What did Jesus mean?

Every one who is born anew by God has been given of God's Spirit. Each person will then have in their hearts the right attitude towards God, the right adoration, and the right mind, right worship and so forth, because they have of His Spirit. Christ is not divided so all persons who truly belong to Christ will be worshipping God as the Spirit leads them, and there is no condemnation for them. How silly it would be to condemn them because it is God who justifies and bears witness in their hearts. You cannot say this group of true believers worship correctly while this other group does not, because by definition we are talking about the true believers, the true worshippers. There will, however, be division between those who are not true believers and those who are. Those who are not true believers, will not have of God's Spirit, so they will not worship correctly or have the right attitude in their hearts and minds towards God, even if they seem very religious in worldly terms. You will know the true believers worship correctly by their fruits, for one thing. You cannot say to them you do not worship God correctly if they are led of his Spirit, unless you wish to be at odds with God. For it is God who justifies them. Who wants to fight against God. Neither is there some formula that says that true worshippers must obey this or that fleshly rule to be in right relationship with God, like wearing certain clothing or having certain rituals, etc. True believers will love the Lord and others but how they do it is between them and God, though it would be because they are led of the Spirit.

At least in the name of Jesus. I have no problem with the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I believe in water baptism and I encourage all believers to get baptized in water. I don’t believe “born of water” is water baptism. When studying water baptism I can find only a reference to burial and never birth; and that “for a good conscience before God”. We bring people out of the water because it would be a capital offense to do otherwise.

Water can cleanse our conscience. Water/word can wash us and our minds as we continue with Christ. Certainly water baptism “saves us” but not salvation to go to heaven. It saves us from the pursuit of our enemies. If one reckons themselves dead in Christ there is nothing the enemy can accuse them of.

It also is consistent with Paul water baptizing very few. If it was required for salvation unto God then why pass it over?

Elohim is a plural used for Lord thy God but is pronounced in singular form. It is encapsulates in The 3 in 1thus " Hear oh Israel the Lord our God is ONE. (in my opinion.)

I believe it's a symbolic testimony, in public of having our sins washed away and being born again.

Okay. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? I don't get your point.

Neither. I was answering the question about what name for God Includs the entire trinity.

I've got a new chromebook and something's wrong with cut/paste or I would have done that rather than texting.

You quoted me but your response didn't seem to have anything to do with what I said or with the question to which I was responding. It's all good.

This is circular reasoning because you still haven't exegeted Acts 2:38 to show me that it is referring to water baptism.

Again, you have pulled out a verse that you think involves water baptism to justify your interpretation of Acts 2:38.

Of course, they are connected, but the passage does not describe or define which comes first or how one affects the other. They are merely associated. This passage does not help or hurt your position.
Um...read that again, brother.
1. This actually is a reference to water baptism under the new covenant, so bravo for using a relevant passage for this discussion.
2. They already had received the Holy Spirit before their water baptism. Water baptism comes after receiving the Holy Spirit.
This is because baptism is a command (Acts 10:48), and we cannot obey His commandments unless we love Him (John 14:15), and we cannot love Him unless we are born of God (1 John 4:7, 5:1)

Kindly, I think I've pointed out enough to throw a wrench in the theology you've proposed. Now I will share what I think you and many Christians have missed... There is another baptism besides water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit:


This is the baptism into Christ, by which we have access to the Holy Spirit because He indwells us when we first believe.

So put simply, here are the three baptisms:

1. (salvation) The Holy Spirit baptized you into Christ
2. (obedience) Water baptism (another believer baptized you to symbolize the baptism that already happened internally (#1))
3. (empowering) Christ baptizes you with the Holy Spirit

Number 2 and 3 sometimes happen simultaneously or in different orders, as we see that from the book of Acts. There's no fixed order for the second and third baptisms.


You (like many) haven't yet seen the distinction between the first two.
The baptism mentioned in Rom 6:3 is not water baptism.
It is also not "the baptism in the Holy Spirit" (Acts 1:6, Acts 2:4).

The baptism that Paul speaks of in Rom 6:3 is the same as he described in Acts 2:38, Gal 3:27 & 1 Cor 12:13, etc, where the believer is baptized IN Christ, BY the Holy Spirit, at the moment of faith=salvation. This is a baptism of YOUR spirit...The Holy Spirit baptized you INTO Jesus. That's how a person is "IN Christ" because they've been baptized into Christ.

Not only are there 3 baptisms. But these 3 are foreshadowed in the OT, pointing towards what would be available for us today. For someone to approach God in His fullness, they would have to offer a sacrifice on the bronze altar (representing the first baptism, which is (technically) symbolic of being baptized in the blood of Christ. Then one would proceed to the bronze laver, to wash with water, which is representative of water baptism and an outward expression of clensing. And finally one would enter the tent where God's Spirit dwelt, which is representative of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

3 baptisms... of blood, water, and spirit.

...Not only is this Contextually consistent. This also shows us why the thief on the cross was able to be saved without water baptism.

Exactly. In fact, 'ritual' is "at odds" with true worship of God - which occurs from within and not just on the surface.

God used ritual with purpose when dealing with Israel in the distant past.

The New Covenant did away with ritual.

Today, where there is ritual, there is the works of Satan.

Now, don't confuse 'ritual' with 'routine' - which can be a good thing (and, "decently and in order" is a biblical directive); but, ritual [today] is of the devil.

God does not want us to be/get caught up in ritual; rather, He wants us to simply "be ourselves" in Christ - which is to love Him and love others.

No, we wouldn't want to be caught actually agreeing with someone, would we.

Please understand that what I said here is with specific regard to the idea of "true worship" and not other things outside of that context (church discipline, for example).

I am not saying that nothing else is important to a local church construct.

And, there is such a thing as "too laid back"...

I am only saying that ritual should not have a place in that construct.

The "coming up out of the water" represents 'resurrection'.

Thanks - saves me from having to make a similar post...

That's not in scripture. All references to water baptism are specifically about burial. Not death, burial, and resurrection. Just burial.

The promise of God is that if we are buried with Christ in His death we will be likewise resurrected in new life. This new life comes from God.

Consider that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are titles, not a name. Also, scripture expresses that in Jesus (the name) dwells All the fulness of the Godhead. (Father, Son, Holy Ghost)

Picking nits.

Yeah...
Baptism is a work of man. It's a symbolic action representing an entrance into a sect or priesthood. It's a public proclamation. "Burn the ships there's no going back"

So..
Jesus would never say or intend something along these lines.

He was always angry at those who followed the Law the best but had lousy attitudes. Why would He install a new set of legalisms? Legalistic religions are worthless for producing good attitudes.
But that is NOT saying that immorality is acceptable either.

So where a baptism is a long standing tradition...it has NO BENEFIT towards your salvation. Your attitude and heart towards God does... because God is faithful even though we aren't. And Jesus was having a conversation with a member of the Sanhedrin... Nicodemus was a full voting member of that council. He represented his area. (Like a senator does today). He was a leader of righteousness for his area. He knew scripture. He had it memorized verbatim and could and was required to recite it upon request.

He knew what "Born from Above" meant... Nicodemus did not believe that he qualified because he didn't know that the scriptures talked specifically about him.

And to find yourself specifically mentioned in scripture? That would freak anyone out. It would me.