How Is Jesus Presenting Us As Saved in According to Our Faith?

[At Peace]

Maybe Barnabas just followed Peter's example. Who knows why dont we just ask God?
Lord, was Peter sinning after conversion????

If he were sinning, he wasn't converted.
A seed can only bring forth after its progenitor, so that which is born of God cannot bear evil fruit. (1 John 3:9)
Sinners can't bring forth after a Godly seed.
He would have still been a man of the flesh instead of a man of the Spirit. (Rom 8:1)

 

[Lanolin]

If he were sinning, he wasn't converted.
A seed can only bring forth after its progenitor, so that which is born of God cannot bear evil fruit. (1 John 3:9)
Sinners can't bring forth after a Godly seed.
He would have still been a man of the flesh instead of a man of the Spirit. (Rom 8:1)

Well he wasnt sinning then. Maybe they had their differences, but people can have a few differences and not sin. Remember when Peter asked Jesus where John was going and Jesus said whats it to you? Follow thou me. Not everyone is the same. We all following Jesus but none of us go the exact same path at the same time do we?

Peter's letter wouldnt be in the new testament if he sinned after conversion.
I mean check out 1 Peter 4 you would say Peter was a changed man from what he was like before.

 

[Gabriel Kinson]

I think I'll wait and get the story straight from the guy myself when we all get to heaven.

 

[Lanolin]

Again, it comes back to standing versus state and the old nature vs the new nature. Our standing before God is not our state.

@Br. Bear, in post #83 you're talking about our standing before God: dead to the law. The Bible says our old nature died upon conversion and as Paul also wrote, we are new creatures in Christ.

2Co 5:17 KJV Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

As new creatures, sin no longer has dominion over us. We are no longer in bondage to sin the way we were before we were saved. An unregenerate person sins because their spirit is dead in trespasses and sin (Eph 2:1 KJV) and sinning is what an unregenerate sinner does. An unregenerate person's body and soul (mind, will, emotions) is born with a sin nature and we're all born unregenerate. This is no new news; it's fundamental doctrine.

When we are saved by the blood of Christ, our spirit is quickened (made alive) by the Holy Spirit (Eph 2:1 KJV) but we're still living in the body of flesh with which we were born. However, we don't have to, and aren't supposed to, let sin reign in our mortal body. We are to obey the Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit that is in us (1 Cor 6:19 KJV) and not obey the lusts of our flesh.

Ro 6:11 KJV Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Ro 6:12 KJV Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

@Dave M, in post #82 you're talking about Peter's state before God in the Gal 2:11-21 incident. Paul confronted Peter about his sin in that passage, and how do we know it was indeed sin? Because of what Paul wrote in Gal 2:14 KJV "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel...."

Not walking uprightly sounds like sin according to 1 John 5:17.

Does that mean Peter wasn't saved at that time? Not at all. The Bible says he was converted back in Acts 2.

Also, 1Co 3:1-3 KJV spoke to me this morning in my devotional time.

1 Co 3:1 KJV And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.
1Co 3:2 KJV I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.
1Co 3:3 KJV For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

In verses 1-2, Paul is speaking to the saved believers in the Corinthian church (''brethren'') and he notes the difference between the spiritual and the carnal: but as he calls the carnal ''babes in Christ,'' it seems genuinely saved Christians can indeed walk in the flesh and not grow "unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ" (Eph 4:13 KJV).

Carnal (fleshly) Christians don't grow up, they don't spiritually mature......and that's a choice they make as the Ro 6 passage tells us we don't have to (and ought not to) let sin reign in our mortal bodies.

Some symptoms of walking in the flesh are given in verse 3: envying, strife, divisions. Paul equates "carnal" with "walking as men." As contrasted with ''the spiritual," back in verse 1.

The same applies to today's believers. They can be carnal, or spiritual; they can walk in the spirit, or walk in the flesh (Gal 5:16 KJV). After all, Paul's letters were written to Christian believers (either churches or saved individuals like Timothy, Titus and Philemon) and as such, have doctrinal application to us today.

It's a choice we make daily on an individual basis, and a choice that God will judge at the JSOC (1 Cor 3:11-15 KJV).

Hmm ok Peter was being carnal at that time? @atpeace would you say Peter wasnt converted then. But he was, because why would Peters letter be in NT. However according to you, he wasnt. He was just pretending.

Um...may he just didnt know any better and was a babe? I dont really see any issue here if we do mess up, we ask for forgiveness and learn and grow from there. Im sure Peter wasnt sinning WILFULLY.

 

[At Peace]

Hmm ok Peter was being carnal at that time? @atpeace would you say Peter wasnt converted then. But he was, because why would Peters letter be in NT. However according to you, he wasnt. He was just pretending.

Quite the contrary, as I don't accuse Peter of sin.
He was between pleasing the visiting Jews...who kept the law and customs, and the gentiles who were not subject to them
There was no way, in his mind, to satisfy both.
He made a choice that was acceptable to the visitors.
Had the choice been Paul's, he would have remained with the Gentiles and pointed out to the Jews that the law and customs were done away with by the new covenant.
Peter's fault was that he lent credence to the law and customs still being in force, by observing them.
Not a sin...to a Jew.

Um...may he just didnt know any better and was a babe? I dont really see any issue here if we do mess up, we ask for forgiveness and learn and grow from there. Im sure Peter wasnt sinning WILFULLY.

As all sin is willful, at least according to James in James 1:14-15, Peter's actions were only a sign of his ignorance.

 

[B-A-C]

As all sin is willful, at least according to James in James 1:14-15, Peter's actions were only a sign of his ignorance.

Sin is sin no matter what anyone thinks. Ignorance is no excuse to God.

Rom 2:12; When the Gentiles sin, they will be destroyed, even though they never had God’s written law. And the Jews, who do have God’s law, will be judged by that law when they fail to obey it.

It doesn't matter if you know it's a sin or not. You still get punished.

Luke 12:47; “And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished.
Luke 12:48; But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.

There are plenty of people who think that homosexuality isn't a sin. That doesn't make it less of a sin just because they don't know.

 

[Lanolin]

Ok so let me get this straight, not eating with sinners is a sin?
Or eating with people who say they believe but actually dont is a sin? Doesnt the bible say dont even eat with a fornicator.

BAC we are talking about whether or not Peter was sinning, if he was ignorant, wilful or just plain wrong.

We not talking about homosexuality. Its obvious that homosexuality is sinful, even homosexuals themselves know its wrong and even proud of the fact they sin.

Wasnt the issue eating or not eating with gentiles. For someone who is jewish (not Peter, but others around him) that is a HUGE deal. Wouldnt it have been in that situation Peter could have invited gentiles to dinner but the other jewish guests wouldnt have wanted them to eat with them.

Would have been a pot luck situation or a catered affair. You know how some people are vegetarian and will choose not to go somewhere if all they are served is meat, was it like that?

 

[B-A-C]

BAC we are talking about whether or not Peter was sinning, if he was ignorant, wilful or just plain wrong.

There is no difference. All of the above are sin.

We not talking about homosexuality. Its obvious that homosexuality is sinful, even homosexuals themselves know its wrong and even proud of the fact they sin.

Peter knew that "being too good for Gentiles" was a sin. He didn't need Paul to tell him this. He had already been following
Jesus way before Paul ever got "converted". In fact God tells him it's OK to eat with Gentiles way back in the story of Cornelius.
(Acts 10) .

Wasnt the issue eating or not eating with gentiles. For someone who is jewish (not Peter, but others around him) that is a HUGE deal. Wouldnt it have been in that situation Peter could have invited gentiles to dinner but the other jewish guests wouldnt have wanted them to eat with them.

Yes, it even says he was afraid of what the Jews would think. But just because we are afraid of what people will think make it any less
a sin? Many people approve of homosexuality because they are "afraid" people will think they are judging or a "hater".

 

[At Peace]

Sin is sin no matter what anyone thinks. Ignorance is no excuse to God.
Rom 2:12; When the Gentiles sin, they will be destroyed, even though they never had God’s written law. And the Jews, who do have God’s law, will be judged by that law when they fail to obey it.
It doesn't matter if you know it's a sin or not. You still get punished.
Luke 12:47; “And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn’t prepared and doesn’t carry out those instructions, will be severely punished.
Luke 12:48; But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required.

There are plenty of people who think that homosexuality isn't a sin. That doesn't make it less of a sin just because they don't know.

Those people have been shown that it is sin, but refuse to submit to God.
In Peter's case, he was trying NOT to be accused of sin... by the visiting law and custom keeping Jews.
Were he as wise as Paul, he could have used the occasion to show that the new covenant held Jew and Gentile in equal esteem before God.

 

[Laura1557]

Hmm ok Peter was being carnal at that time? @atpeace would you say Peter wasnt converted then. But he was, because why would Peters letter be in NT. However according to you, he wasnt. He was just pretending.

Um...may he just didnt know any better and was a babe? I dont really see any issue here if we do mess up, we ask for forgiveness and learn and grow from there. Im sure Peter wasnt sinning WILFULLY.

I just go by what the Bible says. One of the basic rules of Biblical interpretation is that when the plain sense makes perfect sense, seek no other sense.

In Gal 2:11 Paul says "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." In Gal 2:14 he says "But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?"

"Was to be blamed"...... "walked not uprightly"......sounds plain to me that Peter messed up. Messing up = sin.

We know Peter was saved back in Acts 2 at Pentecost, and we know he grew and matured as a Christian because of the tone of his letters in the NT versus the account of his discipleship when he walked with Jesus. But the Galatians 2 passage shows he still sinned, too.

 

[B-A-C]

I just go by what the Bible says. One of the basic rules of Biblical interpretation is that when the plain sense makes perfect sense, seek no other sense

Amen.

We know Peter was saved back in Acts 2 at Pentecost

There was of course more than one day of Pentecost in the Bible (Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8; ), but you are right. Peter was in the upper room in Acts 2.
Paul didn't get saved until Acts 9, seven chapters later. So any conversation between Peter and Paul would have been after this.

Which all goes back to the original point. Was Peter saved when he received the Holy Spirit... or was it when he realized that
Jesus was the Son of God? ( Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20; )

When did the thief on the cross receive the Holy Spirit? Was he saved? If anyone who was in the upper room (Acts 2) would have died before
that day, were they not saved?

If it was "when he received the Holy Spirit", then that means everyone here on TJ, (in fact every "Christian" in the world) who hasn't
been given visible evidence of the Holy Spirit (prophecy, tongues, miracles, healings, etc...) isn't saved. At least not yet.

I'm not the one saying this, but some here on TJ are. It seems to be the question of the day.
I believe you can be saved before receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. What about the disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19?
They were already believers baptized by John the Baptist, but they didn't receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit until they met
Paul... (long after John the Baptist had been beheaded, at least a few years).

 

[Laura1557]

Amen.



There was of course more than one day of Pentecost in the Bible (Acts 20:16; 1 Cor 16:8; ), but you are right. Peter was in the upper room in Acts 2.

Good catch. It would've been clearer for me to say ''the upper room'' instead of ''Pentecost'' in Acts 2. Pentecost is a Jewish feast.

Paul didn't get saved until Acts 9, seven chapters later. So any conversation between Peter and Paul would have been after this.

Yup, Paul wrote Galatians between A.D. 58-60 and Paul's conversion was roughly A.D. 35 according to the timeline in my Bible.

Which all goes back to the original point. Was Peter saved when he received the Holy Spirit... or was it when he realized that
Jesus was the Son of God? ( Matt 16:16; Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20; )

It's possible that he was baptized by John the Baptist for the remission of sins and that's when he was saved. The disciples, including Peter, were part of the transitional time that took place in God's dealings from Israel to the Church Age so their salvation had different aspects to it that ours doesn't. Or ours has different aspects that theirs didn't. The Church Age is the only dispensation where folks have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them as a mark of their salvation. This is where it's important to rightly divide the Bible (2 Tim 2:15 KJV).

Because Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brethren after he was converted (Luke 22:32 KJV) I'd say his conversion came in the upper room in Acts 2. Does that mean he wasn't saved before that? Not necessarily, if he followed John's baptism.

When did the thief on the cross receive the Holy Spirit? Was he saved? If anyone who was in the upper room (Acts 2) would have died before
that day, were they not saved?

The thief on the cross went to Heaven, so he must've been 'saved.' Jesus told him "To day shalt thou be with me in paradise" in Luke 23:43 KJV. The Jews who died before the upper room outpouring of the Spirit would've been saved if they partook of the baptism of John the Baptist for the remission of sins. Jews' salvation pre-Acts 2 encompassed a different dispensation entirely. People confuse the two a lot, because of the transition involved in Acts.

If it was "when he received the Holy Spirit", then that means everyone here on TJ, (in fact every "Christian" in the world) who hasn't
been given visible evidence of the Holy Spirit (prophecy, tongues, miracles, healings, etc...) isn't saved. At least not yet.

I'm not the one saying this, but some here on TJ are. It seems to be the question of the day.
I believe you can be saved before receiving the baptism of the Holy Spirit. What about the disciples at Ephesus in Acts 19?
They were already believers baptized by John the Baptist, but they didn't receive the Baptism of the Holy Spirit until they met
Paul... (long after John the Baptist had been beheaded, at least a few years).

I was baptized by the Holy Spirit, as were you and everyone else who's been born again, the day we accepted Jesus' death on the cross as payment for our sin and asked Him to save us. We were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13 KJV) and we belong to Him. We find our security in verses like 1 John 5:13 KJV.

The entire Bible was written for us, but not all of it was written to us. Church Age doctrine is found in Paul's letters, not in the book of Acts. Paul was the disciple the Lord sent to the Gentiles, as one "born out of due time." (1 Cor 15:8 KJV)

Again, it comes down to rightly dividing the Bible and I still get tangled up in the three transitional books: Matthew, Acts and Hebrews.

Matthew makes the transition from Old Testament to New Testament (which doesn't happen till Mtt 26-27 when the Testator, Jesus Christ, died).
Acts makes the transition from God's dealings with Israel to the Church Age.
Hebrews makes the transition from the Church Age into the Great Tribulation.

Rightly dividing the word of truth is the only way some of this stuff makes sense. Interestingly, it's also a command in the KJV that is removed from all the new versions.

(The Ephesians in Acts 19 are another example of the transition, btw.)

 

[B-A-C]

The Church Age is the only dispensation where folks have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them as a mark of their salvation. This is where it's important to rightly divide the Bible

I was baptized by the Holy Spirit, as were you and everyone else who's been born again, the day we accepted Jesus' death on the cross as payment for our sin and asked Him to save us. We were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise (Eph 1:13 KJV) and we belong to Him

Yet I notice in the Bible.... it never happened at "the moment" of belief.
It didn't happen for those in the upper room that way. They had been baptized by John the Baptist and following Jesus long before this.
It didn't happen for Cornelius this way. He was a believer who didn't receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit until he met Peter.
(He was a Gentile of course)
It didn't happen for Paul that way on the road to Damascus.
It didn't happen that way for the disciples at Ephesus (Acts 19) who also had been believers for a long time, baptized by John the Baptist,
and they didn't even "know there was a Holy Spirit" until they met Paul.
It didn't happen that way for the Samaritans in Acts 8:16; (who had also been baptized previously).

That's at least five instances where it was a separate event. Do you have any scripture that says you are baptized in the Holy Spirit
just because you believe? (Even the demons believe).

Besides all that.. the Bible says we have to "ask" for the Holy Spirit.

 

[Lanolin]

Ok so Peter sinned.
Why do you then say Peter was 'converted' and then put that in speech marks, was he or wasnt he. Or was he only partially converted. AtPeace seems to think its all or nothing.

Can you please clarify.

Maybe Peter was still doing the same old same old as he used to caring more about what other people thought than what God told him.

Maybe he had to be told at least three times before he could get things in his head. Does that mean he wasnt converted? How much grace does God give to forgive us even after we know Jesus died for us, and still sin?

How do we know when someone is walking uprightly?
Or does it only happen right at the end, when we enter heavens gates, not before.

Everyone on here says different things so am confused. OP did you get your answer to your question cos Im lost now. The hall of fame for people who have faith is shown in Hebrews 11 So do we know those listed as witnesses are saved?

I do recall reading that some christians dont really apply the blood of Jesus to their lives, so thats why they arent victorious over sin. They just need to learn to do that. Did Peter not do that?

Cos if Peter was still sinning then, John wouldnt have been friends with him at all. He would have actually warned eveyone in his letter well, Peter is still sinning, hes not born again that means hes a false brother and an antichrist. If you read Johns letter hes quite clear that anyone born of God does NOT sin.

 

[B-A-C]

Luke 10:17; And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Luke 10:18; And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Luke 10:19; Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Luke 10:20; Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

If they hadn't been baptized in the Holy Spirit (indeed Jesus hadn't even been crucified yet) how were their names written in heaven?

Luke 23:42; And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
Luke 23:43; And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."

If the thief wasn't baptized in the Holy Spirit, (Acts 2 hadn't happened yet) how did he make it to paradise?

If you read Johns letter hes quite clear that anyone born of God does NOT sin.

I would hate to build a whole doctrine on one verse. Especially when there are literally dozens of verses where.. Christians... sin.

 

[Lanolin]

Didnt know there was a 'church age' and a 'great tribulation' and I read KJV too.

Unless those things are added in the commentaries but my bible doesnt have commentary. The church was actually present before the upper room because it goes right back to exodus...church just means gathering or assembly. All those in Hebrews 11 had faith and that was before the upper room and died even before Jesus was presented on earth.

I would hate to build a whole doctrine on one verse. Especially when there are literally dozens of verses where.. Christians... sin.

Then what was John talking about he goes and repeats that over and over and over not just one verse!!!!

You cant throw out Johns letter and John was the one writing revelation and John should know what hes writing about cos Jesus revealed that to him.

Actually Paul, Jude, Peter, James all warned of false brethren. False brethren sin, you can tell by their fruits, or lack of them.

 

[B-A-C]

I'm not the one who mentioned "the church age". But I do agree with that part of it.
I disagree there are different dispenasations in the time of Jesus. The disciples were saved exactly the same as you and me.

As for the great tribulation. It's generally considered the last 3 1/2 years of the tribulation (7 years total)
These verses are from King James.

Matt 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

Rev 7:14; And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

You cant throw out Johns letter and John was the one writing revelation and John should know what hes writing about cos Jesus revealed that to him.

OK.

1 Jn 1:8; If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

A more correct translation of 1 jn 3 says...

1 Jn 3:8; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
1 Jn 3:9; No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

King James leaves out... (verse 9)

ποιέω
poieō
poy-eh'-o
Apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct): - abide, + agree, appoint, X avenge, + band together, be, bear, + bewray, bring (forth), cast out, cause, commit, + content, continue, deal, + without any delay, (would) do (-ing), execute, exercise, fulfil, gain, give, have, hold, X journeying, keep, + lay wait, + lighten the ship, make, X mean, + none of these things move me, observe, ordain, perform, provide, + have purged, purpose, put, + raising up, X secure, shew, X shoot out, spend, take, tarry, + transgress the law, work, yield. Compare G4238.
Total KJV occurrences: 576

 

[Lanolin]

OK.

1 Jn 1:8; If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us.

A more correct translation of 1 jn 3 says...

1 Jn 3:8; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
1 Jn 3:9; No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

King James leaves out... (verse 9)

ποιέω
poieō
poy-eh'-o
Apparently a prolonged form of an obsolete primary; to make or do (in a very wide application, more or less direct): - abide, + agree, appoint, X avenge, + band together, be, bear, + bewray, bring (forth), cast out, cause, commit, + content, continue, deal, + without any delay, (would) do (-ing), execute, exercise, fulfil, gain, give, have, hold, X journeying, keep, + lay wait, + lighten the ship, make, X mean, + none of these things move me, observe, ordain, perform, provide, + have purged, purpose, put, + raising up, X secure, shew, X shoot out, spend, take, tarry, + transgress the law, work, yield. Compare G4238.
Total KJV occurrences: 576

What version are you reading? KJV does not leave any verses out!
KJV uses fhe word 'commit'

Whosover is born of God does not commit sin

Your version also says, just as KJV says, 'cannot sin, as he is born of God'

Not just the words you underline.

Cannot is the same in both bibles, are you ignoring that word 'cannot'?

 

[B-A-C]

Cannot is the same in both bibles, are you ignoring that word 'cannot'?

Yes, both say "cannot".
One say you cannot sin... period.
Most all other Bibles include "poieō" (practice). Which is in almost all of the early manuscripts.
The King James leaves this out of verse 9.
The other says you cannot "practice" sin. You can not let it reign over you, you cannot live in it.
But if you do sin... there is grace.

1 Jn 2:1; My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:

Grace doesn't end when you get saved... that's when it begins.

 

[At Peace]

Luke 10:17; And the seventy returned again with joy, saying, Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name.
Luke 10:18; And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
Luke 10:19; Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you.
Luke 10:20; Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.

If they hadn't been baptized in the Holy Spirit (indeed Jesus hadn't even been crucified yet) how were their names written in heaven?

The requirement of the times was for men to undergo the baptism of repentance...from John's ministry.
Having turned from sin, they were eligible to be in the book of life.

Luke 23:42; And he was saying, "Jesus, remember me when You come in Your kingdom!"
Luke 23:43; And He said to him, "Truly I say to you, today you shall be with Me in Paradise."
If the thief wasn't baptized in the Holy Spirit, (Acts 2 hadn't happened yet) how did he make it to paradise?

When you compare what the thief was enduring, punishment for sin, we can see it's parallel in Romans 6:3-6.
He recognized Jesus as Lord, was crucified for his sins, and was buried...with Christ.
Just as Romans 6 makes clear.
Why should he not then be raised with Christ to walk in newness of life too?