Which again makes you the initiator of faith. Grace is no longer a gift, then. It appears that you are saying that God only will regenerate those who show proper faith... Sounds like works salvation to me, so I must be misunderstanding you?
From the human POV, regeneration is one of the stops that all of the elect will make on a "closed track". During this required pit-stop, the Spirit climbs aboard, and the elect are changed. The one of the elect switches out of the driver's seat and into the back seat, and the Spirit drives the rest of the way.
Salvational grace is certainly a gift in the sense that we do not merit it, and that we have nothing to do with its generation. It is also a gift that the elect may not refuse. (In our common human experience there are many examples, especially involving our children, of gifts that are not free to be refused.) The only initiator and creator of faith is God.
What about when Peter compares the Israelites crossing the Red Sea and comparing it to Baptism? It is for the remission of sins. Or do you deny that the Scriptures say this?
Well, I found Paul talking about the Israelites, and Peter talking about Noah. (1 Cor. 10:1-4, which corresponds to 1 Pet. 3:18-22.) I hope this is what you are talking about. In both cases they were making comparisons, and in neither case did the water do the saving. For Moses, it was his faith that saved them, not the water itself. Likewise, it was not the flood that saved Noah, it was the Ark, i.e., his faith also. Both were symbolic of transitions from the old into the new, just as Baptism is today.
Besides, we are already told in scripture of when Peter witnessed first hand the salvation of others BEFORE their Baptisms:
Acts 10:44-48 : 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
You can't praise God and speak in tongues without being saved. The Holy Spirit was upon them and their sins were already remitted, BEFORE Baptism. So, obviously Peter knew for sure that Baptism did not save and did not remit sins. He saw it with his own eyes.
This is a terrible, non-Biblical analogy... Over and over, the Bible tells us that the "Spirit gets off the bus" when we sin... And you again seem to believe that we are puppets who are no longer responsible for our actions. The back seat driver is not responsible for the driver's actions. Thus, who EXACTLY is the winner of the race? WHO is judged? The Spirit's driving skills? Please.
It is also a gift that the elect may not refuse.
Another non-Biblical concept. The bible tells us that man can refuse to Holy Spirit's graces, can grieve Him.
In both cases they were making comparisons, and in neither case did the water do the saving
You should read the Scriptures more before you make such comments...
"Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. the like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save us . (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ" 1 Peter 3:20-21
Besides, we are already told in scripture of when Peter witnessed first hand the salvation of others BEFORE their Baptisms: Acts 10:44-48
Another non-Biblical concept. First, nowhere in Acts 10 does Peter say that the persons with the Spirit prior to Baptism were already SAVED! The Spirit existing within man does NOT mean He is saved... In Romans 2, the Spirit comes to EVERY PERSON and writes a Law onto them. Thus, He has entered EVERY PERSON. Does this mean EVERY PERSON are now saved?
You can't praise God and speak in tongues without being saved.
Define "saved". It is not just a one-time event. There is your confusion. Just like a person can get sick, and be healed and get sick again, a man also can be saved, sin, and be saved again...
"Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up" James 5:14-15
Hmmm. The saved are being saved again...
Regards
It is clear here that St.Paul was unaware of the command Jesus gave the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost [Mat 28:19].
It is also evident from St.Luke's account of the Acts of the Apostles that St.Paul believed he was ordained to take the gospel (his gospel) to the Gentiles, yet it is clear that Jesus, Whom St.Paul did not know when He was on earth, gave the commandment to "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations" [Mat 28:19]
Yet, reading St.Luke's account, who was following St.Paul, it seems that the Apostles were oblivious to this, as it fell upon St.Paul to evangelize the Gentiles.
Again, St.Paul's Epistles were written before the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which means that despite all the claims to the contrary, there was little communication between St.Paul and the Apostles. Otherwise, they would have told him of the Lord's commandment to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity and not in the name of Jesus Christ.
It is even more curious that the Gospels, being written after St.Paul's Epistles, make no reference to that, and in fact teach that Jesus specifically instructed St.Peter not to evangelize the Gentiles, but the 12 tribes of Israel, whom He had to have known would reject His teachings!
The message of St.Matthew is clear: the gospels and the judgment were understood to be for the 12 tribes of Israel and not all the nations of the world! [Mat 19:28]
It is also somewhat curious that St.Peter, who would have been aware of the Lord's commandment to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity would use St.Paul's "formula" [Act 2:38]
Or was the Trinitarian baptismal formula inserted into the 4th century copies we have? Judging from the rest of the NT, none was aware of that single commandment reported only by St.Matthew.
And were references to "all nations" also a "politically correct" insertion to the same time at a later date, when the Gospels otherwise seem to refer to only the 12 tribes of Israel being saved and judged?