew 9:1-8);
2) There is no evidence to prove the thief had never been baptized. Multitudes of people came from Judea to John the Baptist to be baptized of him (Matthew 3:5). Paul said a man who received the baptism of John was to believe on Him who was to come after, that is, on Jesus (Acts 19:4). The thief certainly did this. The thief also had some knowledge of Jesus and His kingdom. From whence did this information come?
3) Finally, the thief did not live under the law of Christ which requires baptism. Assuming he was Jewish, he lived and died under the law of Moses. However, #'s 2 & 3 are moot points as Jesus clearly stated the thief would join Him in paradise that same day. That settles the matter once and for all.
[ SOURCE ]
