The eunuch and the jailer and his family were indeed baptized but there is no scriptural record that Philip or Paul told their converts that baptism was required for salvation.
Since we modern Christians make such a fuss about there being no salvation without baptism it seems strange that neither Philip nor Paul said that to their converts in the vss. cited.
There is no question about what Jesus taught in Matt and Mk. The disciples were assuredly commanded to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:" But those verses do not say "Teaching them that baptism is required for salvation." And there is no record that the eunuch and the jailer knew of those verses.
.....Modern Christians have isolated all the NT verses pertaining to baptism and built, in their minds, a rock solid case for baptismal generation. Unfortunately for this argument none of the persons who were baptized in the NT had the letters that list those verses.
Please refrain from misrepresenting what I say. Of course, Peter's writings are relevant and important for modern day Christians but if the eunuch and the jailer could not possibly have had access to those writings they are not relevant to the discussion of the baptism of those two individual. Nor are they relevant to the discussion of others baptized in Acts e.g.; Lydia, Acts 16:15; Crispus, Acts 18:8; disciples at Ephesus, Acts 19:5.
Then please show me verses which say baptism is required for salvation? I don't mean a few isolated verses that, when put together irrespective of their individual context, you infer that they mean baptism is required for salvation.
Obviously in the first century, the bible was in the process of being written, so they did not have a completed bible to read, they were being taught by the apostles....and Peter and Paul taught the same gospel. Peter commanded baptism in His gospel sermons, so would Paul. When Paul was known as Saul he went about persecuting the church including the congregation in Jerusalem. Galatians 1:23 Paul now preacheth (present tense) the faith he once destroyed. Part of the faith at Jerusalem Saul went about to destroy was Acts 2:38 which Paul "now preacheth".
I have already given sufficient proof in other posts:
1) Christ did not teach belief only saves therefore His disciples would not/did not teach belief only saves either.
2) in the great commission, water baptism is how disciples are made
2) NT belief includes baptism
3) how belief is used in various verses as a synecdoche where it includes baptism:
The participle phrase "having believed" in Acts 16:34
INCLUDES his being baptized in verse 33 just as the participle "believed" in Acts 2:44
INCLUDES those baptized in verse 41.
What has not, and cannot be shown, is where those under the NT gospel were taught baptism is NOT essential to salvation.
1) Demonstrate to me that the eunuch and the jailer were taught baptism was not necessary. A Baptist preacher, for example, will teach baptism is not necessary but where did a NT disciple/Apostle ever teach such a thing?
2) And if baptism were NOT essential to salvation and not part of the the gospel when the gospel is preached, then what biblical logical reason can you give that both the eunuch and jailer were baptized immediately after they were preached to?
