Legion are those who dismiss water baptism as a prerequisite to salvation on the grounds that “the thief on the cross was not baptized.” The thought is that since the thief was suspended on the cross when Jesus said to him, “Today you will be with Me in paradise” (Luke 23:43), he was being pronounced as saved by Christ without being required to be baptized. As one well-known preacher put it, “There was no water within 10 miles of the cross.” Please give consideration to two important observations.
First, the thief may well have been baptized prior to being placed on the cross. Considerable scriptural evidence points to this conclusion (Matthew 3:5-6; Mark 1:4-5; Luke 3:21; 7:29-30). If he was, in fact, baptized, he would have been baptized with the baptism administered by John the baptizer. John’s baptism was temporary (i.e., in force only during his personal ministry, terminating at the death of Christ). However, even John’s baptism was “for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4) and, hence, essential for salvation for those to whom it was addressed. John’s baptism, like the one administered by Jesus while He was on Earth (John 3:22,26; 4:1-2), was unique and temporary. It was addressed only to Jews, and only to the Jews who populated the vicinity of Jerusalem and Judea. It was designed to prepare the Jewish people for the arrival of the Messiah. But John’s baptism must not be confused with New Testament baptism that is addressed to everybody, and that did not take effect until after the cross of Christ. If the thief was a Jew, and if he already had submitted to John’s baptism, there would have been no need for him to be re-baptized. He simply would have needed to repent of his post-baptism thievery and acknowledge his sins—which the text plainly indicates that he did.
Second, and most important, the real issue pertains to an extremely crucial feature of Bible interpretation. This hermeneutical feature is so critical that, if a person does not grasp it, his effort to sort out Bible teaching, in order to arrive at correct conclusions, will be inevitably hampered. This principle was spotlighted by Paul when he wrote to Timothy and told him he must “rightly divide the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15). In other words, if one simply takes the entire Bible—all 66 books—and treats them as if everything that is said applies directly and equally to everyone, his effort to be in harmony with God’s Word will be hopeless and futile. For example, if a person turned to Genesis 6 and read where God instructed Noah to build a boat, if he did not study enough to determine whether such instruction applied to himself, he would end up building his own boat—the entire time thinking that God wanted him to do so! The Bible is literally filled with commands, instructions, and requirements that were not intended to be duplicated by people living today. Does God forbid you and me from eating a certain fruit (Genesis 2:17; 3:3)? Are we to refrain from boiling a baby goat in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19)? Does God want you and me to offer our son as a burnt offering (Genesis 22:2)? Are we commanded to load up and leave our homeland (Genesis 12:1)? Moving to the New Testament, does God want you to sell everything you have and give it to the poor (Matthew 19:21)? Does God expect you to leave everything, quit your job, and devote yourself full time to spiritual pursuits (Matthew 4:20; 19:27; Mark 10:28; Luke 5:28)? Does God intend for you to “desire spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 14:1), i.e., seek to possess miraculous abilities? The point is that the entire Bible applies to the entire human race. However, careful and diligent study is necessary to determine how it applies. We must understand the biblical distinction between the application of the principles of the Bible and the specific details.
Here, then, is the central point as it pertains to the relevance of the thief on the cross: Beginning at Creation, all humans were amenable to the laws of God that were given to them at that time. Bible students typically call this period of time the Patriarchal Dispensation. During this period, which lasted from Creation to roughly the time of the cross, non-Jews were subject to a body of legislation passed down by God through the fathers of family clans (cf. Hebrews 11:1). In approximately 1,500 B.C., God removed the genetic descendants of Abraham from Egyptian bondage, took them out into the Sinai desert, and gave them their own law code (the Law of Moses). Jews were subject to that body of legal information from that time until it, too, was terminated at the cross of Christ. The following passages substantiate these assertions: Matthew 27:51; Romans 2:12-16; Galatians 3:7-29; Ephesians 2:11-22; Colossians 2:11-17. The book of Hebrews addresses this subject extensively. To get to the heart of the matter quickly, read especially Hebrews 9:15-17. When one “correctly handles the Word of truth,” one sees that the Bible teaches that when Christ died on the cross, Mosaic law came to an end, and patriarchal law shortly thereafter. At that point, all humans on the planet became amenable to the law of Christ (cf. Galatians 6:2). The law of Christ consists strictly of information that is intended to be in effect after the death of Christ. It includes some of the things that Jesus and His disciples taught while He was still on Earth. But as regards the specifics of salvation, one must go to Acts 2 and the rest of the New Testament (especially the book of Acts) in order to determine what one must do today to be saved. Beginning in Acts 2, the new covenant of Christ took effect, and every single individual who responded correctly to the preaching of the gospel was baptized in water in order to be forgiven of sin by the blood of Christ. Every detail of an individual’s conversion is not always mentioned, but a perusal of the book of Acts demonstrates decisively that water immersion was a prerequisite to forgiveness, along with faith, repentance, and confession of the deity of Christ (Acts 2:38,41; 8:12,13,16,36-38; 9:18; 10:47-48; 16:15,33; 18:8; 19:5; 22:16).
The thief was not subject to the New Testament command to be baptized into Christ’s death (Romans 6:3-4), just as Moses, Abraham, and David were not amenable to it. They all lived prior to the cross under different law codes. They could not have been baptized into Christ’s death—because He had not yet died! The establishment of the church of Christ and the launching of the Christian religion did not occur until after Christ’s death, on the day of Pentecost in the year A.D. 30 in the city of Jerusalem (Acts 2). An honest and accurate appraisal of the biblical data forces us to conclude that the thief on the cross is not an appropriate example of how people are to be saved this side of the cross.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
Every parent has experienced it. You get up every morning with a commitment to provide what is best for the spiritual, emotional, and physical help of your children. You actively do things every day because you love them, you know what they need, and you do what is necessary to provide it. You are not perfect, but your intentions are good-hearted and loving. But your children don’t always appreciate you. They aren’t always thankful for your loving attention or hard work. They often complain about what you feed them or schedule for them. They don’t always think that your intentions are good, and they often find it easier to complain about you than to be thankful for you. But it’s not just children, sadly, who do not praise, because complaining is the default language of fallen humanity.
The story recorded in Numbers 11 is striking, sad, illuminating, and convicting. The children of Israel were on a long journey through wilderness country to the land God had promised them. They were living what was essentially a nomadic life. It was therefore impossible for them to plant seeds, cultivate crops, or harvest food to eat. So God, in one of the most striking miracles of provision in Scripture, caused edible material to appear every morning like dew on the ground. This is both a visible demonstration of God’s commitment to unleash his almighty power to provide for his people and a visual prophecy of his ultimate provision from above, Jesus. Jesus is the bread of life, the manna come down from heaven. Manna was nutritious, but here is God’s dear children’s response to this amazing provision: “Now the rabble that was among them had a strong craving. And the people of Israel also wept again and said, ‘Oh that we had meat to eat! We remember the fish we ate in Egypt that cost nothing, the cucumbers, the melons, the leeks, the onions, and the garlic. But now our strength is dried up, and there is nothing at all but this manna to look at’” (Num. 11:4–6).
You can’t complain about God’s provision without questioning his wisdom, goodness, faithfulness, and love.
Notice what is happening here. You can’t complain about God’s provision without questioning his wisdom, goodness, faithfulness, and love. If you question his goodness, then you will stop relying on him for help; you don’t trust someone you don’t think is good. If you don’t functionally trust God, you will take your life into your own hands, and, with a heart that’s turning away from him, you will be susceptible to look at what is bad and see it as good. God’s complaining children looked back at Egypt and didn’t remember it as a horrible place of slavery and suffering; it looked more like a great Middle Eastern deli! Allowing your heart to complain and your mouth to grumble is always spiritually dangerous. The same heart that caused people to reject wilderness manna caused people thousands of years later to reject the ultimate provision of manna, Jesus. May God grace us with always-thankful hearts.
On May 15, 1953, Science magazine published an article by Stanley L. Miller that transformed the scientific field of origins. This article was titled “A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” and described the experiment (designed by graduate student Miller and his advisor, Harold Urey) as attempting to replicate the emergence of life from prebiotic1 soup. The results of this experiment sparked newspapers to make statements such as “life from non-life.” The Miller Experiment results were viewed as an alternative theory to the intelligent design movement and bridged the barriers to the understanding of the origin of life. This experiment also caused an increased interest in stories such as Mary W. Shelley’s Frankenstein, where dead bodies were resurrected using electricity. Jeffrey L. Bada and Antonio Lozano said that this experiment “almost overnight transformed the study of the origin of life into a respectable field of inquiry.”2 This experiment also introduced a new field of study: prebiotic chemistry. Current biology textbooks still use Miller’s experiments as a basis for the origin of life on Earth, describing it as a “famous”3and “elegant experiment.”4
What Is Life?
Before we consider this experiment about the origin of life, let’s consider the definition for “life.” Morris, et al. give four essential characteristics for living things: an archive of information, a barrier that separates the living thing from the environment, capacity to regulate cell interiors, and the ability to gather materials and harness energy from the environment.5 Urry, et al. gave examples of some of the properties of life: order, evolutionary adaptation, regulation, energy processing, growth and development, response to the environment, and reproduction.6 These characteristics or properties of life must exist together for something to be considered a living organism. The information about how any living organism is constructed is contained inside the organism’s cells on strands of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and RNA (ribonucleic acid), which consist of specific arrangements of five nucleic acids: adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine (found only in DNA) and uracil (found only in RNA). This information is used by the cell to construct and organize proteins, which are made from molecules called amino acids and are arranged in specific sequences and three-dimensional patterns. Proteins are necessary for the structural arrangement of the cell and the many metabolic processes required for life. Science magazine attributed the explanation for the origin of this complexity to the discovery by Miller and Urey, specifically the origin of the amino acids that are the basis for the proteins in the cell.7
Miller’s Experiment
It was originally supposed that organic compounds, those compounds that contain the element carbon and are found in living organisms (for example, DNA or proteins), were only able to be made, or synthesized, by living organisms themselves. In the same way, inorganic molecules—those molecules that do not contain carbon—were only able to originate from non-living sources. However, in an essay published in Science magazine, Bada and Lezcano8 state that the scientist who first reported synthesizing a simple organic compound from inorganic molecules was F. Wöhler in 1828.9 Bada and Lezcano also stated that, in 1913, W. Löb reported that he had synthesized the first simple amino acids using wet formamide, a silent discharge of electricity, and ultraviolet light. In 1950, Melvin Calvin attempted to synthesize organic compounds in oxidizing atmospheric conditions.10 He was able to synthesize a high volume of formic acid,11 however, he demonstrated the necessity of running these experiments in a reducing atmosphere.12 In 1951, Harold Urey presented his concept of a prebiotic, reducing atmosphere from his studies of the origin of the Universe. In 1953, Miller,13 a graduate student at the University of Chicago, developed an apparatus to form basic organic compounds. He used CH4 (methane), NH3 (ammonia), H2O (water), and H2 (hydrogen) and circulated them through an electrical discharge for a week. After the experiment was run, he added HgCl2 (mercuric chloride) to prevent the growth of living organisms, distilled the results, and positively identified the amino acids glycine, 𝛼-alanine, â-alanine and less certainly identified some other amino acids. These amino acids provide part of the foundation for proteins, the building blocks of life. Later analysis of samples from Miller’s work revealed over 40 different amino acids and amines.14 If the conclusions from Miller’s experiment violated established laws of science, however, or if he based the experiment upon faulty assumptions, then his experiment is invalid evidence for abiogenesis.15 While Miller made a profound discovery, the unsubstantiated conclusion that he and others drew from his work ignored established science and made several assumptions that cannot be supported.
Contradiction of Scientific Laws
The purpose, conclusion, and application of Miller’s experiment contradicted firmly established laws of science: theories that have “been tested by and [are] consistent with generations of data.”16 Even now, more than half a century after Miller’s experiment, these are still considered law. One is the Law of Biogenesis: the fact that life cannot come from non-life—there must be pre-existing life. This thought was expressed by Rudolf Virchow in 1855: “Omnis cellula e cellula,” or “Every cell from a cell.”17 The Law of Biogenesis is based on work by Francesco Redi, Lazzaro Spallanzani, and Louis Pasteur. The hypothesis that Miller was testing was in contradiction to this already established Law and therefore, as expected, the experiment failed to support his hypothesis. This is a law based upon exclusion: abiogenesis has never been observed. Scientists do not know exactly how life could have come about from non-life. They have never replicated it in a laboratory. They have never seen signs of abiogenesis inside or outside the lab. So, there is no evidence for life coming from anything other than life. Does Miller’s experiment nullify the Law of Biogenesis? No, it only strengthens it. Even in the orderly and precise conditions found in a laboratory, scientists have not been able to create life from non-life, and yet it is assumed by naturalists that it happened in the disorganized prebiotic world.
Another scientific law that is ignored by Miller’s experiment is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This law states that, “in any chemical or physical process, the entropy of the Universe tends to increase.”18 To put it another way, the Universe is continuing to become more disorganized. An analogy of this scientific law is a tornado going through a plane graveyard: instead of making new planes, it will cause greater damage to the junked planes. The objective of Miller’s experiment was to provide evidence that the Universe, at one point, went from disorder (prebiotic soup) to order (amino acids, DNA, then life), which would seem to break this Law. While it is true that, in an open system (like Earth), useful energy can be added from without, allowing entropy to be countered locally in some cases, that energy has to be of such a nature that it can, in fact, counter entropy in the particular system under consideration (rather than increasing entropy). No evidence has been presented to substantiate the conjecture that entropy was countered at the molecular and genetic level at the beginning of life (or each of the evolutionary jumps thereafter).19 Instead, genetic entropy is the rule.20 The contradiction of Miller’s results with these two scientific laws were not addressed.
False Conclusions and Assumptions
Miller addressed the hypothesis of early formation of organic compounds that would serve as the basis of life. However, it must be understood that his experiment resulted in forming only some of the clay to make the house of life. Amino acids are the foundation for proteins, the building blocks of life. The amino acids must be combined in a precise way and be able to replicate themselves perfectly, following the genetic code of DNA. The DNA is transcribed into RNA, which is translated into a protein. Some of the proteins are required for the maintenance and replication of DNA. You cannot have functional DNA without proteins, nor vice versa.
Irreducible complexity is a concept that has been suggested by Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. It is the idea that a living organism must have a minimum number of working processes. If the organism was ever missing one of these processes, or if one was faulty, the organism could not live.21 If the amino acids did not combine in the right order (and, therefore, did not produce that minimum number of working processes), then they would not be able to continue replicating themselves. Miller addressed this concept in a response to Sidney W. Fox’s letter to Science magazine in 1959 by saying, “it would be convenient for the investigator if the primitive pathways followed the present ones, but surely this is not necessary…. If we choose the pathway of the more primitive organism, then why should not even more primitive organisms have used pathways different from these?”22 Miller is implying that there are reducibly complex organisms with simpler and simpler metabolic pathways until you just have a string of random amino acids. These reducibly complex organisms and simpler metabolic pathways are ideas conceived only in the human mind, and do not have any scientific evidence for their existence. So, even though Miller’s experiment resulted in some of the building blocks (amino acids) for the building of life (proteins), his experiment did not create life itself, nor show how it could have evolved from the random amino acids.
Additionally, the amino acids made in Miller’s apparatus were a racemic, or equal proportions, mixture of right- and left-handed amino acids, specific orientations that are mirror images of each other.23 Miller and Urey bring this to light in their defense against bacterial contamination. However, life is comprised almost entirely of left-handed amino acids.24 The results of this experiment show that abiotic synthesis of organic molecules does not produce the necessary configuration for life, nor does it explain how life is comprised mainly of only one orientation of amino acids.
A different problem with Miller’s experiment is the assumption that was made based on the uniformitarian25 concept of the Universe. Miller and Urey co-authored an article that brought out several uniformitarian assumptions that they made—assumptions that would directly affect the plausibility of the abiogenesis hypothesis. For instance, they said, “there is no reason to suppose that the same temperature [we experience on Earth today—JK] was not present in the past.”26 Looking at the geological record, however, we find that there have been cycles of cooling and warming. The varying temperatures would affect the composition of the prebiotic atmosphere as well as the stability of any organic molecules formed. The assumption of uniformitarian conditions cannot be validated.
Miller and Urey further attempted to explain the current buffer systems of the ocean to show that the pH level of the ocean in the past was suitable for life to originate. The pH of the ocean at the time is argued to have been 8, making it ideal for the stability of ammonia that allows for hydrogen to escape the atmosphere, which allows for a reducing atmosphere. They present their calculations as sound, yet proceed to admit that they are invalid:
It is evident that the calculations do not have a quantitative validity because of many uncertainties with respect to temperature, the processes by which equilibrium could be approached, the atmospheric level at which such processes would be effective, and the partial pressure of hydrogen required to provide the necessary rate of escape. In view of these uncertainties, further calculations are unprofitable at the present time. However, we can conclude from this discussion that a reducing atmosphere containing low partial pressures of hydrogen and ammonia, and a moderate pressure of methane and nitrogen constitutes a reasonable atmosphere for the primitive earth. That this was the case is not proved by our arguments….27
Miller and Urey conclude that nothing can be determined about the oceanic and atmospheric conditions because of a lack of evidence.
A final problem with Miller’s experiment is the composition of the atmospheric conditions that he used. Miller used methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen as the assumed atmospheric composition when life originated, based on the works of Urey and Oparin. Miller and Urey said that only by using a reducing atmosphere could amino acids be synthesized. They affirmed that, “if the conditions were oxidizing, no amino acids were synthesized.”28 Miller and Urey also concluded that oxygen was not necessary to the early atmosphere because it is not essential for life. Regarding the experimental synthesis of life in an oxidizing atmosphere, they said that the experiments could “be interpreted to mean that it would not have been possible to synthesize organic compounds nonbiologically as long as oxidizing conditions were present on the earth.”29 So, was the prebiotic atmosphere a reducing atmosphere or an oxidizing atmosphere?
In their book, The Origins of Life on Earth, Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel described their reasoning behind having a prebiotic, reducing atmosphere: “We believe that there must have been a period when the earth’s atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions.”30 They continue to say that there is some geological and geophysical evidence that suggests that the early atmosphere was reducing and conclude, “Fortunately, everyone agrees that although the primitive atmosphere may not have been strongly reducing, it certainly did not contain more than a trace of molecular oxygen.”31 Their circular reasoning is that life originated in a reducing atmosphere and that we know there is a reducing atmosphere because life had to originate in it. However, Philip H. Abelson of the Geophysical Laboratory asked, and answered, “What is the evidence for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? The answer is that there is no evidence for it, but much against it.”32 He references Rubey, a member of the U.S. Geological Survey, in saying that volcanic gases, which are thought to have been abundant when life originated, would be similar to the composition of the atmosphere near the Earth: water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen. Abelson continues, stating that the early atmosphere was reducing, but not to the extent to which Miller believed. It is thought that there was carbon monoxide (oxidizing agent) from the outgassing that was transformed into formate.33 However, the partial pressure of the carbon monoxide would still be high enough to interact with any amino acids that were developed. So, there were oxidizing agents in the prebiotic air. However, we cannot know for certain what the partial pressure was in the early atmosphere. Jonathan Wells, a molecular and cell biologist with a doctorate from the University of California at Berkeley, was quoted in an interview with Lee Strobel discussing the effects of the Miller experiment using the atmosphere presumed now to be the prebiotic atmosphere (carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor). Wells stated that the results of such an atmosphere would be formaldehyde and cyanide: a poison and embalming fluid.34 The end result is not anything like what Miller proposed.
Conclusion
Does the Miller experiment show that life can come from non-life? No, it only shows that some of the basic building blocks of life can be made in a specifically designed experimental apparatus. The evidence is too great against the assumptions made in Miller’s experiment. For Miller and Urey to describe their own work as uncertain on many levels, unproven by their arguments, and unprofitable to continue studying, it establishes the truth that there is not a reason to believe the validity or soundness of Miller’s proposition. Since Miller’s experiment proposed the violation of established laws of science and was based upon faulty assumptions, his experiment is invalid evidence for abiogenesis. The rational conclusion from the evidence is still as clear as it was before the Miller-Urey Experiment: the existence of life demands a Creator.
Endnotes
1 Prebiotic: “Of or relating to the conditions prevailing on earth before the appearance of living things”—The American Heritage Medical Dictionary (2022), https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=prebiological.
2 Jeffrey L. Bada and Antonio Lazcano (2003), “Perceptions of Science: Prebiotic Soup—Revisiting the Miller Experiment,” Science, 300[5620]:745-746.
3 T.W. Graham Solomons and Craig B. Fryhle (2011), Organic Chemistry (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing Company), 10th edition, p. 30.
4 James Morris, et al. (2019), Biology: How Life Works (New York: MacMillan Learning), p. 45.
9 Friedrich Wöhler (1828), “Ueber Kunstliche Bildung Des Harnstoffs,” Annalen Der Physik Und Chemie, 88[2]:253-256.
10 Oxidizing atmospheric conditions: current atmospheric conditions, containing free oxygen and hydroxide ions.
11 Formic acid: “a colourless, corrosive, fuming liquid with a pungent smell…Formula: HCOOH” (W.G. Hale, V.A. Saunders, and J.P. Margham (2005), Collins Dictionary of Biology (London: Collins),3rd edition.
12 Reducing atmosphere: an atmosphere with a lessened amount of oxygen, or other oxidizing gases, and contains a higher amount of reducing gases, such as hydrogen and carbon monoxide. This is different from the oxidizing atmosphere in the world today.
13 Stanley L. Miller (1953), “A Production of Amino Acids under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions,” Science, 117[3046]:528-529.
14 Jeffrey L. Bada (2013), “New insights into prebiotic chemistry from Stanley Miller’s spark discharge experiments,” Chemical Society Reviews, 42:2186.
15 Abiogenesis: “The supposed development of living organisms from nonliving matter”—The American Heritage Medical Dictionary (2022), https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=abiogenesis.
16 Jay L. Wile and Marilyn F. Durnell (2002), Exploring Creation with Biology (Cincinnati, OH: Apologia Educational Ministries, Inc.), p. 559.
25 Uniformitarianism: “Principle that geologic processes operating at present are the same processes that operated in the past”—Charles C. Plummer, Diane H. Carlson, and David McGeary (2007), Physical Geology (New York: McGraw-Hill), 11th edition, p. G-10.
34 Lee Strobel (2004), The Case for a Creator (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House), pp. 37-38.
Published
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
