Water Baptism

[MennoSota]

I am sure that you do. It is predictable that you will say something unchristian every time you lose a debate.

You haven't even said anything in this thread to debate with you. All you have done is duck and dodge. That's fine. If you can't argue from scripture I accept your limits.

 

[MennoSota]

Are you incapable of answering the question?
Josiah, is it good to teach parents and little children that they are saved by the water baptism they received as infants so that they have no change of life from the atheist or pagan living around them?
Would you go up to your neighbor and preach the gospel of "I will water baptize you and have faith for you. You don't need to have faith until you go through a church class on confirmation over the next decade. Until then, my faith that you are going to heaven, shown by my baptizing you, will be enough."???
Would you do that?
Josiah, there is no law that says you cannot do such a thing.
By what arbitrary measurement do you determine you can believe for one human but not for others? Do you just make it up in church counsel and determine that at the age of X the person can no longer be baptized unto salvation by another person having faith for them? What is that arbitrary age in your church? At what age must the person confess their own faith before you will baptize them? Is it 4, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18, etc,? Or is a person baptized without expression of faith, by the faith of another person, at any age?
There is no law against it, Josiah? What arbitrary dogma have you created from outside of scripture?

Now, sticking with scripture, do you observe any pattern in baptism displayed in the Bible? Do you see any instance where another person having faith for someone else lead the Apostles to baptize the faithless person? I dare you to answer this last question with a yes or no. If yes, show scripture. If no, then explain how you came up with the arbitrary system that has no biblical evidence.

Crickets from [MENTION=13]Josiah[/MENTION].

 

[psalms 91]

STAFF NOTICE

Please refrain from addressing the person rather than the post. Personal insults are against the rules so please do not address the person. Please remember to take a breath if you feel like replying in an angry manner and think about what you are going to say. Ask if Jesus would approve. Thank you for your consideration and I trust that you will honor this as any further personal digs could result in an infraction or a closing of the thread.

 

[MoreCoffee]

And now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. (I Peter 3:21)

The flood saved Noah and his family so too baptism saves the baptised. That is the point made by saint Peter in the passage. Thus "baptism now saves you" just as the flood saved Noah and his family. The contrast between "washing away the dirt of the body" and "the answer of a good conscience before God" is between the normal washing that water achieves and the washing of regeneration that is baptism. Saint Peter is not contrasting water in baptism with something spiritual and separated from baptism or something attached to the physical but not part of it.

Matthew Henry comments on this verse with these words:

Noah's salvation in the ark upon the water prefigured the salvation of all good Christians in the church by baptism; that temporal salvation by the ark was a type, the antitype whereunto is the eternal salvation of believers by baptism, to prevent mistakes about which the apostle,

I. Declares what he means by saving baptism; not the outward ceremony of washing with water, which, in itself, does no more than put away the filth of the flesh, but it is that baptism wherein there is a faithful answer or restipulation of a resolved good conscience, engaging to believe in, and be entirely devoted to, God, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, renouncing at the same time the flesh, the world, and the devil. The baptismal covenant, made and kept, will certainly save us. Washing is the visible sign; this is the thing signified.

II. The apostle shows that the efficacy of baptism to salvation depends not upon the work done, but upon the resurrection of Christ, which supposes his death, and is the foundation of our faith and hope, to which we are rendered conformable by dying to sin, and rising again to holiness and newness of life. Learn, 1. The sacrament of baptism, rightly received, is a means and a pledge of salvation. Baptism now saveth us. God is pleased to convey his blessings to us in and by his ordinances, Acts ii. 38; xxii. 16. 2. The external participation of baptism will save no man without an answerable good conscience and conversation. There must be the answer of a good conscience towards God.--Obj. Infants cannot make such an answer, and therefore ought not to be baptized.--Answer, the true circumcision was that of the heart and of the spirit (Rom. ii. 29), which children were no more capable of then than our infants are capable of making this answer now; yet they were allowed circumcision at eight days old. The infants of the Christian church therefore may be admitted to the ordinance with as much reason as the infants of the Jewish, unless they are barred from it by some express prohibition of Christ.

III. The apostle, having mentioned the death and resurrection of Christ, proceeds to speak of his ascension, and sitting at the right hand of the Father, as a subject fit to be considered by these believers for their comfort in their suffering condition, 22. If the advancement of Christ was so glorious after his deep humiliation, let not his followers despair, but expect that after these short distresses they shall be advanced to transcendent joy and glory. Learn, 1. Jesus Christ, after he had finished his labours and his sufferings upon earth, ascended triumphantly into heaven, of which see Acts i. 9-11; Mark xvi. 19. He went to heaven to receive his own acquired crown and glory (John xvii. 5), to finish that part of his mediatorial work which could not be done on earth, and make intercession for his people, to demonstrate the fullness of his satisfaction, to take possession of heaven for his people, to prepare mansions for them, and to send down the Comforter, which was to be the first-fruits of his intercession, John xvi. 7. 2. Upon his ascension into heaven, Christ is enthroned at the right hand of the Father. His being said to sit there imports absolute rest and cessation from all further troubles and sufferings, and an advancement to the highest personal dignity and sovereign power. 3. Angels, authorities, and powers, are all made subject to Christ Jesus: all power in heaven and earth, to command, to give law, issue orders, and pronounce a final sentence, is committed to Jesus, God-man, which his enemies will find to their everlasting sorrow and confusion, but his servants to their eternal joy and satisfaction.​

Matthew Henry was an English Protestant so I do not endorse all of his comments but it is significant that he along with many of his contemporaries and many Protestants today agree with Catholic teaching insofar as their views relate to baptism being the saving laver of regeneration as the scriptures say and as the Baptised person's death and resurrection with Christ.

 

[MennoSota]

1 Peter 3:21
[21]And that water is a picture of baptism, which now saves you, not by removing dirt from your body, but as a response to God from a clean conscience. It is effective because of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Here is antitupon in a secular Greek writing - "I am placed opposite something that has gone before"

Antitupon*is used only here and in*Hebrews 9:24-note.

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a*mere*copy*of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (see*note*Hebrews 9:24)

Peter is teaching that the fact that 8 people were in an ark and went through the whole judgment, and yet were unharmed, is analogous to the Christian’s experience in salvation by being in (union with) Christ, identified with Christ our "Ark" of salvation so to speak.

Peter is not teaching (as some twist the Scriptures) that immersion in water by a particular denomination saves you. Peter pictures the waters of baptism as*corresponding to*(prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah’s family by water. Noah and his family's identification with the Ark (by going into the ark when the flood came) is a type of the*believer's identification*with Christ (by grace through face) in which he or she identifies with Christ's finished work on the Cross and in so doing in a manner of speaking that person is now safe within the "Ark", Who is Christ Jesus Himself.

This is message of security in Christ is one that Peter's recipients who were experiencing persecution needed to hear, so that might be stabilized when the waves of affliction came upon them.

to bring me through these waters of death and judgment into new and everlasting life through the resurrection of Jesus my Lord." (See full sermon*What is Baptism & Does it Save?)

NOT THE REMOVAL OF DIRT FROM THE FLESH BUT AN APPEAL TO GOD FOR A GOOD CONSCIENCE THROUGH THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS CHRIST: ou sarkos apothesis rhupou alla suneideseos agathes eperotema eis theon di anastaseos Iesou ChristouEze 36:25,26;*Zec 13:1;*2Cor 7:1) (Acts 8:37;*Ro 10:9,10;*2Cor 1:12;*1Ti 6:12)

Appeal*(1906) (eperotema*from*epí*= intensifies verb +*erotáo*=, to ask, inquire of, beg of) was a technical term used in making a contract. Here it refers to agreeing to meet certain conditions required by God before being placed into the ark of safety (Christ). Salvation requires the desire to obtain a cleansed conscience from God and a willingness to meet the conditions necessary to obtain it.

The baptism Peter speaks of is not water baptism. The Greek word translated "baptism" is more specifically translated "immerse." Noah didn't experience Christian baptism, but was immersed in judgment though protected by the ark. Noah and his family didn't miss the judgment--they were there--but were preserved through it. That's what happens to believers in Christ. Peter made it especially clear he wasn't talking about Christian baptism when he said, "Not the removal of dirt from the flesh." He wasn't speaking of an earthly ordinance but a spiritual reality, specifically of "an appeal to God for a good conscience--through the resurrection of Jesus Christ".

Conscience*(4893) (suneidesis [word study]*from*sun*= with +*eido*= know) literally means a "knowing with", a co-knowledge with oneself or a being of one's own witness in the sense that one's own conscience "takes the stand" as the chief witness, testifying either to one's innocence or guilt. It describes the witness borne to one's conduct by that faculty by which we apprehend the will of God. The Greek noun*Suneidesis*is the exact counterpart of the Latin*con-science, “a knowing with,” a shared or joint knowledge. It is our awareness of ourselves in all the relationships of life, especially ethical relationships. We have ideas of right and wrong; and when we perceive their truth and claims on us, and will not obey, our souls are at war with themselves and with the law of God*Suneidesis*is that process of thought which distinguishes what it considers morally good or bad, commending the good, condemning the bad, and so prompting to do the former and avoid the latter.

The book of Hebrews clearly teaches that one acquires a*good conscience*by faith and not by works of the flesh.

Hebrews 9:9*(note)*which is a symbol for the present time. Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect (Complete, accomplish or bring to an end, to the intended goal) in*conscience*(Comment: The old sacrifices were never meant to cleanse from sin but only symbolized cleansing. The conscience was never freed from the feeling of guilt because the guilt itself was never removed. The cleansing was predominantly external. Consequently, the worshiper could not obtain a clear conscience, that derives from a deep, abiding sense of forgiveness. Only the working of the Holy Spirit through the Word of God and the efficacy of the blood of the Messiah could give a good conscience.)

Hebrews 9:14*(note)*how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your*conscience*from dead works (I have never heard of a dead person doing live work—it just can’t be done. Anything that you do to try to earn your salvation is a dead work.) to serve the living God?

Hebrews 10:19*(note)Since therefore, brethren, we have confidence to enter the holy place*by the blood of Jesus,*20 by a new and living way which He inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, His flesh, 21 and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil*conscience*and our bodies washed with pure water. (Comment: In Hebrews we see the only way one can obtain a clean conscience is by having one's heart sprinkled (with the blood of Jesus) representing the blood of the New Covenant in which the unregenerate person is born from above and receives a new heart with a new "good"*conscience)

Baptism is a symbolic picture of the resurrection of Christ as well as our own spiritual renewal.

Peter's point is that just as the Flood immersed in the judgment of God everyone yet some passed through safely, so the final judgment will fall on all, but those who are in Jesus Christ will pass through judgment safely. Being in Christ is like being in the ark: we ride safely through the storms of judgment. Believers go through the death and burial of Christ because of their union with Him, and come out again into the new world of His resurrection.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

See post 494

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]

See post 494

See post 497

 

[Josiah]

Post 452

You SAID (many times) you want to discuss (and just as many times that you won't).

You SAID I must limit everything to a narrow definition of Credobaptism (as you defined); that's the only Baptism dogma of the Baptists you will discuss (and that narrowly defined). And I agreed.

You SAID if I gave my position, you would (finally) enter into discussion and talk about Credobaptism (one of the Baptist dogmas you have been parroting).

So far, you've ignored it (again; yet again).


Let's try one more time:


I hold that there is no biblical prohibition against baptizing people in chronological time before they state that they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Nor is there a biblical mandate that one must show they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior in chronological time BEFORE the prohibition of baptism is for them lifted. I reject the late 16th Century invention of Credobaptism (in all its aspects, but you want to limit it to this one, I believe) in part because it is missing in the Bible (as well as nearly 1600 years of Christianity); it is not taught in the Scriptures.


Now, I admit, it SEEMS that MOST of the examples of baptisms that happen to be exampled in the NT appear do fit this, but we cannot show that they all do. And, like you, I reject the rubric that we MUST do whatever is exampled in the Bible and CANNOT do what is not exampled in the Bible, so this is an irrelevant point.


Now, if you have a verse or verses (previously kept secret) that state we are forbidden to baptize any who has not previously, in chronological time, given statement that they have previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior, or one(s) that we are mandated to require such, then now present it. But perhaps you only have verses that prove MY point: the dogma isn't there.



Now, I might add, you reject the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, not because you have any verse that proves it wrong but because you note that the RCC has no verse that proves it's right (you COULD also note no other faith community has this at least as dogma, and that it's quite late). You don't hold that YOU are mandated to quote a Scripture that says "There is no dogma of the Assumption of Mary", they are teaching the dogma, it is THEIR responsibility to confirm it. But Catholics are at least honest: it's not taught in Scripture and they don't claim it is.

I asked for ONE point to discuss

I did what you demanded of me: Stick to one subject, the only one you permit me to ask about. And I used your definition of it.

I did what you demanded, that I state why I (like most Christians) don't accept this invention.

You haven't done what you said you would: THEN present your proof. THEN you would finally discuss instead of your perpetual refusal.



And I gave you one, the only one you permitted me to address of the many Baptist dogmas you have parroted and defended; you ordered me to only discuss Credobaptism (and ONLY your narrow definition of it). You ordered me to state why I object to it (which is NOT, certainly NOT, my role but I cooperated nonethessless - anything to stop your insistence that you will not discuss although you insist you will discuss if I only do as you order me). So I've done as you've ordered.

No, I cannot give a Scripture to defend your position, but that's not my role, is it? It's YOUR dogma, it's YOUR responsibility to show it is true. Where does Scripture state that we are mandated to only baptize those who have previously stated they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior? Consider your rejection of the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary..... do you have verses that state, "No, Mary was NOT assumed into heaven!" No, but you don't think you need such a verse, the RCC needs a verse or verses that state that she was. Ah. I'm simply abiding by your own rubric.


MennoSota has insisted (as his constant mantra, lol) that we must "scrap" any and all teachings that are not stated in the Bible AND all denomination tradition (including that of Baptists and Lutherans, any Baptist or Lutheran teachings and understandings and interpretations) and look ONLY to the words of Scripture. But he has admiited that there is no Scripture that says we are forbidden to baptize unless and until the recipient has first stated they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. I'm just accepted HIS demand: we must scrap anything that is not stated in the Bible. And this dogma is not stated in the Bible.


Unless you have a verse that STATE the Assumption of Mary is wrong and the Infalliblity of the Papacy is wrong but rather state you don't have to prove that, the RCC has to prove those things TRUE to the level claimed, then I will do the same with you. Seems only fair, I'm sure you agree. You rebuke those who can't show their unique new Dogmas are true.... the shoe is on your foot. We're seeing how you handle that.





.

 

[Josiah]

1 Peter 3:21
Hebrews 9:24Eze 36:25,26;*Zec 13:1;*2Cor 7:1) (Acts 8:37;*Ro 10:9,10;*2Cor 1:12;*1Ti 6:12)Hebrews 9:9, Hebrews 10:19

Yup.

You have not one verse that states any of the Anabaptist mandates. Nothing that the recipient must first attain the age of X. Nothing that states the recipient must first prove he is among the unnamed few for whom Jesus died. Nothing that states one must first prove they have chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. Nothing that says every cell of the recipients body must be fully immersed under water. As you previously admitted, you have no Scriptures that state what the Baptist/Anabaptist tradition does.

And your demand is that: "We must scrap any and all teachings that are not stated in the Bible along with any and all church tradition" (which equally includes Baptist interpretations, understandings, spins, questions - and Lutheran ones).

So....




.

 

[atpollard]

Post 452

I did what you demanded of me: Stick to one subject, the only one you permit me to ask about. And I used your definition of it.

I did what you demanded, that I state why I (like most Christians) don't accept this invention.

You haven't done what you said you would: THEN present your proof. THEN you would finally discuss instead of your perpetual refusal.

And I gave you one, the only one you permitted me to address of the many Baptist dogmas you have parroted and defended; you ordered me to only discuss Credobaptism (and ONLY your narrow definition of it). You ordered me to state why I object to it (which is NOT, certainly NOT, my role but I cooperated nonethessless - anything to stop your insistence that you will not discuss although you insist you will discuss if I only do as you order me). So I've done as you've ordered.

No, I cannot give a Scripture to defend your position, but that's not my role, is it? It's YOUR dogma, it's YOUR responsibility to show it is true. Where does Scripture state that we are mandated to only baptize those who have previously stated they have accepted Jesus as their personal Savior? Consider your rejection of the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary..... do you have verses that state, "No, Mary was NOT assumed into heaven!" No, but you don't think you need such a verse, the RCC needs a verse or verses that state that she was. Ah. I'm simply abiding by your own rubric.


MennoSota has insisted (as his constant mantra, lol) that we must "scrap" any and all teachings that are not stated in the Bible AND all denomination tradition (including that of Baptists and Lutherans, any Baptist or Lutheran teachings and understandings and interpretations) and look ONLY to the words of Scripture. But he has admiited that there is no Scripture that says we are forbidden to baptize unless and until the recipient has first stated they had previously chosen Jesus as their personal Savior. I'm just accepted HIS demand: we must scrap anything that is not stated in the Bible. And this dogma is not stated in the Bible.


Unless you have a verse that STATE the Assumption of Mary is wrong and the Infalliblity of the Papacy is wrong but rather state you don't have to prove that, the RCC has to prove those things TRUE to the level claimed, then I will do the same with you. Seems only fair, I'm sure you agree. You rebuke those who can't show their unique new Dogmas are true.... the shoe is on your foot. We're seeing how you handle that.

.

I wrote the answer to your question from post 452 back in post 460, but I can’t make you read it. :dunno:

 

[Arsenios]

I have already shown you that John 3:5 has nothing that references baptism.
The actual context of Jesus and Nicodemus conversation has to do with new birth vs birth as an infant.

The Greek combines water and Spirit under the preposition EX = "out of", or "from"

εξ υδατος και πνευματος
out of "water and Spirit"...

Water and Spirit are what we are to be reborn FROM...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

The Greek combines water and Spirit under the preposition EX = "out of", or "from"

εξ υδατος και πνευματος
out of "water and Spirit"...

Water and Spirit are what we are to be reborn FROM...


Arsenios

There is literally nothing in the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus relating to baptism.
However, have you seen a birth and seen the water break from the womb?
Born of water and born of the Spirit.
Nicodemus understood the water as human birth. He didn't understand the second birth by the Spirit, however.

 

[Arsenios]

I think I agree with Arsenios about this being "tedious"

Proving my dyslexic friends insistence right that: "There IS a doG!"

That was too funny!

I owe you one!

Thank-you!


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

There is literally nothing in the dialogue between Jesus and Nicodemus relating to baptism.
However, have you seen a birth and seen the water break from the womb?
Born of water and born of the Spirit.
Nicodemus understood the water as human birth. He didn't understand the second birth by the Spirit, however.

The point of Christ's words in the Greek construction is that "OUT OF" includes both Spirit and Water together...

Hence from a strictly exegetical [eg grammatical] point of view...

Water and Spirit TOGETHER comprise the new Birth from above...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

The point of Christ's words in the Greek construction is that "OUT OF" includes both Spirit and Water together...

Hence from a strictly exegetical [eg grammatical] point of view...

Water and Spirit TOGETHER comprise the new Birth from above...


Arsenios

Human birth and Spirit birth. You can't have the latter without the former. Nicodemus knew this construct. Jesus helped him understand that he had to be born of the Spirit as well.
I'm sorry you are over thinking the passage and forcing baptism upon the passage when baptism is not present.

 

[Arsenios]

However, have you seen a birth and seen the water break from the womb?

It breaks prior to birth...

Born of water and born of the Spirit.

Only if you have taken it upon yourself to re-write Scripture...

Born OUT OF Water and Spirit is correct...

Nicodemus understood the water as human birth. He didn't understand the second birth by the Spirit, however.

I think that you are arguing that his understanding limited the meaning of Christ's answer...

And I also think that you will agree that this whole little passage refutes that very idea...


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Human birth and Spirit birth. You can't have the latter without the former. Nicodemus knew this construct. Jesus helped him understand that he had to be born of the Spirit as well.
I'm sorry you are over thinking the passage and forcing baptism upon the passage when baptism is not present.

I think I may put a thread up especially for you on Scriptural explication...

Unless I forget!


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

It breaks prior to birth...



Only if you have taken it upon yourself to re-write Scripture...

Born OUT OF Water and Spirit is correct...



I think that you are arguing that his understanding limited the meaning of Christ's answer...

And I also think that you will agree that this whole little passage refutes that very idea...


Arsenios

It breaks, then the labor starts. The Spirit breaks upon the soul and then the repentance starts. It's not difficult. I'm sorry you are over thinking the conversation Jesus had with Nicodemus and are trying to force baptism into a passage where it doesn't exist.

 

[MennoSota]

Possible options for John 3:5
Jesus answered*Nicodemus’s confusion by elaborating on the truth He introduced in verse 3:*“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”*A number of interpretations have been offered to explain the phrase*born of water.*Some see two births here, one natural, and the other spiritual. Proponents of this view interpret the*water*as the amniotic fluid that flows from the womb just before childbirth. But it is not clear that the ancients described natural birth in that way. Further, the phrase*born of water and the Spirit*parallels the phrase “born again” in verse 3; thus, only one birth is in view. Others see in the phrase*born of water*a reference to baptism, either that of John the Baptist, or Christian baptism. But Nicodemus would not have understood Christian baptism (which did not yet exist) nor misunderstood John the Baptist’s baptism. Nor would Jesus have refrained from baptizing people (4:2) if baptism were necessary for salvation. Still others see the phrase as a reference to Jewish ceremonial washings, which being born of the Spirit transcends. However the two terms are not in contrast with each other, but combine to form a parallel with the phrase “born again” in verse 3. (For a careful examination of the various interpretations of*born of water,*see D. A. Carson,*The Gospel According to John,The Pillar New Testament Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 191–96.)

Since Jesus expected Nicodemus to understand this truth (v. 10), it must have been something with which he was familiar.*Water*and*Spirit*often refer symbolically in the Old Testament to spiritual renewal and cleansing (cf.*Num. 19:17–19;*Isa. 4:4;*32:15;*44:3;*55:1;*Joel 2:28–29;*Zech. 13:1). In one of the most glorious passages in all of Scripture describing Israel’s restoration to the Lord by the new covenant, God said through Ezekiel,

For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. (Ezek. 36:24–27)

It was surely this passage that Jesus had in mind, showing regeneration to be an Old Testament truth (cf.*Deut. 30:6;*Jer. 31:31–34;*Ezek. 11:18–20) with which Nicodemus would have been acquainted. Against this Old Testament backdrop, Christ’s point was unmistakable: Without the spiritual washing of the soul, a cleansing accomplished only by the Holy Spirit (Titus 3:5) through the Word of God (Eph. 5:26), no one can enter God’s kingdom.

Jesus continued by further emphasizing that this spiritual cleansing is wholly a work of God, and not the result of human effort:*“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.”*Just as only human nature can beget human nature, so also only the Holy Spirit can effect spiritual transformation. The term*flesh(sarx) here refers merely to human nature (as it does in 1:13–14); in this context, it does not have the negative moral connotation that it frequently does in Paul’s writings (e.g.,*Rom. 8:1–8,*12–13). Even if a physical rebirth were possible, it would produce only*flesh.*Thus, only the*Spirit*can produce the spiritual birth required for entrance into God’s kingdom. Regeneration is entirely His work, unaided by any human effort (cf.*Rom. 3:25).

Although Jesus’ words were based on Old Testament revelation, they ran completely contrary to everything Nicodemus had been taught. For his entire life he had believed that salvation came through his own external merit. Now he found it exceedingly difficult to think otherwise. Aware of his astonishment, Jesus continued,*“Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’*”*The verb translated*must*is a strong term; John used it elsewhere in his gospel to refer to the necessity of the crucifixion (3:14; 12:34), of John the Baptist’s inferiority to Christ (3:30), of the proper method of worshiping God (4:24), of Jesus carrying out His ministry (4:4; 9:4; 10:16), and of the necessity of the resurrection (20:9). It was absolutely necessary for Nicodemus to get over his astonishment at being so wrong about how one is accepted into God’s kingdom and seek to be*born again*if he was to enter. And he could never do so based on his own righteous works.

Then the Lord illustrated His point with a familiar example from nature:*“The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”*The wind cannot be controlled; it blows*where it wishes.*And though its general direction can be known,*where it comes from and where it is going*cannot be precisely determined. Nevertheless, the wind’s effects can be observed. The same is true of the work of the*Spirit.*His sovereign work of regeneration in the human heart can neither be controlled nor predicted. Yet its effects can be seen in the transformed lives of those who are*born of the Spirit.

https://www.gty.org/library/bibleqn...t-does-it-mean-to-be-born-of-water-and-spirit

 

[MoreCoffee]

One post says - after quoting 1 Peter 3:21 "And now you also are saved, in a similar manner, by baptism, not by the testimony of sordid flesh, but by the examination of a good conscience in God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ." -these things:

Here is antitupon in a secular Greek writing - "I am placed opposite something that has gone before"

Antitupon is used only here and in Hebrews 9:24-note.

For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us (see note Hebrews 9:24)

Peter is teaching that the fact that 8 people were in an ark and went through the whole judgement, and yet were unharmed, is analogous to the Christian’s experience in salvation by being in (union with) Christ, identified with Christ our "Ark" of salvation so to speak.

Peter is not teaching (as some twist the Scriptures) that immersion in water by a particular denomination saves you. Peter pictures the waters of baptism as corresponding to (prefigured by) the deliverance of Noah’s family by water. Noah and his family's identification with the Ark (by going into the ark when the flood came) is a type of the believer's identification with Christ (by grace through face) in which he or she identifies with Christ's finished work on the Cross and in so doing in a manner of speaking that person is now safe within the "Ark", Who is Christ Jesus Himself.​

The word that you referred to "ἀντίτυπον", means antitype hence it is translated with words like "corresponding to" and "in a similar manner" but not as "mere copy" which is much more of a bad and biased paraphrase of the the word than it is a translation of it.

My Greek Lexicon says:

ἀντίτυπον

antítupon; the neut. of the masc. adj. antítupos, gen. antitúpou, from antí (G473), against, instead of, corresponding to, and túpos (G5179), a type, model, figure, form, impression, print. In the NT, antí (G473) in composition implies resemblance, correspondence; hence, formed after a type or model, like unto, corresponding. Used in the neut. antítupon as a subst. meaning antitype, that which corresponds to a type (Heb 9:24), used in the pl. and translated "figures" as representing the holy places where sacrifices were offered, being not the real things but the antitypes or representations of the real things.​

A fairly literal translation of the verse is:

21 ὃ which καὶ and ὑμᾶς you ἀντίτυπον antitype νῦν now σώζει is saving βάπτισμα baptism, οὐ not σαρκὸς of flesh ἀπόθεσις putting away ῥύπου of filth ἀλλὰ but συνειδήσεως of conscience ἀγαθῆς good ἐπερώτημα answer upon εἰς into θεόν God, δι’ through ἀναστάσεως resurrection Ἰησοῦ Jesus Χριστοῦ Christ,​

It is evident that saint Peter contrasts the type (Noah and his family surviving the flood) with the antitype (baptism) which saves those who are baptised because in baptism they are united with Christ in his resurrection as saint Paul also explains in Romans 6:3-4 Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.

Saint Peter and saint Paul affirm the saving power that God makes present in baptism. And this is no "spirit baptism" or "baptism in the spirit" or any such thing but rather the very same baptism that Christ commanded in Matthew 28:19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. and That the Lord Jesus Christ also said is intimately tied to one's salvation both in John 3:5 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. and in Mark 16:16 Whoever believes and is baptised will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.