Jesus surrendered His human will.
In order to become our redeemer, Jesus had to be 100% mortal human. If he was an immortal, he could not have paid for our sins....immortals cannot die.
His divine will was exactly the same as the Father's will.
And yet there was a clash of wills....on the night of his arrest, Jesus asked that the “cup” he was about to drink, to be “removed” from him.....was this a last minute act of cowardice? NO! It was the thought of dying as a blasphemer.....Jesus did not want his sacrifice to be diminished by any thought that he would offend his God in any way....yet he surrendered to the will of his Father.......he did nothing but promote his Father’s worship, telling people that what he taught was not his, but was from his Father. (John 7:15-18)
There was a reason why infants were baptized in the early church
Since baptism requires full immersion, I do not believe that infants were baptized in the first century. It would have been physically dangerous to immerse an infant in water. There was no necessity to baptize babies because it was not the act of baptism that saved anyone...it was what baptism symbolised that mattered....what was going on in their heart....God is a reader of hearts. There is no proxy arrangement.
You have to be of the age of accountability to submit yourself to what baptism signifies....in full knowledge and acceptance of what it means.
Paul also states that even one believing parent can make a child “holy” in God’s eyes if they are instructing their little ones about their loving Creator. (1 Cor 7:13-14)
You're speaking outside of orthodox Christianity and I will not reply to this.
The Holy Spirit is received at baptism. Even in infant baptism.
I confidently disagree, and would love to pursue this topic but am unfortunately restricted.
What is “orthodox” is not necessarily what is truth, if it was corrupted a very long time ago. If what was “orthodox” (taught by Jesus and his apostles) in the first century was corrupted in the early centuries as prophesy states that it would, what makes you think that only later divergence from essentially Catholic doctrine which was adopted by Protestantism, is “unorthodox”?
As I said before....in the early centuries, medicine that used to be viewed as “orthodox” but later accused of being “unscientific quackery”, gave way to a new practice of medicine...gradually taking over from the natural remedies, so that what is now “orthodox medicine” (and has been for the last 100 years or so) is failing in its promise of better health. All treatments come with a screed of side effects that are harmful, making a mockery of medicine’s basic tenet...”do no harm”. Side effects are harm.
Medicine today is about expensive, life long treatments...never cures.
We are more unhealthy today with less excuse, than we have ever been, and more and more people are now returning to the old ways of treating disease and ill health....with remarkable success....mainly because God has his own pharmacy in nature....something ancient people knew....but men, greedy for profit took away. Today you cannot have access to the ancient remedies which were used for centuries with less harm than what is prescribed today. Doctors are forbidden to even mention them or they lose their licence.
I don't know what you mean by the second baptism being about God's choice as to where to serve Him.
There are two baptisms, and two destinies.....their purpose outlined in the Scriptures for each.
One group are “chosen from among mankind as firstfruits” (Rev 14:15) to be adopted as “sons of God”, who alone are taken to heaven after they are resurrected “first”, in order to rule with Christ in his Kingdom. These are given the role of “kings and priests” in order to bring redeemed mankind back to God in full reconciliation. (Rev 20:6)
How important was this reconciliation?
Col 1:15-23.....NASB...
“He [Jesus] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach— if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven”.
Most “Christians” would have a hard time interpreting that passage of Scripture with their indoctrinated beliefs about who the true God really is...yet it is a salvation issue. (John 17:3)
The second (general) resurrection is for those who are not chosen for a role in heaven...these are the subjects of the Kingdom who are given an earthly resurrection, just as the Jews were taught to expect. (John 5:28-29)
They always anticipated that Messiah’s Kingdom would rule mankind....they just were missing a few details that were revealed to Christ’s disciples after Pentecost....when they received the Holy Spirit, which did not come at their baptism. They were given an invitation to heaven that only they received...a “token in advance” of their resurrection, which was not to take place until Christ’s return. (Eph 1:13-14; 1 Thess 4:13-17)
