Baptism & Do not reject people

[JimBeta]

I want to talk about what I think about baptism then. I do not know if this is truth but it is simply, as the title of the book indicates, my objection to the case. Many say that you have to be baptized as an adult. I do not think this is necessary, in fact, I see the gift of God in what they dismiss as not valid, namely infant baptism. Let me explain this: When we choose baptism ourselves, it is no longer a gift from God, but when we undergo infant baptism, it is a gift from God that came about through the love of your parents. Yes, baptism is then an expression of love, which has come through the guidance that God gives to the parents. With that, we, as those who have only undergone infant baptism, have nothing to boast about when we come to stand before God. For it is, as it is written, God who has taken care of everything.

I do not want to label the adult baptism as invalid, if you are not baptized as a baby / child then the adult baptism is even necessary! I just want to say that infant baptism also counts, and that many who find it must not understand that it is a gift from God. If we choose God and then undergo baptism, then we say that we have no faith in the baptism that God gave us as a baby. You say to undergo baptism with the adult so literally have no confidence in infant baptism that you had as a child. You must understand what I believe. As I said, I believe that infant baptism is a gift from God, so if you reject it and label it as invalid, you will not accept a part of the gift that God wants to give us.

I am not saying that you will not be saved by Christ, God has understanding, but I find it less appropriate and nice that you say that people who have only had infant baptism are not saved, because that is simply nonsense. Whether you are baptized as a baby, child or as an adult, that does not matter. What I do find important is that you are baptized in the name of the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Father. For together they form God and you need all three persons. You need Christ for salvation through his sacrifice, you need the Holy Spirit as a stamp on the fact that you are Christ's, and you need the Father when the judgment will apply. If you do not have one of the three, then you do not have God at all. I know that it is written that Peter says to be baptized in the name of Christ, but I also know that Christ Himself says you are baptized in the name of the Son, the Holy Spirit and the Father. As we are Christians, we need to follow our namesake. We are not peterians but Christians.

I do not even believe that baptism is really necessary. It is necessary in the sense of: when it is possible. If the possibility is there. I take the incident of the criminal on the cross next to Christ. He was also saved after he said: That we hang here is normal, but you? That is not normal. Christ did not say: well then go from your cross and be baptized! No Christ said: Today you will be with me in Paradise. This makes a lot clear. We can follow rules and traditions, but when Christ says: You will be with me, that sweep all the rules and traditions of the orbit. If Christ says yes, no rule or tradition has to say no. And we have to realize that. We are not Christ, we can only do what Christ has said. But Christ always has the last word and so we do not have to judge about things like eternal life, simply because Christ has the last word. Not the law, not the rules, not the traditions but Christ.

I would like to have it, I would be glad, that we would understand this and start to accept each other. You can never accept someone too much, whatever that person did, because Christ sat at the table with the worst of the worst. If we accept someone who will not be accepted by God, do you think that we will be punished? Simply because we did not do the work of the Father? But if we did not accept someone who will accept the Father, how do you think that will go? That will be worse. Yes Paul says to keep you far away from certain people who have certain qualities and I can understand that, but in my view it is simple. If we have to abstain from these people, we must abstain from those who need Christ the most.

I can understand Paul, that he is thinking of the safety of our own souls, but if we do not take the risk of dealing with them, which have been labeled as lost, how can we save a soul that was helpless? How can we really serve Christ without going to those who just need Christ the most? Is our soul worth more than the souls of countless others? Why did Christ give his life for many, if we are not yet allowed to take the risk to save the soul of others? I have a lot of respect for Paul, you can not understand how much, but I do not agree with these statements. If Christ had to think like that, then He would not be hanging on the cross. So Paul, I have a lot of respect for you and you are bigger than me, but in that line of thought you have to improve yourself a little bit, I think. Christ did nothing but show himself among those who did not deserve his attention. Never, therefore, repel others, but be an example to them. That is exactly what Christ did.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

On the subject of baptism, I tend to leave the door propped open in the direction of infant baptism, because I do not think that anyone will be saved or lost because they relied or didn't rely on an unwilling reception of the rite. I do wonder how much the debate rests upon the election versus free will matter. If a person believes that salvation is necessarily a free personal choice, then infant baptism is necessarily meaningless, but it fits well with the doctrine of election. Ironically, though, it seems that people's stance on one subject is usually the reverse of their stance on the other.

Yes Paul says to keep you far away from certain people who have certain qualities and I can understand that, but in my view it is simple. If we have to abstain from these people, we must abstain from those who need Christ the most.

If I'm not mistaken, Paul qualified that statement, indicating people who have those attributes and still call themselves brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot abstain from such people in the world, or else we would have to leave the world, as he put it. The issue is that by associating with such people we endorse their character and identify with them as fellow Christians. Those who are close to the faith but reject it are more lost than those outside looking in. When people in the world see us associating with other "Christians" who are disreputable in character, it taints their view of Christianity. We risk either turning them away altogether, or bringing someone into a faith under false pretenses, because it is a faith which is not really saving and not really Christian. A lost man who knows he is lost is a more hopeful case than a lost man who thinks he is saved.

 

[Rescued One]

All glory goes to God who motivates those adults who are baptized. If He doesn't change our hearts, what good is the baptism?

 

[MyLordYeshuaTheMessiah]

I assume you were baptized as an infant. Now you're being convicted, and you're looking for ways to justify why you don't need a real baptism.

Why wasn't Jesus baptized as an infant?
Why did even Jesus have to be baptized saying, "it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness".
Why does Jesus have to be baptized, but not you?
Why was every document of baptism with immersion. Not a single one with sprinkling.

Catholics have perverted baptism, using vain irrelevant references from the OT. Concluding what seems to make sense, but is not scriptural.

The way the church is headed, soon they'll be baptizing fetus's in the womb with a spritz bottle.

Don't twist what Jesus said. Jesus also said, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,"

Are you not inclusive in this?