Chad: << Titus 3:5 equates the two when it speaks of the baptism (washing) of regeneration. Regeneration is the baptism. No GNC required. >> I must once again respectfully disagree with your conclusion. This passage does not equate the two. I believe GNC is very much required here in order for your conclusions to be arrived at, and the "goodness" and "necessity" of the GNC in this case is very suspect. Specifically, gnC (lower case "g" and "n" intentional!) is required for this because: 1. Titus 3:5 nowhere equates the two. Baptism is not mentioned at all. Any linkage between the "washing" mentioned here and spiritual baptism mentioned elsewhere must be established via gnC as the text will not do it for you. I notice you have transposed the word "washing" which is in the text into the parentheses, and replaced it by "baptism" which is not in the text. You have brought this "equation" or identification to the passage. It is not apparent to me at all how it could be exegeted from it. 2. Regeneration is not the baptism. The passage speaks of the "washing of regeneration". Regeneration is not the washing. The washing is one of the effects of regeneration. To equate the two even though they are related as cause and effect is not even gnC, it goes beyond what is exegetically warranted by the text. This is as much as to say, "The cause is the effect." To go beyond this by transposing "baptism" for "washing" is to say, "The cause is what I assume the effect to be." 3. The only other occurrence of this word in the NT is in Eph. 5:26 where it is the cleansing of the Word which is explicated. Here, as in Tit. 3:5, there is no mention of baptism, and no basis for connecting this “washing” directly to baptism which would in any way justify their equation or identification. Again, what is perceived as gnC does not appear to have any exegetically tenable basis. Note: I am well aware of what A. Oepke writes in Gerhard Kittel’s _TDNT_ (IV:295-307), and what G. R. Beasley-Murray writes in Colin Brown’s _NIDNTT_ (I:143-153) on this and related terms. I take special notice of Beasley-Murray’s use of the qualifier “apparently” (I:153). Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Scriptura, John T. “Jack” Jeffery