"He saved us . . . by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit . . . so that we might be justified by his grace" (Titus 3:5–7). This "washing of regeneration" is baptism.
Not at all. Baptism isn't mentioned at all in this passage, that is you smashing your own concept into the word washing. The phrase, "...
washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit..." is talking about the washing and cleansing of sin that occurs when you recieve the Holy Spirit, when you put off the old man and put on the new. It has nothing to do with water baptism. Not at all.
The conjunction of water and the Holy Spirit brings us to John 3:5: "Unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."
Jesus once again isn't speaking of water baptism in this passage. He is talking about the physical birth, born of water, and then the spiritual birth, born of the Spirit. He is correcting Nicodemus who thought that you had to be born twice out of your mother's womb. Jesus says, No, you must be born physically, and then born spiritually, not physically twice. If Jesus was talking about the absolute necessity of water baptism as well as spiritual baptism, such an absolute which is found in the word "
cannot" then the Scriptures were broken when the thief on the cross recieved salvation. He wasn't baptized by water, and yet, according to you, unless one is baptized by water, he
cannot see the kingdom of God. So either Jesus lied, the Scriptures were broken, or you are misinterpreting the text. Jesus can't lie, the Scriptures can't be broken, and therefore, you are misinterpreting the text.
If baptism were just an ordinance and not a sacrament, why would Peter bother to include it in his instruction?
You are taking this particular historical circumstance and teaching it as an absolute when there are other circumstances in the same book that clearly teach that you recieve the Holy Spirit
before you are baptized.
First off, look at the word repent. Can a dead man make a decision that he isn't going to be dead anymore? Can he have a change of heart and think to himself, "Ya know, I think I'm going to start to live today..." No. Unconverted men are dead in trespasses and sins and are literally in bondage to sin and taken captive by the devil at his will. They couldn't repent if they tried. Esau sought repentance with tears and didn't find it. Judas sought repentance and didn't find it. Why is that? Because repentance is God-given. Repentance isn't a dead man picking himself up with his dead hand by his bootstraps and deciding to live again, it is a gift from God.
"Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to
give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins."
"When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified God, saying, “Then God has also
granted to the Gentiles repentance to life.â€Â
"...in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will
grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth..."
So if God decided to grant these men repentance unto life, then He is also going to grant them faith, and upon believing is when you are sealed by the Spirit. Also if a God grants a man repentance, then the Holy Spirit is already at work in him.
"In whom you also trusted, after that you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that you believed, you were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise."
Notice how he says after you believed, you were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise, not after you were baptized. Once God grants a man repentance and faith, He then seals Him with the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit doesn't automatically come down upon water baptism. God may have ordered it to work that way in that one particular moment in history when Peter gave His sermon, but it is by no means the absolute norm. Men in the book of Acts laid their hands on men and they recieved the Spirit. The Spirit was given to men before they were baptized. You are taking a verse from historical narrative and stating it as the absolute norm and teaching heresy as a result, while at the same time ignoring other places in the narritive where the Spirit comes in different ways.
Peter is combining what Jesus commanded him to teach by telling them to repent and be baptized as converts into the faith, he isn't necessarily giving a chronological order as an absolute and how it works every time. You can't take one verse in a historical narrative and say that this is how God works every time, especially in light of the fact that in the same book God grants the Holy Spirit to people before water baptism.
""you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified" (1 Cor. 6:11)"
By washing once again he isn't talking about water baptism. He is talking about the washing of regeneration which is done by the Holy Spirit to cleanse us of our sins. You are taking the word wash literally as if the water was the entity that was taking away our sin. The Holy Spirit is what washes us in regeneration, not water, and we have established that He comes not always only after and upon baptism, but at different times and in different ways according to God's will. God isn't in your box and definition because you want to take a verse from historical narrative and decide it is going to be the absolute norm.