Baptism (immersed in water) is necessary

[tabcom]

continued from previous post . . .

Or, to take another view of it, for Divine truth is many-sided - perhaps some would say, to make ‘Western’ application of what was first spoken to the Jew - in one respect Nicodemus and Jesus had started from the same premiss: The Kingdom of God. But how different were their conceptions of what constituted that Kingdom, and of what was its door of entrance! What Nicodemus had seen of Jesus had not only shaken the confidence which his former views on these subjects had engendered in him, but opened dim possibilities, the very suggestion of which filled him with uneasiness as to the past, and vague hopes as to the future. And so it ever is with us also, when, like Nicodemus, we first arrive at the conviction that Jesus is the Teacher come from God. What He teaches is so entirely different from what Nicodemus, or any of us could, from any other standpoint than that of Jesus, have learned or known concerning the Kingdom and entrance into it. The admission, however reached, of the Divine Mission of this Teacher, implies, unspoken, the grand question about the Kingdom. It is the opening of the door through which the Grand Presence will enter in. To such a man, as to us in like unspoken questioning, Jesus ever has but one thing to say: ‘Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.’ The Kingdom is other, the entrance to it is other, than you know or think. That which is of the flesh is flesh. Man may rise to high possibilities - mental, even moral: self-development, self-improvement, self-restraint, submission to a grand idea or a higher law, refined moral egotism, aesthetic even moral altruism. But to see the Kingdom of God: to understand what means the absolute rule of God, the one high calling of our humanity, by which a man becomes a child of God - to perceive this, not as an improvement upon our present state, but as the submission of heart, mind, and life to Him as our Divine King, an existence which is, and which means, proclaiming unto the world the Kingship of God: this can only be learned from Christ, and needs even for its perception a kinship of spirit - for that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. To see it, needs the birth from above; to enter it, the double baptismal birth of what John’s Baptism had meant, and of what Christ’s Baptism was.

 

[tabcom]

continued . . .

Accordingly, all this sounded quite strange and unintelligible to Nicodemus. He could understand how a man might become other, and so ultimately be other; but how a man could first be other in order to become other - more than that, needed to be ‘born from above,’ in order to ‘see the Kingdom of God’ - passed alike his experience and his Jewish learning. Only one possibility of being occurred to him: that given him in his natural disposition, or as a Jew would have put it, in his original innocency when he first entered the world. And this - so to express ourselves - he thought aloud But there was another world of being than that of which Nicodemus thought. That world was the ‘Kingdom of God’ in its essential contrariety to the Kingdom of this world, whether in the general sense of that expression, or even in the special Judaistic sense attaching to the ‘Kingdom’ of the Messiah. There was only one gate by which a man could pass into that Kingdom of God - for that which was of the flesh could ever be only fleshly. Here a man might strive, as did the Jews, by outward conformity to become, but he would never attain to being. But that ‘Kingdom’ was spiritual, and here a man must be in order to become. How was he to attain that new being? The Baptist had pointed it out in its negative aspect of repentance and putting away the old by his Baptism of water; and as regarded its positive aspect he had pointed to Him Who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. This was the gate of being through which a man must enter into the Kingdom, which was of the Messiah, because it was of God and the Messiah was of God, and in that sense ‘the Teacher come from God’ - that is, being sent of God, He taught of God by bringing to God. This but a few who had gone to the Baptist had perceived, or indeed could perceive, because the Baptist could in his Baptism only convey the negative, not the positive, aspect of it. And it needed that positive aspect - the being born from above - in order to see the Kingdom of God. But as to the mystery of this being in order to become - hark! did he hear the sound of that wind as it swept past the Aliyah? He heard its voice; but he neither knew whence it came, nor whither it went. So was every one that was born of the Spirit. You heard the voice of the Spirit Who originated the new being, but the origination of that new being, or its further development into all that it might and would become, lay beyond man’s observation.

 

[tabcom]

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus and said to them, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say unless one is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born anew.’ The wind blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know where it came from or where it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.”

This verse says, **“you must be born anew.” **This implies that we must be baptized.

I would like at this point introduce Matthew Henry’s ‘Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible’ (1706-1721). With respects to this passage . . . .

This change is illustrated by two comparisons. First, The regenerating work of the Spirit is compared to water, v. 5. To be born again is to be born of water and of the Spirit, that is, of the Spirit working like water, as (Matt. iii. 11) with the Holy Ghost and with fire means with the Holy Ghost as with fire.

1. That which is primarily intended here is to show that the Spirit, in sanctifying a soul, (1.) Cleanses and purifies it as water, takes away its filth, by which it was unfit for the kingdom of God. It is the washing of regeneration, Tit. iii. 5. You are washed, 1 Cor. vi. 11. See Ezek. xxxvi. 25. (2.) Cools and refreshes it, as water does the hunted heart and the weary traveler. The Spirit is compared to water, ch. vii. 38, 39; Isa. xliv. 3. In the first creation, the fruits of heaven were born of water (Gen. i. 20), in allusion to which, perhaps, they that are born from above are said to be born of water.
2. It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism, which John had used and he himself had begun to use, “You must be born again of the Spirit,” which regeneration by the Spirit should be signified by washing with water, as the visible sign of that spiritual grace: not that all they, and they only, that are baptized, are saved; but without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be looked upon as the protected privileged subjects of the kingdom of heaven.

 

[guanophore]

With respects to this statement,** if water and the Baptism of the HS are inseparable, is Jesus talking about being dipped in water a second time to James and John (Mark 10:38,39)? **

The “cup” to which He refers in this passage is the cup of His suffering.

Mark 14:36
36 And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt.”

Also, is Jesus going to be baptized in water again, when he tells Peter, ‘there is a baptism with which I must be baptized’ (LK 12:50)?

No, I believe that Jesus was speaking of the baptism of blood, which he underwent at His crucifixion. The early Christians understood this also, and believed that persons who believed and were martryrd for their faith before they had water baptism were purified equally.

Mark 10:38
Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Can you drink the cup that I drink or be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39 They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, "The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.

Lk 12:50
There is a baptism with which I must be baptized, and how great is my anguish until it is accomplished!

Do you imagine that He is speaking of the Baptism of the HS?

 

[DCD]

I would like at this point introduce Matthew Henry’s ‘Complete Commentary on the Whole Bible’ (1706-1721). With respects to this passage . . . .

This change is illustrated by two comparisons. First, The regenerating work of the Spirit is compared to water, v. 5. To be born again is to be born of water and of the Spirit, that is, of the Spirit working like water, as (Matt. iii. 11) with the Holy Ghost and with fire means with the Holy Ghost as with fire.

1. That which is primarily intended here is to show that the Spirit, in sanctifying a soul, (1.) Cleanses and purifies it as water, takes away its filth, by which it was unfit for the kingdom of God. It is the washing of regeneration, Tit. iii. 5. You are washed, 1 Cor. vi. 11. See Ezek. xxxvi. 25. (2.) Cools and refreshes it, as water does the hunted heart and the weary traveler. The Spirit is compared to water, ch. vii. 38, 39; Isa. xliv. 3. In the first creation, the fruits of heaven were born of water (Gen. i. 20), in allusion to which, perhaps, they that are born from above are said to be born of water.
2. It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism, which John had used and he himself had begun to use, “You must be born again of the Spirit,” which regeneration by the Spirit should be signified by washing with water, as the visible sign of that spiritual grace: not that all they, and they only, that are baptized, are saved; but without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be looked upon as the protected privileged subjects of the kingdom of heaven.

Tabcom,

Where do you find the idea of ordinances in the time of Christ especially in the Jewish religion? I can find purification rites, ceremonial washings, and ablutions. This idea of ordinance appears to be a foreign concept in the sense that you are trying to associate it with water. Maybe I am missing something.

Peace,
David

 

[Salamander]

I intend to do so shortly. I’m compiling additional reference material on this point.

Hi tabcom,

You might consider watching this video on the subject of baptism:

Just click on the link “Baptism” and watch…it isn’t very long and answers many of the questions concerning the subject.

searchingfortruth.org/

 

[tabcom]

Where do you find the idea of ordinances in the time of Christ especially in the Jewish religion?

To quote Alfred Edersheim from Appendix 12
‘THE BAPTISM OF PROSELYTES’ in his book ‘The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah’,

“Only those who have made study of it can have any idea how large, and sometimes bewildering, is the literature on the subject of Jewish Proselytes and their Baptism.”

The Mishnah attributes to Ezra a decree that each male should immerse himself before praying or studying. There were several Jewish groups that observed ritual immersion every day to assure readiness for the coming of the Messiah. The Church Fathers mentioned one of these groups called Hemerobaptists which means “daily bathers” in Greek. Among those used to regular immersion were the Essenes and others that the Talmud calls tovelei shaharit or “dawn bathers.”

 

[tabcom]

1.) Allow me to intercept unnecessary confusion in your communications:

• If someone is validly baptized with water, there is no separation of that baptism and the outpouring of the HS: in this context they are inseparable.
• On the other hand, Baptism of desire and Baptism of blood are means of accomplishing the Baptism of the HS separated from water Baptism. In this sense they are separable.

I’m not Roman Catholic. Therefore I have no comment as to the theological validity to your statement.

2.) Also, please restate your entire translation of John 3:5 - I couldnt understand the pieces you’ve provided.

In light of the the documentation I provided, I agree with Matthew Henry’s commentary, in so much as, ‘The regenerating work of the Spirit is compared to water . . . that is, of the Spirit working like water’.

 

[tabcom]

In your translation, tabcom, you did not address that Jesus told Nicodemus that he must be “born again” or “born from” above by “water and the Sprit”. This water is AFTER the birth water, and is together with the Spirit “born”.

Please allow me to clarify my translation, ‘The water is the agent that brings about the first birth into the physical world. To be born again, into the Kingdom of God, which is now spiritual, the Holy Spirit is the agent, acting like water in regenerating the spiritual man’.

 

[guanophore]

I’m not Roman Catholic. Therefore I have no comment as to the theological validity to your statement.

This is disingenuous of you, tabcom. You have already commented on the theological validity of this statement many times. You have persistently rejected the Apostolic Teaching in this matter. Whether or not you are Roman Catholic has not changed your rejection of the Teaching.

In light of the the documentation I provided, I agree with Matthew Henry’s commentary, in so much as, ‘The regenerating work of the Spirit is compared to water . . . that is, of the Spirit working like water’.

And therefore, not separated from the water through which, and like which, it works.

 

[Philthy]

In light of the the documentation I provided, I agree with Matthew Henry’s commentary, in so much as, ‘The regenerating work of the Spirit is compared to water . . . that is, of the Spirit working like water’.

tabcom -

Please provide your translation - in plain english - for John 3:5, like every other tranlater does. If its in Henry’s commentary then cut and paste it for me please - I didnt see it.

 

[foundthelight]

I’m not Roman Catholic. Therefore I have no comment as to the theological validity to your statement.In light of the the documentation I provided, I agree with Matthew Henry’s commentary, in so much as, ‘The regenerating work of the Spirit is compared to water . . . that is, of the Spirit working like water’.

So. What is it about Matthew Henry that make his interpretations valid, and those of the Early Church Fathers invalid? Particularly as the ECF’s take a more literal reading of most passages than Henry.

 

[tabcom]

So. What is it about Matthew Henry that make his interpretations valid, and those of the Early Church Fathers invalid?

Before jumping to any conclusions that early church fathers interpretations are invalid, could you, or anyone else, please provide a commentary with respects to John 3:5?

 

[tabcom]

tabcom -

Please provide your translation - in plain english - for John 3:5, like every other tranlater does. If its in Henry’s commentary then cut and paste it for me please - I didnt see it.

The water is the agent that brings about the first birth into the physical world. To be born again, into the Kingdom of God, which is now spiritual, the Holy Spirit is the agent, acting like water in regenerating the spiritual man.

 

[foundthelight]

The water is the agent that brings about the first birth into the physical world. To be born again, into the Kingdom of God, which is now spiritual, the Holy Spirit is the agent, acting like water in regenerating the spiritual man.

For the benefit of others here is a quote from Matthew Henry’s commentary.

[d.] This change is illustrated by two comparisons. First, The regenerating work of the Spirit is compared to water, Joh_3:5. To be born again is to be born of water and of the Spirit, that is, of the Spirit working like water, as (Mat_3:11) with the Holy Ghost and with fire means with the Holy Ghost as with fire. 1. That which is primarily intended here is to show that the Spirit, in sanctifying a soul, (1.) Cleanses and purifies it as water, takes away its filth, by which it was unfit for the kingdom of God. It is the washing of regeneration, Tit_3:5. You are washed, 1Co_6:11. See Eze_36:25. (2.) Cools and refreshes it, as water does the hunted hart and the weary traveller. The Spirit is compared to water, Joh_7:38, Joh_7:39; Isa_44:3. In the first creation, the fruits of heaven were born of water (Gen_1:20), in allusion to which, perhaps, they that are born from above are said to be born of water. 2. It is probable that Christ had an eye to the ordinance of baptism, which John had used and he himself had begun to use, “You must be born again of the Spirit,” which regeneration by the Spirit should be signified by washing with water, as the visible sign of that spiritual grace: not that all they, and they only, that are baptized, are saved; but without that new birth which is wrought by the Spirit, and signified by baptism, none shall be looked upon as the protected privileged subjects of the kingdom of heaven. The Jews cannot partake of the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom, they have so long looked for, unless they quit all expectations of being justified by the works of the law, and submit to the baptism of repentance, the great gospel duty, for the remission of sins, the great gospel privilege. Secondly, It is compared to wind: The wind bloweth where it listeth, so is every one that is born of the Spirit, Joh_3:8. The same word (pneuma) signifies both the wind and the Spirit. The Spirit came upon the apostles in a rushing mighty wind (Act_2:2), his strong influences on the hearts of sinners are compared to the breathing of the wind (Eze_37:9), and his sweet influences on the souls of saints to the north and south wind, Son_4:16. This comparison is here used to show, 1. That the Spirit, in regeneration, works arbitrarily, and as a free agent. The wind bloweth where it listeth for us, and does not attend our order, nor is subject to our command. God directs it; it fulfils his word, Psa_148:8. The Spirit dispenses his influences where, and when, on whom, and in what measure and degree, he pleases, dividing to every man severally as he will, 1Co_12:11. 2. That he works powerfully, and with evident effects: Thou hearest the sound thereof; though its causes are hidden, its effects are manifest. When the soul is brought to mourn for sin, to groan under the burden of corruption, to breathe after Christ, to cry Abba - Father, then we hear the sound of the Spirit, we find he is at work, as Act_9:11, Behold he prayeth. 3. That he works mysteriously, and in secret hidden ways: Thou canst not tell whence it comes, nor whither it goes. How it gathers and how it spends its strength is a riddle to us; so the manner and methods of the Spirit’s working are a mystery. Which way went the Spirit? 1Ki_22:24. See Ecc_11:5, and compare it with Psa_139:14.

Henry says that 3:5 is comparing water to the Spirit.

The problem I have with this is that the Greek says

hudor kai pneuma

“water and Spirit”.
The meaning is plain that both are required and that the hudor was not the same as the pneuma. Henry was stretching to change the clear meaning because he did not want to accept what the Catholic church has taught from the first.

 

[foundthelight]

Before jumping to any conclusions that early church fathers interpretations are invalid, could you, or anyone else, please provide a commentary with respects to John 3:5?

Tertullian, AD 145 - 220

From “On Baptism”

newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

Chapter 2. The Very Simplicity of God’s Means of Working, a Stumbling-Block to the Carnal Mind

Well, but how great is the force of perversity for so shaking the faith or entirely preventing its reception, that it impugns it on the very principles of which the faith consists! There is absolutely nothing which makes men’s minds more obdurate than the simplicity of the divine works which are visible in the act, when compared with the grandeur which is promised thereto in the effect; so that from the very fact, that with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, finally, without expense, a man is dipped in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled, and then rises again, not much (or not at all) the cleaner, the consequent attainment of eternity is esteemed the more incredible. I am a deceiver if, on the contrary, it is not from their circumstance, and preparation, and expense, that idols’ solemnities or mysteries get their credit and authority built up. Oh, miserable incredulity, which quite deniest to God His own properties, simplicity and power! What then? Is it not wonderful, too, that death should be washed away by bathing? But it is the more to be believed if the wonderfulness be the reason why it is not believed. For what does it behove divine works to be in their quality, except that they be above all wonder? We also ourselves wonder, but it is because we believe. Incredulity, on the other hand, wonders, but does not believe: for the simple acts it wonders at, as if they were vain; the grand results, as if they were impossible. And grant that it be just as you think sufficient to meet each point is the divine declaration which has forerun: “The foolish things of the world has God elected to confound its wisdom;” and, “The things very difficult with men are easy with God.” For if God is wise and powerful (which even they who pass Him by do not deny), it is with good reason that He lays the material causes of His own operation in thecontraries of wisdom and of power, that is, in foolishness and impossibility; since every virtue receives its cause from those things by which it is called forth.

To be continued

 

[foundthelight]

Tertullian continued

Chapter 3. Water Chosen as a Vehicle of Divine Operation and Wherefore. Its Prominence First of All in Creation

Mindful of this declaration as of a conclusive prescript, we nevertheless proceed to treat the question, “How foolish and impossible it is to be formed anew by water. In what respect, pray, has this material substance merited an office of so high dignity?” The authority, I suppose, of the liquid element has to be examined. This however, is found in abundance, and that from the very beginning. For water is one of those things which, before all the furnishing of the world, were quiescent with God in a yet unshapen state. “In the first beginning,” says Scripture, “God made the heaven and the earth. But the earth was invisible, and unorganized, and darkness was over the abyss; and the Spirit of the Lord was hovering over the waters.” The first thing, O man, which you have to venerate, is the age of the waters in that their substance is ancient; the second, their dignity, in that they were the seat of the Divine Spirit, more pleasing to Him, no doubt, than all the other then existing elements. For the darkness was total thus far, shapeless, without the ornament of stars; and the abyss gloomy; and the earth unfurnished; and the heaven unwrought: water alone—always a perfect, gladsome, simple material substance, pure in itself—supplied a worthy vehicle to God. What of the fact that waters were in some way the regulating powers by which the disposition of the world thenceforward was constituted by God? For the suspension of the celestial firmament in the midst He caused by"dividing the waters;" the suspension of “the dry land” He accomplished by “separating the waters.” After the world had been hereupon set in order through its elements, when inhabitants were given it, “the waters” were the first to receive the precept “to bring forth living creatures.” Water was the first to produce that which had life, that it might be no wonder in baptism if waters know how to give life. For was not the work of fashioning man himself also achieved with the aid of waters? Suitable material is found in the earth, yet not apt for the purpose unless it be moist and juicy; which (earth) “the waters,” separated the fourth day before into their own place, temper with their remaining moisture to a clayey consistency. If, from that time onward, I go forward in recounting universally, or at more length, the evidences of the"authority" of this element which I can adduce to show how great is its power or its grace; how many ingenious devices, how many functions, how useful an instrumentality, it affords the world, I fear I may seem to have collected rather the praises of water than the reasons of baptism; although I should thereby teach all the more fully, that it is not to be doubted that God has made the material substance which He has disposed throughout all His products and works, obey Him also in His own peculiar sacraments; that the material substance which governs terrestrial life acts as agent likewise in the celestial.

To be continued.

 

[foundthelight]

Tertullian continued

Chapter 4. The Primeval Hovering of the Spirit of God Over the Waters Typical of Baptism. The Universal Element of Water Thus Made a Channel of Sanctification. Resemblance Between the Outward Sign and the Inward Grace

But it will suffice to have thus called at the outset those points in which withal is recognised that primary principle of baptism,—which was even then fore-noted by the very attitude assumed for a type of baptism,—that the Spirit of God, who hovered over (the waters) from the beginning, would continue to linger over the waters of the baptized. But a holy thing, of course, hovered over a holy; or else, from that which hovered over that which was hovered over borrowed a holiness, since it is necessary that in every case an underlying material substance should catch the quality of that which overhangs it, most of all a corporeal of a spiritual, adapted (as the spiritual is) through the subtleness of its substance, both for penetrating and insinuating. Thus the nature of the waters, sanctified by the Holy One, itself conceived withal the power of sanctifying. Let no one say, “Why then, are we, pray, baptized with the very waters which then existed in the first beginning?” Not with those waters, of course, except in so far as the genus indeed is one, but the species very many. But what is an attribute to the genus reappears likewise in the species. And accordingly it makes no difference whether a man be washed in a sea or a pool, a stream or a fount, a lake or a trough; nor is there any distinction between those whom John baptized in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber, unless withal the eunuch whom Philip baptized in the midst of his journeys with chance water, derived (therefrom) more or less of salvation than others. Acts 8:26-40 All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying. Albeit the similitude may be admitted to be suitable to the simple act; that, since we are defiled by sins, as it were by dirt, we should be washed from those stains in waters. But as sins do not show themselves in our flesh (inasmuch as no one carries on his skin the spot of idolatry, or fornication, or fraud), so persons of that kind are foul in the spirit, which is the author of the sin; for the spirit is lord, the flesh servant. Yet they each mutually share the guilt: the spirit, on the ground of command; the flesh, of subservience. Therefore, after the waters have been in a manner endued with medicinal virtue through the intervention of the angel, the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same spiritually cleansed

 

[tabcom]

For the benefit of others here is a quote from Matthew Henry’s commentary.

Henry says that 3:5 is comparing water to the Spirit.

The problem I have with this is that the Greek says “water and Spirit”.
The meaning is plain that both are required and that the hudor was not the same as the pneuma.

To help amplify the differences there is, to paraphrase your post . . . .“born from above by (water and spirit)”

Whereas, I believe-- regenerated (born) out of water (natural birth) AND pneuma (of spirit).

Can you see the difference in the two translations?

Also, these two types of birth are what Paul talks about in:

2Co 4:16 -
Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man (born of water) is decaying, yet our inner man (born of spirit) is being renewed day by day.

Eph 3:16 -
that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,

 

[foundthelight]

To help amplify the differences there is, to paraphrase your post . . . .“born from above by (water and spirit)”

Whereas, I believe-- regenerated (born) out of water (natural birth) AND pneuma (of spirit).

Can you see the difference in the two translations?

Also, these two types of birth are what Paul talks about in:

2Co 4:16 -
Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man (born of water) is decaying, yet our inner man (born of spirit) is being renewed day by day.

Eph 3:16 -
that He would grant you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inner man,

ESV

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

KJV

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

DRB

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith to him: How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born again?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

I don’t see “Born from above” in any of these translations.

They say “born again”. Of “water and spirit”.

This is a very important difference. Your paraphrase of my previous statement is incorrect. Please don’t try to change the meanings of my words.

The verses from 2CO and Eph are not applicable to baptism. They are, rather, referring to our ongoing growth and sanctification in Christ through the action of the Spirit which we have received through the Sacraments. One of them being water baptism.