Each Shall die for his own sin

Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin. -Deuteronomy 24:16

The idea that Christ died as if He commited our sin violates the Biblical teaching that each man be put to death for his OWN sins.  This verse, however, seems to only apply to adults, since young children in the Bible are put to death, or killed, because of their parents sins, as in the case of David's son, or the nations God commanded the Israelites to destroys.  Regardless, Christ could not have been put to death for the sins of others (at least justly!). Rather, Christ willingly laid down His own life for the sake of others, not that He should die as their substitute, but that by His righteous death, God would show mercy to mankind, thus allowing man forgiveness on the condition they repent of their sins.  After all, Christ did make several warning statements that certain sins would cause the soul to go to Hell forever, as we see in Matthew 5 with sexual sins, Matthew 6 with withholding forgiving your brother's sins and so on.

On another point, Deuteronomy 24:16 is a verse anti/counter-Missionary Jews use against Christians.  Their claim is legitimate, but only against baptistic and Calvinistic types of Christians that espouse this particular view of the atonement that says "Christ died in our place" or "He took the wrath of God in our place" and so on.  Rather, the Biblical Christ was a propitiation for the sins of the world, meaning His death provided MERCY for mankind. 

I have already written before that the idea of a penal substitution when logically followed out is a denial of Trinitarianism, or can be an affirmation of a sort of Arianism (since God cannot be forsaken by God), or some form of theology where Christ as a man and Christ as God are divorced (undoing the incarnation).

Calvinists try to prove a penaly substitution with verses like 2 Corinthians 5:21, or Isaiah 53 and so on.  When the fact is 2 Corinthians 5:21 by saying Christ "became sin for us" is an expression St Paul was using for a sin offering, and Isaiah 53 doesn't mean God treated Christ as if He had our sins, in fact Matthew 8:17 interprets this part of Isaiah as Jesus healing the sick and casting out demons:

When it was evening, they brought him many who were possessed by demons, and he drove out the spirits by a word and cured all the sick, to fulfill what had been said by Isaiah the prophet: “He took away our infirmities and bore our diseases.”--Matthew 8:16-17

A Protestant's wrong undestanding of Catholicism and Baptism

On Paltalk last night several people attempted to "refute" the Catholic Church based on the little knowledge they had of it.

One person was named "hello dolly," she acts as if the fact her friends were Catholic qualifies her as someone who is competent in Catholic theology, however, the wording of her questions suggest she is incompentent in this area.

She asked me if baptism makes someone born again, "how was the thief on the cross born again"?
There are a few problems with this example.

 1) We don't know if the thief was not a Christians before and was baptized, it was possible he was since John 4:1 tells us Jesus had more people baptized and made disciples than John the Baptist, which must have been a HUGE number since the Gospels tell us concerning the number following John the Baptist:

And there went out to him all the country of Judea, and all they of Jerusalem, and were baptized by him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.--Mark 1:5

So logically, Jesus had a huge number of followers in Israel at one time, only to have many of them apostacize in John 6.  So is it unreasonable at all to say that the thief may have already been a follower of Christ (at least at one time) and was baptized? 

2)Baptism in water is not the only means by which a person is made "born again" in Catholic theology.  In Catholicism there are 3 recognized means by which a person can be "baptized" they are: water (traditional baptism), blood (someone who dies for the faith though was not water baptized), and desire (someone who if they had the chance to be baptized would have been, these people usually are catechumen who meet an early death). Here is the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the matter:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

Many of the Fathers justified calling martyrdom for the Faith a "baptism" because Christ called His own death on the Cross a "baptism," so those dying for the Faith are said to likewise be "baptized" "in their own blood."

There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!--Luke 12:50

Baptism of desire's older name was "desire of baptism" and this was justified by Fathers as being salvific because of Scriptures like this:

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved.--Acts 2:21

Conclusion: Ultimately in Catholic theology whether or not the Good Thief was baptized in water is not relevant, since water is not the only way to become born again.

Commentary on Matthew 7:21-23

The passage reads as follows:

"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'--Matthew 7:21-23

Most people take this passage to mean some people were never saved, even though they may have been perceived to be, or they themselves may have mistook themselves to be such. I have encountered believers in Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) who used this verse to 'support' their position some odd way. Others I have met said these people were boasting about their own works before God and were damned or were never saved because they did so.

So, does "never knew you" mean he never really know them, hence they were never saved? Not necessarily. This is because it is quite possible Jesus was using an Rabbinical expression. This is noted by Samuel Tobias Lachs in his A rabbinic commentary on the New Testament, who on page 150 of his book notes that "never knew you" is "An expression of rejection used by the Rabbis, often as a form of a ban," then cites instances in Talmudic literature, such as MQ 16a (Mo'ed Katan), which has a story about a rabbi that told a person he knew that "I have never known thee." In addition, St Cyril of Alexandria commenting on Matthew 7:21-23 says:

"There may be some who, in the beginning, believed rightly and assiduously labored at virtue. They may have even worked miracles and prophesied and cast out demons. And yet later they are found turning aside to evil, to self assertive deception and desire. Of these Jesus remarks that he "never knew them." He ranks them as equivalent to those who were never knew by him at all...."--St Cyril of Alexandria, fragment 88

It should also be noted that Prophecy does not even necessarily show proof of salvation since the High Priest that sought the death of Christ in John 11 seems to speak prophecy, and 1 Corinthians 13 says:

And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.-1 Corinthians 13:2

Now, some claim these people are bragging about their works, so they cannot be saved. However, look closely, they are not!

Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?'

These people are attributing these deeds to GOD, not themselves!

Some will claim these are just false prophets, it could be they became false prophets, however, consider this, can a person fake casting out demons? Jesus accused the Pharisees of blaspheme for saying God is not the one that casts out the demons.

Conclusion: Though there are verses that certainly teach there are false converts, Matthew 7:21-23 is not likely one of them.