Roy Neal Runyon, while a critic of baptismal regeneration, teaches that baptism is a commandment and is necessary for salvation. In response to the thief on the cross, he wrote the following:
“The
Thief on the Cross Wasn’t Baptized!”
This is easily one of the most frequently cited
objections against the necessity of baptism for salvation. When faced with the
plain teachings of Scripture—“Repent and be baptized . . . for the remission
of sins” (Acts 2:38), “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins”
(Acts 22:16), “Baptism doth also now save us” (1 Peter 3:21)—some immediately
pivot to the thief on the cross, insisting that he was saved without being
baptized, and therefore baptism cannot be essential.
Let us concede up front: the thief did not come
down from the cross, undergo water baptism, and return to his execution. That
is true. But what our opponents fail to see—or perhaps ignore—is that he didn’t
need to. Why not? Because he had already been baptized.
Jesus Himself laid down the universal condition
in John 3:5: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God.” That word “except” (ean mē) is a
word of exclusion. No one—not even the thief—could enter without being born of
water and Spirit. Yet Jesus told the thief: “Today you will be with Me in
Paradise,” (Luke 23:43).
We are therefore
left with only two options:
1. Either Jesus contradicted His own teaching
in John 3:5,
2. Or the thief had already met the condition
of being born of water and Spirit.
The only conclusion consist with Jesus’ own
words is that the thief had previously been baptized, likely under the ministry
of John the Baptist or Jesus’ disciples (John 3:22; 4:1-2), and had later
fallen back into sin—like Simon the sorcerer (Acts 8:13, 22-24). As a Jew and
son of Abraham, his path back to God was the same as Simon’s: repentance and a
plea for forgiveness.
Jesus had authority to forgive sins during His
earthly ministry (Mark 2:10), and He used it often—healing the paralytic,
forgiving the woman caught in adultery, and cleansing the sinful woman who
anointed His feet. But notably, our opponents never cite these examples as
their model of salvation. Why do they ignore the woman taken in adultery? Or
the man whom Jesus told to sell everything in order to gain eternal life (Luke 18:18-23)?
Why cling only to the thief?
The reason is simple: the thief appears to be
the only case that they believe supports salvation apart from baptism. But this
appeal crumbles under close scrutiny. First, because it ignores Jesus’ own
teaching in John 3:5. Second, because the thief lived and died under the Old
Covenant, which was still in effect until the death of Christ (Hebrews 9:16-17).
And third, because it overlooks the likelihood—based on Jesus’ own conditions—that
the thief had, at some point prior, submitted to the baptism preached to “all
the people of Israel” (Acts 13:24).
It is important to remember that all Jews
living at that time were accountable to the baptism preached by John and later
by Jesus’ disciples (John 3:22; 4:1-2). Luke records that “all the people that
heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of
John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against
themselves, being not baptized of him,” (Luke 7:29-30). To refuse baptism was
to reject God’s will. The thief, by contrast, shows every indication of a heart
that had once obeyed and had now returned in repentance—just as any fallen
believer would. He is no exception to the gospel—he is a testimony to the power
of repentance and the authority of Christ to forgive. (Roy Neal Runyon, Misunderstood
Conversions of the New Testament [2025], 173-74)
