Jn 3:22 “immediately”Still ignoring the facts of the New Testament: Jesus forgave sins without baptizing people. Still ignoring the fact none of the verses cited state what they were claimed to say.
Calvin believed baptism was salvific, so you're contradicting yourself when you argue for baptismal regeneration and against Calvin. Furthermore, this is the theology board, not the Calvinism board (or the Catholic board), so you're once again, entering a thread and making it all about RCCism and Cal-ragging when either are necessary. The meaning of "born again, can and should be discussed without pre-existing doctrinal bias. Many of the ECFs clearly thought baptism required but they were asserting a religious doctrinal, institutional view, not scripture, not the precedent established in scripture (I suspect at least a few of them would acknowledge that fact were they present to address that matter). The fact remains, many in the gospels had sins forgiven without being baptized. Whether it is now Church policy or not is immaterial to the point being made: forgiveness of sin is not dependent upon water baptism...... and that has nothing to do with being born anew from above or born again. Water baptism was not what Jesus' reference when he spoke about "unless one is born of water." We know that because there were many whose sins were forgiven without having been baptized. Jesus did not say that and then go out and about contradicting himself in word and deed. Your posts use the word "regeneration" many times, but they do not actually answer the question asked. You are, once again, mucking up another's thread for the sake of your own agenda.
I support water baptism, but it does not answer the question asked: "What does it mean to be born again?"
After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
Notice they did not preach “faith alone”!!!