When I commented on agreeing with 4WD, then go here and see his comments that he posted today Reply #97:
I agree exactly how you interpreted John 3. It's about two different births, one of the flesh through woman's womb, and the other to our spirit by The Holy Spirit (i.e., "born again", which is actually 'born from above' in the Greek).
As I noted on another topic, "born of water" has never been used as a euphemism for physical birth before or since except for a few misguided commentarians trying to explain away the obvious in John 3. Making physical birth a requirement for entering the kingdom of God is a non-requirement. It excludes no one. The idea that Jesus would seem to make it so is preposterous.
So, you think simply being submersed in water is what saves us? That's not what saves us, for the water is only symbolic for a cleansing of our spirit inside our flesh. The act of our confessing Christ Jesus as our Savior and believing on Him with two or more witnesses present is what saves us. There exists NT examples of believers baptized by The Holy Spirit prior to their water baptism (Acts 10).
No, I don't think simply being submersed in water is what saves us. I think what Peter said was the truth when he said to those who believed him about Jesus that if they repented and were baptized that their sins would be forgiven and they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. I think that there are many other passages that would confirm the truth of what Peter said. You might want to listen to him. And I have no doubt whatever, that unless one has their sins forgiven and have received the gift of the Holy Spirit there is no salvation. Shoot even John's baptism was for the forgiveness of sins. I really don't know how you could consider that baptism in the name of Jesus Christ would produce any less.
The water Nicodemus understood to be about the water of woman's womb, and flesh birth.
Neither Nicodemus nor anyone else understood water to be about physical birth. You can't find a reference for that anywhere in the Bible or anywhere else in the early literature. No one today would think that. Such an expression is never used even today outside of some faith alone types or other monergists who are trying to get around the obvious connection of baptism and salvation. And quite frankly it is really a stupid argument.
And it is... a fact, only those born through woman's womb in this world can saved by Jesus Christ. God's angels don't need saving, they are already there. And Satan's angels are already assigned to perish with him. So there's that.
Neither Jesus nor Nicodemus had any thoughts about angels entering the kingdom of heaven. Another really bogus comment.
And for what it is worth, your comment about baptism in the Holy Spirit before their water baptism in Acts 10 is wrong in a couple of ways, but I'll leave that for another time.