Luke 23:42
And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Among all the passages used by contemporary evangelical movements to justify a salvation without repentance, without holiness, and without abandoning sin, Luke 23:42 stands as one of their favorite examples. They teach that the thief on the cross was saved simply by “believing” or by making a short verbal confession, as if salvation were obtained without any inner transformation or renunciation of sin. According to them, this single verse supposedly proves that man can continue in sin and still expect to enter the Kingdom of God by a last-minute “act of faith.”
This interpretation is radically false, unbiblical, and dangerously misleading. It isolates a single sentence, removes it from its historical and spiritual context, and uses it to promote a gospel of convenience that denies holiness, obedience, and the necessity of abandoning sin.
—
The Thief’s Repentance Was Real and Radical
The thief on the cross was not saved because he merely spoke words. His cry, “Lord, remember me,” was the visible expression of a deep and authentic repentance. He openly acknowledged:
his sin,
his guilt,
the justice of his punishment,
the innocence and holiness of Christ,
and the Lordship of Jesus the Messiah.
Luke 23:41 shows his genuine repentance:
“We indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds.”
This confession is not the confession of a man seeking an easy salvation, but of a man who abandons his past life and accepts total responsibility for his sins. His heart turned completely toward God in humility, brokenness, and holiness. His repentance was pure, his faith living, and his submission total.
Far from being a justification of “faith without works,” the thief on the cross embodies the true order of salvation:
Faith Repentance Abandoning Sin Forgiveness
Wesley’s Confirmation of True Repentance in the Thief
John Wesley himself uses the thief on the cross as an example not of “easy-believism,” but of the exceptional case where a man repented genuinely at the final moment, fulfilling the true biblical condition of justification.
“When these two conditions are wanting, a man may be justified without them, as was the thief on the cross, (I know not whether we should say the thief, seeing that a writer of our own day has discovered that he was an honest and respectable person.) But in no case can a man be justified without faith; it’s an impossible thing.”
John Wesley, Sermon “Salvation by Faith”
Wesley shows clearly that: the thief fulfilled the necessary repentance, his justification was the result of a genuine, purified faith, and that such a case is exceptional, not normative, and absolutely cannot be used to justify a life of sin among Christians.
Evangelicals misuse the thief’s example to avoid holiness; Wesley uses it to show the exact opposite the absolute necessity of repentance and faith united.
Evangelicals Remove Repentance From the Equation
Evangelical movements use Luke 23:42 to claim that:
holiness is not necessary,
abandoning sin is not required,
obedience to the divine Law is optional,
and that “believing alone” guarantees final salvation.
But the thief’s conversion directly contradicts their theology.
He did not “believe intellectually,” and he did not “accept Jesus emotionally”; he repented, renounced his wickedness, and submitted to Christ’s kingship at the deepest level of his being.
To use Luke 23:42 as an excuse for a life of sin is an abuse of Scripture and a blasphemy against the holiness of God.
Christ Saves Only the Repentant, Not the Rebellious
Jesus did not promise paradise to the other thief—the one who remained in unbelief, rebellion, and hardness of heart. Both men were equally close to Christ physically, both heard His words, and both were moments from death. Yet only one was saved. Why?
Because only one demonstrated:
the fear of God,
repentance,
the abandonment of sin,
and a sincere confession of Christ as Lord.
This proves again the unbreakable biblical law:
God forgives only those who repent and forsake their sins.
Luke 23:42 Does Not Abolish Holiness
Contrary to evangelical distortion, this passage does not abolish holiness, obedience, or sinlessness. Instead, it confirms the absolute necessity of a heart radically turned away from sin. The thief did not continue in sin after believing he had no opportunity to sin further, and his repentance was absolute.
Evangelicals use this passage to justify:
occasional sin,
a life of compromise,
a salvation without sanctification,
and a faith that tolerates impurity.
But the example of the thief on the cross condemns this view completely.
Additional Powerful Paragraph
To invoke the thief on the cross as a defense for ongoing sin is to commit a spiritual fraud against the Gospel. The thief had only minutes to live, yet in those minutes, he fulfilled the entire biblical requirement of salvation: he repented, confessed his guilt, forsook his old ways, humbled himself before Christ, submitted to His lordship, and believed with a purified heart. His life ended at the very moment his repentance began; he did not return to sin, he did not excuse disobedience, and he did not distort grace. His example condemns the modern doctrine of “salvation without holiness.” The thief was saved not by avoiding obedience but by fulfilling the whole essence of obedience in one final act of total surrender. No one living in sin has the right to compare himself to the thief only those who, like him, abandon sin forever and submit completely to Christ will enter the Kingdom.