I do not think so, MM. the water referred to is figurative, not literal, and comes from Ephesians 5:26. Taking it out of context, but completely agreeable to it:
"That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, . . ."
"It" referring to the church, each unit/quantum/individual who, being washed with the written and preached water of the Word (the faith-giving Gospel) believes and is made acceptable for a new birth in the Spirit, for without the washing of the Word (the Gospel) unto regeneration, as written to Titus also by Paul:
"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; . . ." (Titus 3:5)
Jesus is not disputing with Nicodemus' rationalization of being literally born of the flesh, except by equating that being born of the Spirit requires the lost person be bathed in the amniotic fluid of God's Word as the new spiritual being is gestated with the knowledge of God in Christ without which the person cannot reach the new birth.
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for hisGod's seedWord, Ps.126:5-6, Mt. 13:8,23) remaineth in himthe person in whom the new soul is being prepared for birth into eternal life in the Spirit): and he cannot sin, because he is born of Godby the faith generated through the washing of the Word" (1 John 3:9 AV; my superscripted syntax and interpretation).
Let's not confuse the reader with the literal "amniotic fluid" (mis)interpretation. Pretty obviously, no literally born infant can be saved by literal application of literal water and thus by it receive the gift of eternal life without further intervention of God when the babe is not yet held intellectually accountable. Baptizing such infants is wholly ridiculous and asinine.
But baptizing a new-born spiritual infant into a life of discipleship accompanied by a personal admission of culpability, profession of saving and obedient faith, and willingness to receive the ritual of induction, is entirely the only legitimate form of literal use of water in salvation-related ceremony.
OK.
Anyway, what it gets down to is that *water* doesn’t necessarily mean baptism and if Jesus had meant baptism He would have said it instead of using terms that could be so easily be misunderstood. It isn’t like Jesus didn’t know what the word baptize was all about.
But some people will grab any verse out of context if they think they can use it to support their doctrine, instead of building the doctrine on the Word.
anything but faith for some folks.
Just as long as they can contribute somehow and not have to trust God alone.