If baptism by water is necessary for salvation, then it is ALWAYS necessary for salvation. However, there are instances in the Bible where salvation occurs and water baptism did not happen nor was it mentioned. Thus it is not a requirement.
Yet you use no verses to give me, so that I can see what situation you are talking about. Because, as I see it in scripture, there are NO places in ALL the new testament were someone was saved as you say.
The thief was ONLY saved because Jesus was not dead yet for the new covenant teachings to be set in place. Jesus had the power to allow the thief to be saved under the OT laws, without tweaking any new testament commands since he was not dead yet.
Is it important? YES! Is it really vital? YES! You are well versed on it's importance. However it is NOT necessary for salvation. If it's a requirement then all those that died without water baptism are not saved. That is NOT what the scripture teaches as a whole. That is what is missing often in these types of debates. Somebody days you must do this or that to be saved or stay saved. And there appear to be scriptures to support the belief. Yet the dogmatism only lasts until the first example in scripture where the demand dies not occur . When that happens the dogma falls flat. For example, you must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation. There is no place is scripture where someone was saved without believing. Thus the dogma, the doctrine is accurate and true. Baptism by water as a requirement is not true, because there are instances in the scripture of salvation without it.
First, your whole premise is contradictory. Anyone that has any reading comprehension and knowledge of the topic can see this. The bible, God's word, is not contradictory.
Second, you provide no scriptural basis for this, because there is none.
Third, you are missing the WHOLE POINT to the words "believeth/believe/faith". When someone believes, they are stirred to action. Those words are verbs, you have to DO SOMETHING.
Did you know there is a WHOLE CHAPTER in Hebrews devoted to such an explanation? Hebrews 11.
Did you know there is another book also that devotes half a chapter to explaining and referring to Hebrews 11's situation? It is James 2 verses 14 and following to the end.
The word believe, is obviously not a noun, but you are implying that it can be in being a Christian. The denominational world uses the word believe like its a noun. They want you and I to think you will be saved but just uttering "I believe" and that thats all you need to do and your good to go. That is false, plain and simple.
Fourthly, let's explain the word baptism. I will be quoting....
"The water baptism specifically mentioned in the book of Acts (e.g. Acts 8:36; 10:47). It is generally agreed that whatever the baptism is in those passages that associate the rite with salvation, it is the same type of baptism in all the verses.
In other words, the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is of the same kind as that in Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12; 1 Peter 3:21; etc.
Now take into consideration: The baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19 had human administrators.
Christ commissioned the apostles to go and make disciples, baptizing them into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Inasmuch as an apostle could not baptize “in the Spirit” (only Christ could do that — Mt. 3:11), one is forced to conclude that the baptism of Matthew 28:19 is water baptism, not Spirit baptism.
I am unaware of any reputable Bible scholar who contends otherwise. If then, the other passages that mention baptism (see above) are of the same import, it follows that they likewise refer to water baptism, not Spirit baptism."
Next point,
"Both Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 make it clear that the baptism of these passages involves both an immersion in something, and a being raised from the same substance. This makes perfectly good sense if water baptism is in view.
On the other hand, if the Spirit is the element of the baptism, this would suggest that one is buried in the Spirit, and subsequently raised from the Spirit.
This would imply further that the new convert would not have the Spirit, and therefore, would not belong to the Lord (Rom. 8:9; Gal. 4:6). This conclusion obviously is wrong — thus demonstrating that the element of the baptism in Romans 6:3-4 and Colossians 2:12 is not the Holy Spirit.
By default, it must be water baptism."
Next point,
"Water is specifically associated with baptism in 1 Peter 3:20-21.
... when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water: which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism ...
If the allusion here, then, is to water baptism, and yet 1 Peter 3:21 refers to the same sort of baptism as the other passages cited, then clearly they speak of water baptism as well."
Next point, is that baptism places you in the kingdom
"The passage that would come closest to teaching a “Spirit” baptism would be 1 Corinthians 12:13, but, the fact is, a careful analysis of related passages reveals that not even this text teaches a baptism in the Spirit.
Note the following logic: The baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 puts one into the one “body,” which is the same as the “church” (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18,24). But the church is identified with the kingdom of Christ (Mt. 16:18-19). Thus, the baptism of the text under consideration introduces one into the Lord’s kingdom.
However, a related passage demonstrates that it is through the birth of “water” that one enters Christ’s kingdom (Jn. 3:3-5). One is forced to conclude, therefore, that the baptism of 1 Corinthians 12:13 is water baptism.
In this connection, one should also carefully study Ephesians 5:26, and note the reference to the “washing of water.”"
Lastly,
"Finally, there is a principle of interpretation that is paramount in sound Bible exegesis. Frequently it is the case that Bible words will form a pattern. That is, a consideration of several passages containing a term will reveal that the word has a commonly understood significance.
Such being the case, that normal meaning is to be attached to the term unless an exceptional context suggests that it has taken on a special significance (i.e., a figurative sense).
The term “baptize,” and its cognate “baptism,” occur together about 100 times in the New Testament. A consideration of these passages will reveal that the word may, on occasion, take on a figurative application (cf. Mt. 3:11; Lk. 12:50; Acts 1:5).
Unless, though, there is clear contextual evidence that a symbolic sense has been employed, the conclusion must be that the common usage (an immersion in water) is in view.
In view of this principle, there is no reason to conclude the baptism mentioned in Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38, 22:16; Romans 6:3-4; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Galatians 3:27; Colossians 2:12, and 1 Peter 3:21 is anything other than water baptism — an act of obedience, predicated upon faith and repentance, which secures forgiveness of sins and brings one into union with Jesus Christ."
--End quotes
There really is no other way for me to put this for you. After this, we would just have to agree to disagree.
It's all about Jesus' Blood sacrifice, not water baptism.
John 1:29
29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
But his Blood was shed.
Honestly it sounds like you're rejecting Jesus' Blood atonement.
All this while you a STILL forgetting one thing.
Christ was not DEAD YET on the cross when he allowed the thief to be saved. This means they were under the OT laws, not the new covenant.
Please, if your not going to see things as clear as this, we need to just stop now, and ask different questions as to why you cant see this.
