This would totally be in disagreement with all that Paul wrote and preached.
Acts 26:6 - And now it is because of my hope in what God has promised our ancestors that I am on trial today.
iow, what God has promised was eternal life.
Acts 26:22-23 -
22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen—
23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.”
Paul proved that Jesus was the Messiah from "the Scriptures". From the moment he wa saved. Acts 9:20 - At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God.
Acts 20:22 - Yet Saul grew more and more powerful and baffled the Jews living in Damascus by proving that Jesus is the Messiah.
Paul only had the OT to preach from. His message of salvation said "nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen", 26:22-23.
None of these verses says that. In fact, the premier evangelist of all time, the apostle Paul, said this about baptism:
1 Cor 1:17 - For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Kind of a weird comment to make IF IF IF water baptism was necessary for salvation.
If baptism were necessary for salvation, Paul sure got it wrong. He would have emphasized water baptism along with his preaching the good news to believe in Christ.
And don't forget his answer to the jailer in Acts 16:30,31
30 He then brought them out and asked, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”
31 They replied, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.”
Yes, he did baptize the jailer. But v.31 clearly precludes water baptism for salvation.
All who will be saved, (under OT and NT alike) will be saved by Christ but what they had to obey under the OT to be saved by Christ (offering animal sacrifices) is different from what the NT requires (water baptism).
So those ALL those that are saved will be saved by Christ but the common denominator as to who Christ saves and why is
obedience to GOd's will. Those who lived under the OT law an dobedient to that law will be saved by Christ as those of us today under the NT law obey it will be saved.
________________________________
1 Corinthians 1:17 "
For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:..." This is a not-but ellipsis where Paul was told to put more emphasis on one thing (preaching) over another (baptizing) but not the the total exclusion of baptizing.
1 Corinthians 1:14,16 Paul DID baptize people therefore verse 17 cannot contradict Paul water baptizing men. Matthew 28:19-20, here in the great commission disciples, including Paul, are commanded to go, teach, baptize. It would be a contradiction within Scripture to, on one hand, command disciples to baptize but then command disciples to not baptize.
Paul used the verb "baptize" not the noun 'baptism' for nowhere ever did Paul preach baptism was not part of the gospel, just he was to spend more time on preaching rather than baptizing (verb). Why was this the case? Because those Christians in Corinth had divided themselves and following the person who had baptized them rather than all following Christ as they should have been doing. So Paul refrained from water baptizing as much as he could "
Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name", so he did not baptize because he did not want to create more division and NOT because baptism is not part of the gospel.
1 Cor 1:12 "
Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."
To heal this division of verse 12, Paul asked a rhetorical question in the negative in verse 13:
"
Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?"
Verse 1 stated in the positive would be: Christ is not divided! Christ was crucified for you, you were baptized in the name of Christ!
Pauls' point is for one to be "OF" someone then 2 things must be true of that someone. That someone must be:
#1) crucified for you
#2) you baptized in the name of that someone.
BOTH of these things must be true. Since Paul, Apollos or Cephas had not been crufied for us, nor is anyone baptized in the name of Paul, Apollos or Cephas then one cannot be OF Paul or OF Apolloos or OF Cephas or OF ANY man. For these two things are true of Christ.
Heb 2:9 Christ was crucifed for every man (#1 above) but every man will not be saved (Matthew 7:13) for every maqn will not be baptized in the name of Christ. Again,
BOTH #1 and #2
MUST be true for one to be "OF" Christ. Hence Paul uses the necessity of water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ 9Acts 2:38) to heal the dividion at Corinth in order to get all to be following Christ rather than men.
The phrase "in the name of " is a legal term. I buy a new car so I go the local court hose and register that new car "in the name of Butterball". So in the name of shows ownership. So only those who have been 'baptized in the name of Christ" have come into the ownership of Christ.
So for the jailer of Acts 16 to be OF CHRIST means Christ must have been crucified for him (which Christ was, Hebrews 2:9) and the jailer must be baptized into the name of Christ. Not until the jailers was baptized (verse 33) was he of Christ. Again, BOTH must be true not just one.
The jailer was commanded to beleive in verse 31:
-- the command to "believe", that imperative implies the jailer had both ability and responsibility to believe, he was not totally depraved unable to hear, understand, believe nor do what he was told to do.
--at the time the jailer was commanded to believe in v31 he had not yet been told WHAT to believe, that did not happen until v32. So he could not have been saved by "belief only" in verse 31.
--
after Paul told the jailer the word of the Lord in v32,
then the jailer repented (washed their stripes) and was baptized. This implies teaching repentance and baptism is part of preaching the gospel (see Acts 2:38 and Peter preached 'repent and be baptized').
--verse 34 says "
And he brought them up into his house, and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, with all his house, having believed in God." The pariciple phrase "having believed" would include all the jailer had just done which includes repenting and being baptized. Hence "believed" of verse 34 would be used as a synecdoche were it includes repentance and baptism Just as those who are said to have "believed" in Acts 2:44 were the one s who had been baptized verse 41. Again, "believed" is used as a synecdoche where it includes baptism.