farouk, just because some verses don't mention baptism doesn't mean that baptism isn't necessary. Many texts which speak of belief do not mention repentance, yet we know that repentance is necessary to salvation. The thing is, many texts emphasize that we are to be baptized, that baptism joins us in Christ's death and that baptism is tied with our cleansing of sin. Just because there are texts that don't deal with the specifics of baptism doesn't discount all the texts that do.
Just want to clarify that while I finally understood what Ernest T. was saying, I don't necessarily agree with it.
I think it all really comes back to the thief on the cross. Ernest T. and others seem to believe that this isn't a valid case of someone in the NT coming to salvation without baptism... I believe it is. I've found those that discount the testimony of the thief on the cross tend to drag in assumptions that he "must have" been baptized by John or someone previous to his death on the cross. I pretty much reject that out right... There is no reason to add that dimension to the testimony since the bible gives absolutely no grounds for believing it. Much is made of the fact that he seems familiar with the story... as if anyone in Jerusalem wasn't aware of who Jesus was by now. They had already seen Barabbas freed in place of Jesus, so they knew at least the basics of the fact that a man who did nothing more than preach was being crucified in place of a known criminal. The only reason to make the jump from the fact that the thief knew of Jesus to the idea that he "must have been previously baptized" would be simply to bolster the claim that no one can ever be saved without water baptism.... something the Bible does not say.
Also, Ernest brought up this:
Again, the thief is not an example of NT salvation so the thief is a bad argument anyway. Rom 10:9 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." At the time the thief was promised paradise, Christ had not yet died much less been raised from the dead, so the thief could not have the NT belief that saves which Paul requires in this verse. At the time the thief was promised paradise, he and Christ were both alive and under the OT law. Acts 2:38 came into effect some time later after the thief died. We today who live after Acts 2:38 are accountable to it.
I respectfully disagree with this as well, Ernest. First, the thief did confess his faith in the fact that Jesus was not going to remain dead... even as they both hung there on the cross, the thief, by faith, said, "Remember me when You come into Your kingdom." In a way, his faith was even greater, because he believed even more than what the disciples at the time believed... that Jesus was obviously not going to remain in death but be coming into His kingdom. We tend to forget that resurrection was a teaching of the time...one the thief believed regarding Jesus.
I also disagree with the idea that somehow Acts 2:38 is a line of demarcation in how people are saved. Jesus, John and the disciples were already baptizing for the repentance of sins... the only difference is now the Holy Spirit had come... something all the OT people and even the thief could only hope in faith for. But, we know from Hebrews 11 that those who hoped in faith were saved just as we are, by the work of Christ on the cross, something the thief recognized and believed.
And finally there is this from Ernest T.:
Mk 16:16 is a compound sentence. The first part deals with salvation the second with condemnation. If one desires to be saved look at the first part and believe and be baptized. If one desires to be lost, look to the second part and simply not believe. One does not have to both not believe and not be baptized to be lost, unbelief is sufficient.
Moreover, in the first part, the conjunction "and" ties belief to baptism making them inseparable and of equal importance. This means baptism is just as necessary to salvation as belief is.
Lastly, in the first part Jesus made belief a prerequisite to being baptized. No one can be scripturally baptized without first believing. So when Jesus said "he that believeth not" that phrase automatically includes not being baptized.
Now, I don't disagree with what you say here, except that none of this deals with the fact that there have been people who have came into belief, but yet, through no fault of their own, were unable to be baptized prior to their imminent death.
If Jesus had said, "Anyone who disbelieves or has not been baptized will be condemned" then I would agree, there could be no situation in which an unbaptized person, including the thief, could be saved. But, He did not say that, anymore than the Scriptures say that the thief had been baptized previously.
So, bottom line for me, baptism is most necessary, but if one believes, repents and desires to be baptized, then gets slammed by a truck, God in His mercy will deal with the person's heart, not the fact that... "Gee, I know you believed in Me, repented of your sins and begged forgiveness and would have loved to have been baptized, but too bad... that truck got you before you could. So, off to eternal damnation for you!"
