It's really the majority report. The only disagreement is on whether it is water Baptism or Spirit Baptism (i.e. accepting Christ as personal Lord and Savior, etc.), or some meshing of the two (since there is but "one baptism").
Accepting that "Baptism... now saves you" is easier scripturaly than accepting that you must be "born again". Many of us get around it by defining Baptism AS being born again. (or at least being so bound up in it that it is a distinction without a difference)
First of all, I'm perfectly calm.
Get around it? The real question should be: What did Jesus mean when he said "You must be born again"? What you or I think or want it to mean is really irrelevant. He said, flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. Now you can claim whatever you wish, but the NT makes it clear that there were conversions (as evidenced by their receiving the Holy Spirit), then baptism as a testimony of their faith. Further why would Paul say, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel" (1 Cor. 1:17) if it were necessary for salvation or as you stated, actually caused the regeneration. That would be pretty outrageous behavior of an apostle, that is, tell them (preach)the truth that they needed of the good news of Christ, but left out that oh-so-necessary step that actually finished the job, now wouldn't it?