The thief on the cross and an argument from silence

03/04/2025 • View profile

The thief on the cross and an argument from silence

I have a headache (well, did when I originally wrote this before I typed it), and, besides being annoyed by our allegedly Catholic vice president (I'm American), and being slightly less annoyed with the Protestant president (If I write an article about it, I will call it “A lesson in victim blaming”.
Just so you know how absurd I think the White House's actions were, I VOTED for Trump.
But, if I were to complain about the American political system, I'd be here all day.

Before we get started, please be sure to read my previous article; What does it mean to be blessed? And check out my latest on Locals; Let's talk about Ash Wednesday
What I want to talk about is the Good thief on the cross.
Let's start with what the text says, well go with Luke 23:39-43,
“One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying “if you are the King of the Jews, save yourself and us”!
But, the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds, but this man has done nothing wrong. And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom”.
And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today, you will be with me in paradise”.
You'll note something, there are people who claim that this is evidence that one doesn't need to be baptized to be saved.
Okay, let's get this out of the way. God is bound by the sacraments, we are not.
Think about it like this. You have a child, say a toddler. The toddler is old enough to under, and the toddler is old enough to respond. The child might know basic answers, and have limited understanding, but he knows right from wrong.
Consider the following. An uncontacted tribe in a distant land knows a creator exists. They might not get the finer points of theology correct, but, God has acted through them.
Now, that's getting into invincible ignorance and s whole host of other stuff.
My point is, God gives us a normative way to salvation, but he can save whomever he wills.
So, let's go with the view that he was already baptized. Since there is no evidence he wasn't. So, what happens in Lk 23:40-41? Why, it looks the good thief is 1) Confessing his sins, and, 2) in v. 42, acknowledging his dependence on Jesus, and asks Jesus to remember him when he (Jesus) comes into his kingdom.
This sounds like a 1st century Act of contrition!
I think there is a good argument to be made, that thief on the Cross is using the Sacrament of reconciliation.
Wrapping it up, I don't know if the Good thief was baptized or not, and neither do I.
I think ultimately, to claim that he was not is based an argument from silence. The truth is, we don't know, but, I lead towards thinking he was. But, I'm also completely okay admitting I'm wrong.