Transcription
Everyone, so I think some of you might know this already, but this is going to be the last video that we're making until the next video that we make. So if you want to make sure you see that next video, click the subscribe button and the notification bell. Then also like this video, just because you're going to be clicking stuff anyway, why not just click another thing? And share this video with your friends. Seriously, sharing these videos is such a great help to this channel. So if you're on Facebook, Twitter, whatever kind of social media you got, and you like one of our videos here, click it, grab the link, and put it into your little Facebook machine. Say, "Hey friends, check out this on YouTube." People like morons. Anyway, this is getting excommunicated, where X equals your comments, and we communicate about X.
The person getting excommunicated today is Mary T. English. Mary says, "Excellent explanations and very funny as well. Just wondering how to answer my separated brethren when they say, 'Hey, Jesus told the good thief on the cross, today you will be with me in paradise, not purgatory.'" I haven't actually heard of a Protestant using this argument before, but I have heard of Protestants using the criminal on the cross to make other arguments, so I wouldn't put this past them. So what it sounds like from this comment is that Protestants are saying there is no purgatory because Jesus said to the criminal on the cross, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise." We'll come back to that argument in a minute.
First, though, we're going to look at the more common Protestant use of the criminal on the cross. Usually, you'll hear Protestants using the criminal on the cross argument in regards to baptism. For example, let's go to gotquestions.com, which is the home of some of the most poorly thought-out articles on the internet. They say, "If baptism were required for entrance into eternal life, then Jesus was wrong to say to the thief on the cross, 'Today you will be with me in paradise.' The thief had no opportunity to be baptized before facing God." So we have some people saying that purgatory can't exist because of what Jesus told the criminal on the cross, and we also have some people saying that baptism can't be required because of what Jesus said to the criminal on the cross.
Now, no matter which crazy argument you hear Protestants make about the criminal on the cross, you can usually respond in the same way. Just say, "Oh, really? And, uh, where does the Bible say that about the criminal on the cross?" The reason to ask this question is because Protestants adhere to a ridiculous belief known as Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura states that the Bible is the sole infallible source of Christian information. Sola Scriptura allows for other sources of Christian information, but none of those other sources are infallible. We have several videos that look at just how dumb that belief is. They are linked in the description, but yeah, Protestants limit their infallible information to only what is found in the Bible.
So when they say something like, "The thief had no opportunity to be baptized before facing God," you can say, "Oh, really? And, uh, where does the Bible say that about the criminal on the cross?" And that puts the Protestant in a pickle because they really like to pretend that they follow the Sola Scriptura teaching, but none of the anti-Christian stuff they say is actually found in the Bible. Fun fact: the Bible doesn't say anything about whether or not the criminal on the cross was baptized. Here's what the Bible tells us: "Two others who were criminals were led away to be put to death with him. And when they came to the place that is called the Skull, there they crucified him, and the criminals, one on his right and one on his left. And the criminals who were hanged reviled Jesus, saying, 'Are you not the Christ? 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.'"
So the Bible says absolutely nothing about whether or not the criminal on the cross was baptized. But we've seen this before from Got Questions. They're not really focused on the facts. To the folks at Got Questions who are saying the thief had no opportunity to be baptized before facing God, just an FYI: the criminal on the cross could have been baptized at any point in time before being nailed to the cross. It's not like being baptized prevents you from committing crimes. I can't just be like, "No, officer, I don't know who robbed that bank, but I've been baptized, so catch you later."
While we're on the topic, does anyone know where you get the bags with the money sign on it? Because I feel kind of embarrassed robbing banks with this. So yeah, Got Questions is saying that he's had no opportunity to be baptized before facing God, but that's not true at all. He had plenty of opportunities. He could have been baptized at any point in time before hanging on the cross. He could have even been baptized while he was on the cross. Now, I'm not saying that the criminal on the cross was baptized. For Christians, it doesn't matter whether or not he was baptized. The problem with this argument here is that Protestants don't understand the Christian teaching on baptism. Baptism is required, but there are exceptions. And we have a video that goes into a lot more detail on baptism. The link is in the description, also up here in the card. So please check that out and share it with friends. But yeah, baptism is required, but there are exceptions. So if the criminal was baptized, cool, he met the requirement. If the criminal was not baptized, cool, he falls under the list of exceptions. So this argument fails for two reasons: One, Protestants adhere to the anti-Christian, man-made teaching of Sola Scriptura. So when they make the claim that the criminal on the cross was not baptized, they have no infallible source backing up that claim, because their only infallible source is the Bible, and the Bible doesn't say squat about whether or not that criminal was baptized. The second way it fails, though, is that Christians believe that baptism is required, but there are exceptions. So whether the criminal was baptized or not, it doesn't hurt the Christian view on baptism.
All right, now let's go back to Mary's comment. She's wondering how to answer her separated brethren when they say that Jesus told the good thief on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise, not purgatory." Again, I'm assuming that the argument here is that purgatory cannot exist because Jesus told the criminal on the cross, "Today you will be with me in paradise." This is actually an even dumber argument than the baptism one. But to be fair, I do not hear Protestants actually using this that much. So Mary might have heard a friend saying this, but in fairness to all Protestants, I know that you're not making this dumb argument all the time. You've got other dumb arguments. Sola Scriptura, that's a piece of crap teaching. Check out our videos on it. Please stop believing that nonsense. But yeah, this argument, I have not heard before until this comment. So hopefully most Protestants are aware that this just doesn't make any sense.
First of all, purgatory is not necessarily a place. It is a process. This information can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Christian Church. That being said, it sounds like this argument relies on purgatory being a place, and it is possible that purgatory is an actual place where purgatory, the process, takes place. So for this video, we're going to pretend that purgatory is definitely a place. So the question then is, if purgatory is an actual place, and in that actual place people experience the process of purgatory, then could Jesus have truthfully said, "Truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise"? The answer is yes, of course you could have. Because Jesus didn't say, "Truly, truly I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise, and you won't be going anywhere else today except for paradise. You will not pass go. You will not collect $200."
Now, Mary, if you want to explain this to your friend, you can grab a map and say, "Let's pretend we're both in Utah today." And while we're standing in Utah, I say to you, "Truly, truly I say to you, today you will be with me in Colorado." Here's Colorado. Here's Utah. If Mary is speaking truthfully to her friend, then they're both going to be in Colorado today. But does that mean that Mary's friend can't go to Arizona first? No. Mary's friend can go from Utah, drive on over to Arizona, and then go to Colorado. And guess what? They're both in Colorado. Mary's friend took a detour to Arizona first, but today they are still with each other in Colorado. Depending on how fast Mary's friend is traveling, he can go to a bunch of different states and then meet up with her in Colorado. The statement's still true: "Today you will be with me in Colorado."
So going back to what Jesus said, he said, "Today you will be with me in paradise." He didn't tell the criminal, "You're not going to be going anywhere else today." So the criminal easily could have gone to purgatory and then to paradise. So that should settle it for Mary's friend. But if not, there's also another way to refute this claim. Just show them what the Catechism of the Catholic Christian Church has to say about purgatory. It says, "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed sure of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." So if someone dies in God's grace and friendship and they are still imperfectly purified, then they go through purgatory. But if someone dies in God's grace and friendship and they are not still imperfectly purified, then they might not need this process of purgatory. So it could be the case that the criminal didn't need purgatory. That doesn't mean purgatory doesn't exist. It just means that some people don't go through purgatory. That's not a surprise to a Christian. We believe that's a possibility.
Now, the only other thing I could think your friend might say is, "Well, purgatory is a really long process, so how's he going to see him in the same day?" In which case, you can ask your friend, "Who said purgatory had to be a long process?" Because there is no official Christian teaching on how long purgatory takes. It could be like that. It could be much longer than that. It could be shorter than that. So yeah, it's entirely possible for the criminal on the cross to go to purgatory and still make it to paradise in time to be there with Jesus on the same day.
Now, Mary also had two other questions on her comment. We weren't really sure what these questions were, though. So if you want to give more details in the comments below, we'd love to hear more about those questions because you just wrote, "Wondering how to answer my separated brother when they quote this and this." But there's really no explanation as to why they're quoting it, and if they're even quoting them wrong. So we can kind of assume from the second one why they were quoting that in regards to purgatory, but the other two, we weren't sure.
If anyone else has any questions or topics you want to discuss, please leave them down below in the comments section, and maybe next time you'll be getting excommunicated. Once again, feel free to go to our channel, find a video you like, and copy the link to that. Paste it on your Facebook page. That is a huge help to the channel. You didn't see anything here. Just okay. All right. You didn't see nothing. All right. This has been How to Be Christian. You all have a great day. He didn't see nothing. That's a double negative. That means he saw everything. Does he know that? Of course he knows that. He's talking about it right now. Oh, he's got meta. Looked like a meteor, but it wasn't. It was a pillowcase with a blanket out. [Music]