Justification

[Briguy]

Hi Adam, your last response was well done and full of your "heart" and I really like that. I even understand your point and it sounds pretty good. I am not convinced that scripture supportsit but it is fun to look at it and dwell on it. more later on what you just said.

The prodigal son story is often mis-used and made into more then it is by Christians on all sides of the coin. I see this parable as an object lesson to a specfic group of people, the house of Isreal. Parables are not theology but are teaching tools. This one may not be to show the turning of Gentiles to Christ and some justification of the like. This parable is about two groups of Jews. Ones who stay in God's family by accepting the sacrifice of the Son and ones who didn't. The parable illustrates that even those Jews who put Jesus to death can come home again, to a new and better covenant then they had before. Think on that for a bit. (Gentiles were never sons to begin with which has always been the flaw in the Jew/Gentile explanation of this parable).

Covenants are very interesting indeed. I once told CC on the bulletin board a theory I had on the new covenant and I think I had him thinking a little, just a little and then he ripped my theory apart (ha ha). God makes covenants with "a people" not actually people. The covenant is given and we enetr under its umbrella or we don't. The new covenant appears to be given to the people of isreal with the chance for Gentiles to enter under it's umbrella. The neat thing is that these "saved" people of the covenant are the "church" and the head of the church is Christ. Could it be that the final covenant from God was made with himself?
and so is perfect and unbreakable and unshakeable and any other un word you can come up with? (ha ha) Would make sense that for the broken imperfect covenats from earlier that when god came Himself to shed His blood that to assure the covenant and salvation, he would make the covenat with Himself, which would really seal the deal forever. Something new to ponder for you anyway.

More to come,
In Christ,
Brian

[Cure of Ars]

Briguy, here are some quotes in regards to salvation. Biblically speaking, salvation is something that is a past, present, and future reality. It is not something that is contained in a one-time moment in the past.

[b]Present:[/b]

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil 2:12)

"Without having seen him you love him; though you do not now see him you believe in him and rejoice with unutterable and exalted joy. As the outcome of your faith you obtain the salvation of your souls." (1 Peter 1:8)

"And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed." (Romans 13:11)

[b]Future:[/b]

"If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire." (1Corinthians 3:15)

" ... deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1Corinthians 5:5)

This post is already longer than I wanted. I will talk about justification in the future.

Edited September 21, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Brother Adam]

Briguy,

You are right that parables are meant to teach a lesson. While they themselves are not doctrine in themselves, they can teach us about doctrine. This parable was a tool I was trying to use to teach, or at least discuss the doctrine of justification and within that, the doctrine of OSAS. That is all. I believe scripture teaches us in many other ways, throughout the whole theme of God's written revelation to us, and in specific passages. Perhaps that should be left to a different time though.

I do agree that God establishes a covenant with a group of people. Those covenants of the OT are slowly extended to allow more and more people to enter the covenant. First we start with just Adam and Eve. A family. The next Covenant extends then outward to Moses and his children. We then extend further out to a tribe, then to a nation, and finally, ending the typology, to all the earth in the New Covenant. These covenant types of the Old Testament are useful for exploring the New Covenant.

We would both agree that no one is automatically born into the New Covenant. A Jew was circumcised to become a member of the Old Covenant. We as Catholics believe we must be "born again", or "regenerated", or "adopted as children of God" (all meaning the same thing - to be born again is also to be regenerated), in order to enter the forever family of God. We believe that this is why baptism is so significant. While a few Protestant groups believe that baptism can only hold symbolic value, most groups from Lutherans to Angelicans to Catholics all believe that baptism plays the role of adoption in the Christian family.

And as was said, we don't believe a Christian can "divorce" God, that is go from being a baptized member of God's family to being outside of the family again. This is why we do not practice rebaptism.

Have you ever considered reading "A Father Who Keeps His Promises"? I'd be very interested in your input on this book, what you agree with or disagree with it. It is all about our covenant relationship with God. If I had a copy I'd let you borrow it. I know it can be annoying to get "book references" in discussion, but reading and studing of course helps lead us in new directions in our life more than online debate or discussion. I wouldn't expect that you would become Catholic based only on our discussion, as I know you would not expect the opposite.

I will leave it at that for now! So far, I don't see our ideas about a covenant relationship as being all that far off. The basics seem to be there.

God Bless,
Bro. Adam

[Briguy]

C of A, Hope you are well today!

Your first two scriptures support my beliefs probably better then they do yours. The third is different and must be read in context.

"9] For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[10] Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
[11] And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
[12] The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
[13] Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
[14] But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.

There is a theme here about the ending of a period in a persons life where they were doing certain things and get away from them. Paul here is appealing to us on how we should live. We should live in light and do the things of the "light". Darkness should be put away. The people here were in some serious sin at one time. As we mature we live more in the light and Paul says that time to fully mature should be happening now. We are frowing to be like Christ and that time to be with Him is near and so we should be ready. Takinf Rom. 13:11 as an island can be deceiving.

I have answers for the Cor. verses but willonly put them if you want me to. Again, context is everything, those verses do not stand alone.

BTW, sorry about the typing/spelling errors, I am trying to go very fast and have no time to spell check.

Circumcision is an interesting topic when thinking of Baptism and in all honesty they are notalike. For one thing. Only a male can be circumsized and so females entered into the covenant without it. Therefore Cir. was a "sign" of the covenant, not the way it was entered into. Baptism in that way is a "sign" of the covenant. It was for the early church a way to indenify with "the way". It was signing on the dotted line. Once you were baptized it opened you up to persecution because those around new you were serious about who you were following. We idenify in other ways now. Baptism is fine and all but it has never been the entrance into a relationship with God but it was and can be an important "sign" to that effect. Paul clearly seperates the the gospel and baptism in first Corinthians 1 and even states he is glad he baptized only a very few people, because Baptism was confusing people and it wasn't important compared to the "gospel". Covenants have always been entered in by Faith/trust. Adam, when you wree married it was not the ceremony that was important but the fact that you love and trust your wife and have faith that she loves you and will never leave you. The celebration of the day is the "sign" that you were married, your hearts joining - 2 becoming 1, is when you were really married(joined together). So, it is with Christ, we trust in faith and join with Him and the 2 become 1 and He dwells in us. It is the joining of hearts that makes the relationship, within the covenant. There will be no more covenants, because God has come in the flesh to seal the deal. No new new covenants will come to this earth. It is pure logic that now that we are in the final covenant time, one sealed by God's own fleshly blood, that it would be an eternal covenant, perfect in every way and one where in His perfect faith He will never let us go. Praise be to God who is faithful to the end, even if I, in the flesh am not.

In Love and Truth,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

Greetings in the name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Briguy,

I'll leave Cure of Arc to answer his portion even though its tempting :-D

You have almost described a sacrament to the letter in your marriage illustration. A sacrament can be described as "an outward sign of an inner change". In baptism there is an outward sign of being united with Christ, and an inward change, entering into the New Covenant.

As you have illustrated this takes place in marriage. A real change is taking place, something that most Protestants accept - 2 become 1! It isn't "only symbolic" but by the grace of God something of a miracle happens. This favor of God, and real mysterious change in our lives is not limited solely to marriage. God also instituted baptism, communion, ordination, anointing, and confession as times when God is truly giving us his favor, grace, in a special way in our lives. A change does not occur in our souls only in marriage.

Wow! It is so strange being on the flip side of this conversation! I was asking the same questions and making the exact same points only a couple of years ago. Eerie.

Now naturally, Catholics will put a certian amount of emphesis on the history of the Church when discussing doctrine. Not to be taken as exclusive evidence or proof, but much like "Exhibit A" in a courthouse.

What strikes me as odd in the respect to the Early and even Middle Church is never an eyebrow raised when baptism is taught as a sacrament. In fact, the Church was teaching it since biblical times, and baptism wasn't taught as symbolic only as a norm until you leave not only Luther, but all Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, and other Protestant Churches. You have to dive all the way to Zwingli to get a protest that baptism is symbol only.

I would go more into this, but I know for you right now, it's gotta basically all come from scripture, so perhaps down the road we can get into it more.

First I would like to go to the Prophets - Ezekiel 3:25 specifically, but please read all of chapter 25 (yup, context is even important to Catholics ). We see this as a prophecy of baptism. No mention is made here of symbolic cleansing. Cause and Effect. Of course, this is only exhibit A.

Zech. 13:1 - Here again is a prophecy that doesn't mention symbolism. Our fountian is Jesus Christ who provides baptism for us. He is our real and efficacious Savior and institutes a means of grace for us. An outward sign of a real inward change.

1 Peter 3:18-21 really does it for me, as the flood was not a symbol but really happened. And people were really saved. The writer tells us that as such baptism saves. Not as if it removed dirt from our bodies, but that it cleanses us on the inside. Even if you were to say that baptism can't have anything to do with being adopted as children of God, you have to admit that it's pretty hard to see baptism as a symbol where God does not act in any way to bring grace into our lives.

Matthew 3:16-17 - In the baptism of Jesus, it was not a mere symbolic event as anyone would agree with. At this moment in the Jordan, heaven comes to earth.

In Acts 2:38 Peter does not preach that baptism is a symbol, even if you do use the fact that he says "Repent" preceding "and be baptized" which can be addressed later.

Acts 22:16 - is a call to be baptized. The language used is hardly symbolic.

Galatians 3:27 - Notice the language here: Those who are baptized in Christ are ----> clothed in Christ. An inward change has taken place. Not "all who believe in Christ are clothed in Christ".

Titus 3:4-7 - Pauls words here are actually best rendered "the washing of regeneration". No hint of symbolism is given.

Matthew 28:19 - baptism results in discipleship.

Again, I offer all of these as "exhibits".

I wish I had more time to write, I have so much more to say, but I'm working 70 maybe more hours this week (5a-8p today). Hopefully someone else can pick up in areas where I am lacking.

I used as sources in this post: The NIV Bible, Zondervan Publishing; Catholic Doctrine in Scripture: A guide to the Verses that are Key to the Catholic Faith; The Catechism of the Catholic Church; and A Dictionary of Early Church Beliefs.

God Bless and be with you this evening,

His Servant,
Bro. Adam

[Theoketos]

What no dice from my response, should I chalk that up as a victory? Just kidding, of course I would not. Maybe I did not make any sense *goes back to read*

[Briguy]

Theoketos, I guess I thought I answered you in a general way. You spoke about free will. The free will/election debate is one that will exist until the end. That is because both ideas are taught in scripture. I am not a theologian by any stretch and could argue this from both sides. I think in reality God in His perfectness has inter-woven these two things so close together they become one. I thnik the thing to deal withis in John 17. We are given as a gift from the Father to the Son. How we get to the Father we can leave go but the fact that we are given can't be avoided. The issue you struggle with is whether someone can say that they reject God and still go to Heaven. Here is where we return to justification. We are not justified by our actions and getting upset with God and saying we don't want Him anymore or we wish He would go away, is an action. Here is the most important thing I have ever understood about God and grace. God sees our hearts directly. He does not have to wade through a sea of doubt, failures, successes, good works, bad deeds, etc... - yes, God see directly into the heart of every person and that is where His judgement begins and ends. Whether we go to Heaven or hell is decided right in the heart not out in the world where we "work out our faith". You see, we do good for God to be justified in the eyes of the world. We can't show God anything by what we do because He sees the heart directly. the world can only see what we do and can only judge us by what they see. So, free will, yes free to accept the blood of Jesus as an ultimate perfect sacrifice and so be cleansed for eternity in the sight of the Father. Free to not be a Son, once we are a Son, nope!!! My son will always be my son, there is no way around that regardless of what he says or thinks. I am God's son because i was born again. Just as Nicodemas(sp?) could not go back into his mothers whom we can't go back into the spiritual womb and be unborn. Unborn is not a logical concept by any stretch.

Adam, more on your last post later,

Thanks for the great discussion and charity in all the posts. This is what I had expected to see here.

In Christian Love,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

Briguy,

Just a quick comment. This is what is so neat about being in a Church instead of a denomination for me. When two ideas could possibly be seen in scripture, there is an authority to settle the matter, just as the St. Paul did on matters for the Churches in his day that they couldn't agree on or were moving in the wrong direction.

I suppose that is ultimately what it always comes down to is a discussion on authority which we can hopefully have sometime here.

You've also found what I love about Phatmass - great discussion and charity! Beats the pants off other message boards where anger and name-calling abound.

I'll await your reply to my previous post!

His Servant,
Bro. Adam

[St. Catherine]

Sorry this is Cure

Edited September 24, 2004 by St. Catherine

[Cure of Ars]

Ok right mug and everything...

[quote]C of A, Hope you are well today![/quote]

I'm doing ok, although I am missing Survivor.

[quote]Your first two scriptures support my beliefs probably better then they do yours.[/quote]

You make a claim but you don’t give support for it. It really is not self evident and the reason that I do not see what you see is because you are bringing a different paradigms to the scriptures than me. But to just ignore the difference, chalk on up for you and assume that I should see what you see is really begging the question. We need to lay our paradigms on the table and show which one is true.

It is also hard because I am basically left with guessing what your paradigm is. So if I am putting thoughts into your head, that you do not hold, please correct me.

In your paradigm it is not possible for works to be a part of salvation. Faith and works are totally separate realities. But in my paradigm this is not the case. Faith and works cannot be separated in my view. If fact, it is unbiblical to separate the two because faith itself is a work. (Thess 1:3)

In my paradigm salvation is not a one-time event although it has a beginning. Salvation is processes just like education. I can really say that I was educated when I finished college, I am being educated now, and I will be educated in the future. Same thing can be said in regards to salvation biblically. But if salvation is a one-time past event in the Christian life then it should only be talked about in the past tense but never as a process or as being done in the future.

For example, getting my BA degree is a one time past completed event for me. But it does not make sense to say, “work out your BA degree” because it is already done. It does not make sense to say “through your education you obtain your BA” because I have already obtained my BA. It makes no sense to say, “our BA is nearer” and so forth and so on.

So let me address your response;


[quote]There is a theme here about the ending of a period in a persons life where they were doing certain things and get away from them. Paul here is appealing to us on how we should live. We should live in light and do the things of the "light". Darkness should be put away. The people here were in some serious sin at one time. As we mature we live more in the light and Paul says that time to fully mature should be happening now. We are frowing to be like Christ and that time to be with Him is near and so we should be ready. Takinf Rom. 13:11 as an island can be deceiving.[/quote]

I don’t see how the context you give fixes the situation for you.

“And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is [b]our salvation nearer[/b] than when [b]we believed[/b].”

Paul is specifically placing himself into what he is saying and he is talking about salvation drawing nearer. Now I can’t get nearer to my BA unless I have a time machine because it is a past event. What you need to do is explain to me how Paul and other believers were drawing nearer to their salvation?


Now on to Survivor, God bless

Edited September 24, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Briguy]

Adam, I will quickly tackle a couple of your scriptures just to show there is different rendering for the verses.

Acts 2:38 Adam, unless you are jewish this verses is not even for you. It is not for me either. It is a response from Peter to a question, from a group of jewish folks who said, "What should we do?" They were upset in the realization that they had killed the Messiah and so Peter says to the people of Isreal that they need to repent and be baptized, this would put them in a position to be saved but does not represent a saving act. In this case this is a jewish baptism for repentance and holds nothing for Gentiles in 2004.

For the Tit. Verses I added a couple more

[3] For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another.
[4] But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
[5] Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
[6] Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
[7] That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.
[8] This is a faithful saying, and these things I will that thou affirm constantly, that they which have
believed in God might be careful to maintain good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.

There is no mention of water Baptism in the whole chapter. Look at verse 3. Those things are what the people in question were doing. The washing is a cleaning of those nasty things they were doing in verse 3. He says that they were saved “not by works” i.e. not by what they have done but by God’s mercy alone and that mercy cleansed then from what they had been in verse 3. My pastor once said of verse 5 “That is a dry verse”

1 Peter 3:
18] For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
[19] By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
[20] Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
[21] The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
[22] Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

We could spend days on this concept but real briefly. Did the water save Noah and his family??? No Way, They were saved because they were considered to be righteous first and therefore they were saved from judgement. They were not saved by the water or the Arc, they were saved because the were true believers in God the Father. God then used the Arc and the water to let them survive judgement. So, in that light, does water saved us?? No way, it is a good conscience toward God, in other words a Heart that is right with God. Water here is truly symbolic. It did not save Noah and it does not save us, it is however representative of a few things including it can wash the outside to show us how the inside can be cleansed.

Adam I could offer meanings to the other verses as well. None of them really in depth support your assertions

C. of A. I will respond to you later. Thanks again for the fun discussion. You guys really do know your doctrine and have presented good sound arguments.

In Christ,
Brian

[Brother Adam]

Hi Brian,

I am leaving for Ohio this morning and won't be back until next weekend. I've emailed a couple of friends of mine like Cure to answer for me in my stead. They sure are smart folks. Dust, the webmaster here warned me before coming to this website that he "held no responsibility if I convert as many of the Protestants who come here do". lol. oops.

But yeah, some of the scholars and debaters here are amazing. I asked someone last night to respond to your three verses and explainations you gave and he made my head spin. I can only hope to gain half as much knowledge as peeps such as Cure, phatcatholic, and apotheon.

Have a great week everyone. I'll be working down in Ohio and will try to get on periodically. God Bless!

Bro. Adam

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Briguy' date='Sep 24 2004, 09:30 AM'] Adam, I will quickly tackle a couple of your scriptures just to show there is different rendering for the verses.
[/quote]
What translation are you using?

[Cure of Ars]

Hello Briguy,

I first want to apologize for the length of this post. There is a lot of ground to cover I just want to lay it down on the table, then we can go back and pick different aspects if you want.

Again I want to challenge the paradigm that you are bringing to the Bible. I am guessing that you do not like the idea of God using physical matter to give grace. This paradigm is very unbiblical. The incarnation itself proves this as well as Jesus spiting on dirt to make mud to cure blindness and such. But this unbiblical paradigm is making you have to give strained and tenuous interpretive explanations that are not needed and are not in the context of the passage to try to make baptism fit into only being a symbol. So please show me why God does not use matter to give grace? Again I am guessing with this. If this is not part of you paradigm please correct me.


[quote]
Acts 2:38 Adam, unless you are Jewish this verses is not even for you. It is not for me either.
[/quote]


There is nothing in the context that would suggest this. Peter is a Christian not a Judiazer. What would be the point of attaching a Jewish symbol with the gift of the holy Spirit? (for more context also see Acts 1:5) It makes more sense that Peter was following the Lord’s last command to Baptize (Matt 28:18).

Using scripture to interpret scripture, it is rather clear that Baptism is an essential part of salvation not just a symbol. Here are some biblical verses to show this;

[quote]Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. (Mark 16:16)[/quote]


[quote]I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you.  I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts.  I will put my spirit within you and make you live by my statutes, careful to observe my decrees. (Ezeikiel 36:25-26) [/quote]


[quote]Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.  For if we have grown into union with him through a death like his, we shall also be united with him in the resurrection. (Rom 6:3) [/quote]


[quote]For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. (Gal 3:27) [/quote]


[quote] Jesus said to him, "Whoever has bathed has no need except to have his feet washed, for he is clean all over; so you are clean, but not all." (John 13:10) [/quote]



[quote]
There is no mention of water Baptism in the whole chapter.
[/quote]


[quote]“washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost”[/quote]


This is clearly talking about baptism because it has the three components that makes up baptism, water and the spirit = new life.

[quote] Jesus answered and said to him, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above." Nicodemus said to him, "How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother's womb and be born again, can he?"
Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of flesh is flesh and what is born of spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I told you, 'You must be born from above.' (John 3:3-7)[/quote]


This passage is talking about baptism. It has the elements of water and spirit = new life. In context this passage is sandwiched between two accounts of baptism. First when Jesus was baptized and then when Jesus started to baptize. In context, spirit and water is throughout the bible pointing to baptism, salvation and new life. Here are some examples;

Gen 1:2
Gen 8:9/ 1 Peter 3:21
Ezekiel 36:25
John 1:33
Acts 1:5 and 2:38
Titus 3:10

[quote]
They were not saved by the water or the Arc, they were saved because the were true believers in God the Father.
[/quote]

You are directly contradicting what the passage says. It is not saying water symbolically saves you. It does not say God saves you. It literally says “baptism” saves you.

[quote]“This [saved through water] prefigured baptism, which saves you now.[/quote]


You are not making the distinction between the principal cause and instrumental cause because in your paradigm instrumental causes are not possible (again guessing) but in reality both are essential. What would have happened if Noah just made a symbol of an arc because he did not like the instrumental cause? Was the arc a symbol only? If you reject the instrument you reject the source. As an instrument of God’s grace it is totally appropriate and biblical to say that baptism saves.

You would have the passage say that a symbol of a symbol saves which does not make sense. If something is prefigured it is inherently greater than that which is only a shadow of it. (I can give examples if needed) But if baptism is only a symbol then it is less that the arc. This is because the arc truly saved them and not only in a symbolic sense but in a literal sense.

Brother Adam has me worken overtime. Hopefully he will be back next weekend and will be able to pick up this conversation with you.

Your brother in Christ

Edited September 25, 2004 by Cure of Ars

[Briguy]

Hi Cure, I owe you an explanation from page 4 but would like to respond to your last post first, before I lose my train of thought. One point I see is that you tend, not always though, but tend to use scripture in one verse incriments, that is not usualy a good thing to do as context dictates meaning.

Please read Acts 2:38 and the preceeding verses. Peter responds to a group of jewish people who ask him a question on behalf of the House of Isreal, God's chosen people. Any Gentile has no right to claim this statement that Peter made. He looked at the jewish people as a whole and said "Repent" and "be Baptized". The baptism here to show outwardly the repentance was real. Think back to what the people of Ninevah(sp?) did. The repentance but they also wore sackcloth and ashes. Anyway, you cannot deny that it is jews asking the question and Peter directly answering them. Actually the repent part goofs up your infant Baptism theology so my explanation in some ways helps your overall argument (just being honest here)

I am very glad you posted 4 verses of John 3. Verse 7 is the whole key to those verses. To make water here anything but water is to attach meaning to a word to achieve a desired means. The word here for water in Greek is H2o, just plain old water. The water here is simply a way for John to show the two parts of life. Spiritual and physical. Water is simply the water that comes out when a baby is born. I have seen this 3 times and believe me it is a lot of water. They would not have had a fancy medical name back then, in fact we still say a woman's "water broke".
verse 7 says it all and explains it point blank, flesh gives birth to flesh and spirit to spirit. To say the water is baptism or as some say, the word of God, both throw meanings where they do not belong. It is a simple set of scriptures, no hidden meaning here.

More to come,
Brian