As I already said, some would argue that the natural sense of the passage clearly parallels "water" with being born out of a mother’s womb (3:4) and with "flesh" (3:6). Simply stated, Jesus told Nicodemus that in order to see the kingdom of God two births are necessary. The first is a physical, literal, "flesh" birth (which is, of course, accompanied by amniotic "water"); the second is Spirit.
So what absurd lengths did I go to? I simply harmonized scripture with scripture in order to reach the proper conclusion on doctrine. My view of John 3:5 is that Jesus was speaking of "living water" (John 3:5; 4:10,14; 7:37-39).
In verse 4, Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?"
In verse 6, Jesus said, "Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." So the amniotic water view didn't just pop up out of thin air for those who hold to that view.
In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
*I like the way Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explained it:
Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.
*Also compare the fact that these Gentiles in Acts 10:45 received
the gift of the Holy Spirit (compare with Acts 2:38 -
the gift of the Holy Spirit) and this was
BEFORE water baptism (Acts 10:47).
*In Acts 10:43 we read
..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received
the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - (compare with Acts 2:38 -
the gift of the Holy Spirit)
when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 -
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved)
BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47 - this is referred to as repentance
unto life - Acts 11:18.
My conclusion is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18).
*Perfect harmony and Scripture must harmonize with Scripture.*
In 1 Peter 3:21, Peter tells us that baptism now saves you, yet when Peter uses this phrase
he continues in the same sentence to explain exactly what he means by it. He said that baptism now saves you-
not the removal of dirt from the flesh (that is, not as an outward, physical act which washes dirt from the body--that is not what saves you),
"but an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (that is, as an inward, spiritual transaction between God and the individual, a transaction that is
symbolized by the outward ceremony of water baptism).
*Just as the eight people in the ark were "saved THROUGH water" as they were IN THE ARK. They were not literally saved "by" the water. Hebrews 11:7 is clear on this point (..built an
ARK for the
SAVING of his household). *NOTE: The context reveals that ONLY the righteous (Noah and his family) were DRY and therefore SAFE. In contrast, ONLY THE WICKED IN NOAH'S DAY CAME IN CONTACT WITH THE WATER AND THEY ALL PERISHED.
Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved
(general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who
does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on a lack of baptism. So salvation rests on belief. *NOWHERE does the Bible say "baptized or condemned."
If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the one requirement that Jesus mentions 9 different times in each of these complete statements?
BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics. John 3:18 - He who
believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO)
does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO)
because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
The problem with your method of hermeneutics is that you isolate a pet verse (or half of a verse) build doctrine on it, then ignore the context and try to force the rest of the Bible to "conform" to your biased interpretation of your pet verses, instead of properly harmonizing scripture with scripture. Your method is called "flawed hermeneutics."
I didn't have a defense for the amniotic fluid view, because that is not my view, but I clearly had a defense for the "living water" view in John 3:5.