Is Baptism necessary for Salvation?

[Carry_Your_Name]

So, you're implying that works save. Is that what you really want to teach? Doesn't "all" mean all? Shouldn't "all the nations" mean what it says, which would include everyone? Are there not Gentile followers of Christ? Since when does the word "Gentile" separate Gentile believers from Gentile non-believers? Does it not separate Jew from non-Jew?

If “all nations” include everyone, then who are the “brethren”? Illegal aliens? Homeless bums? I’ve heard this socialist message all the time that emphasizes and elevates philanthropic works, is that what you’re implying? Lord Jesus was clear in Matt. 12:48-50, “and he stretched out his hand toward his disciples and said, ‘here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’ ” I “imply” as much as Lord Jesus himself did.

It really isn't tricky. The two parables show that not all who profess Christ belong to Christ and are known by him. This is all carryover from chapter 24 and Jesus answering his disciples' questions regarding signs of the end of the age and Christ's return, ending with the comparison of a "faithful and wise servant" to a "wicked servant." As, I stated, the five wise virgins are those true followers of Christ and the five foolish are those who merely profess to be followers but are not. This is also the same in the parable of the talents, with the "wicked and slothful" servant not being a true servant.

Except the first two address his servants, the last one addressed the NATIONS, on a much broader scale. The best example is Joshua 2, where Rahab the harlot harbored the two spies. When Jericho fell, she and her family were spared, and her name was listed in Jesus’s genealogy.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

The rest of Matt 25 is about the final judgement and everyone will be there, not just Gentiles, not just unbelievers. The works that the sheep and goats did do not save them, but rather are proof of who is saved and who is not. Even Christians will be judged on how they treated fellow believers, that is not exclusive to unbelievers, nor to Gentiles only.

No, Christians are already judged in the previous two parables. If you’re so against work, then what are the investment of talents and the preparation of oil about? Are those “works”? And what sets “my brethren” apart from the sheep and goats? How are they not judged in this one?

 

[Dave...]

Not a lot of time. Jesus is called the second Adam. We wouldn't have needed Him if the first Adam didn't fail. One sin.

 

[Free]

If “all nations” include everyone, then who are the “brethren”?

It’s in my post.

I “imply” as much as Lord Jesus himself did.

I’ll ask again: do you really want to teach that works save, as your post implies?

Except the first two address his servants, the last one addressed the NATIONS, on a much broader scale. The best example is Joshua 2, where Rahab the harlot harbored the two spies. When Jericho fell, she and her family were spared, and her name was listed in Jesus’s genealogy.

I’ll ask these again as well:

Doesn't "all" mean all? Shouldn't "all the nations" mean what it says, which would include everyone? Are there not Gentile followers of Christ? Since when does the word "Gentile" separate Gentile believers from Gentile non-believers? Does it not separate Jew from non-Jew?

I should also ask, how are the Jews saved? Who are they in Matt 25:31-46?

Simple, straightforward answers to these simple questions are preferable. Discussion amongst Christians should be to pursue the truth and based on honesty and integrity, not evasion and avoidance.

No, Christians are already judged in the previous two parables.

There are non-Christians in those two parables, as I pointed out.

If you’re so against work, then what are the investment of talents and the preparation of oil about? Are those “works”?

Where did I say I was against works?

And what sets “my brethren” apart from the sheep and goats? How are they not judged in this one?

Who says they are set apart? Who are the sheep and who are the goats?

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

It’s in my post.

No it’s not, you didn’t make any distinction.

I’ll ask again: do you really want to teach that works save, as your post implies?

You said, “Even Christians will be judged on how they treated fellow believers,” does that imply work-based salvation?

Simple, straightforward answers to these simple questions are preferable. Discussion amongst Christians should be to pursue the truth and based on honesty and integrity, not evasion and avoidance.

There’s no straightforward answer to a loaded rhetorical question. “Brethren” is a reference of the Lord’s disciples in Matt. 12:48-50, which would include both Jews and gentiles. “Brethren” is NOT subject to the sheep and goats judgement, but a third group.

There are non-Christians in those two parables, as I pointed out.

No, those two parables are for Christians only, non-Christians won’t be called servants or virgins.

Where did I say I was against works?

Then why are you accusing me of implying work based salvation? My intention is the opposite. I’ve pointed out that most sermons on this portion are pushing philanthropic works and social welfare, that’s the real work-based salvation, a pitfall which we should be aware of.

Who says they are set apart? Who are the sheep and who are the goats?

Lord Jesus sets them apart, he judges the sheep and goat nations based on how they have treated “my brethren”, not how “my brethren” have treated one another or anybody else.

 

[Randy]

I agree.
But that "calling on the name of the Lord" occurs at baptism in His name.
Acts 22:16..."And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord."

I disagree.
Was Peter filled with the Holy Ghost when he said..."Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)
I say Jesus is bound by Spirit initiated prophesy.

How do we get "in Christ Jesus" ?
Rom 6:3 says..."Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?"
Gal 3:27 says..."For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ."
Some have a faith that is outside of Christ Jesus.

The scripture you paraphrase is actually..."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 3:21)
Water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of past sins provides us with a clear conscience by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If we are part of His death and burial, we are also part of His resurrection, and new creatures.
All by water baptism in His name, (after a true turn from sin).

Isn't that the truth Jesus said could free us from service to sin ? (John 8:32-34)

Paul was referring to the word of the Lord as spoken through Joel and He defined it for us. It didn't state what you state that it is referring to water baptism. Regardless Jesus is not bound to water baptism in order for Him to forgive sin and I have no reason to believe anyone who calls on Him for forgiveness will NOT be saved unless they add water baptism. The key I see is sincere FAITH in Him. Jesus is Lord and God raised Him from the dead. The Christ the Son of God. In other words, knowing Him and the Father is eternal life.

Did He state anything about water baptism?
Lives by believing in Him.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

That said I don't know why one would refuse to be baptized. But I think before the baptism if they called on Him and believe in Him their sins are already forgiven. Jesus has no need to wait.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Doesn't "all" mean all?

Yes "all" means "all", but what does "all" mean?

Shouldn't "all the nations" mean what it says, which would include everyone?

Depends on what "everyone" means? "Everyone is a synonym for "all", but what does "all" mean?

Dictionary Definitions
All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing
Every - used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception
Note: both words apply to a "group" so that "all" and "every" need to have the group defined so that one knows what "all" or "every" applies to.

Warning: The meaning of the words “all” and “every” and “everyone” has been distorted by many to make verses fit the doctrine they prescribe. As these words can refer to ambiguous groupings unless the “group” is identified, it is best to ascertain the specific meaning from scripture that is explicit rather than implicit.
Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels. Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.
Biblical Examples:

• Matthew 3:5 At that time Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; it would be incredulous to believe everyone including babies, the blind, the disabled went to see Jesus
• John 14:26 But the Helper (Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor—Counselor, Strengthener, Standby), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name [in My place, to represent Me and act on My behalf], He will teach you all things. And He will help you remember everything that I have told you. The Spirit has infinite knowledge so the transference of “ALL” without exception is not possible.
• Acts 26:4 Paul says, The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. Does he mean that every Jew without exception knew him? How about those who lived in the past and those who would live in the future?

Sorry, ALL is a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Free]

Yes "all" means "all", but what does "all" mean?

Well, context determines meaning. In this case it is the final judgement, so that would be every single person from every single nation who has ever lived, since every single person who has ever lived will be judged.

Depends on what "everyone" means? "Everyone is a synonym for "all", but what does "all" mean?

Dictionary Definitions
All - used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing
Every - used to refer to all the individual members of a set without exception
Note: both words apply to a "group" so that "all" and "every" need to have the group defined so that one knows what "all" or "every" applies to.

Warning: The meaning of the words “all” and “every” and “everyone” has been distorted by many to make verses fit the doctrine they prescribe. As these words can refer to ambiguous groupings unless the “group” is identified, it is best to ascertain the specific meaning from scripture that is explicit rather than implicit.
Example... Jill says, "All motorcycles have two wheels. " Greg responds, "That's ridiculous. A single motorcycle has two wheels. And there are of 200,000,000 motorcycles in the world. Therefore, all motorcycles would have over 400,000,000 wheels.

Except that we all know that Jill is saying, "All motorcycles have two wheels each" or "Every motorcycle has two wheels." So, based on the context, Greg's response should be, "Of course." Either Greg is two cards short of full deck, or he is pulling her leg by playing off the ambiguity "all" can produce in some circumstances, even though in this circumstance it isn't ambiguous.

Thus the word ALL is ambiguous and often construed by one's bias.

It often loses the ambiguity when one looks at the context, but yes, when people don't put thought into it, they can easily distort the meaning. The irony is the NWT where "other" has been inserted into "all other things" in Col 1:16-17, to do the opposite and diminish the meaning of "all."

Col 1:16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.
Col 1:17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. (ESV)

"All" clearly means clearly means every single thing that has been created according to the context.

Biblical Examples:

• Matthew 3:5 At that time Jerusalem was going out to him, and all Judea and all the district around the Jordan; it would be incredulous to believe everyone including babies, the blind, the disabled went to see Jesus

Yes, this could be ambiguous, but reason tells us that it simply means a great number of people.

• John 14:26 But the Helper (Comforter, Advocate, Intercessor—Counselor, Strengthener, Standby), the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name [in My place, to represent Me and act on My behalf], He will teach you all things. And He will help you remember everything that I have told you. The Spirit has infinite knowledge so the transference of “ALL” without exception is not possible.

And the context here tells us that it is in reference to "everything that I have told you," regarding the kingdom, salvation, living as followers of Christ, and being apostles in leading the Church.

• Acts 26:4 Paul says, The Jews all know the way I have lived ever since I was a child, from the beginning of my life in my own country, and also in Jerusalem. Does he mean that every Jew without exception knew him? How about those who lived in the past and those who would live in the future?

And the context here would tell us that Paul is likely referring to all the Jews who knew him. However, it is also entirely possible that all the Jews of that time did know of him and how he lived, being "a Hebrew of Hebrews" and a Pharisee (Phil 3:5). Reason excludes those who lived before him.

Sorry, ALL is a pet peeve of mine.

For sure. It is something we have to be careful with, but generally we can determine the meaning by the context.

 

[Free]

No it’s not, you didn’t make any distinction.

I did, right here: "Even Christians will be judged on how they treated fellow believers."

You said, “Even Christians will be judged on how they treated fellow believers,” does that imply work-based salvation?

Please just answer the question.

There’s no straightforward answer to a loaded rhetorical question.

They aren't rhetorical questions. They're serious questions that point out some serious holes in your understanding of the passage in question. Please answer them.

“Brethren” is a reference of the Lord’s disciples in Matt. 12:48-50, which would include both Jews and gentiles. “Brethren” is NOT subject to the sheep and goats judgement, but a third group.

Based on what, exactly?

No, those two parables are for Christians only, non-Christians won’t be called servants or virgins.

Yes, that is exactly my point. Those who merely profess to be Christians (cf. Matt 7:21-23), but do nothing to prepare for the Lord's coming, that is, they show no interest in him and being obedient to him until he actually appears, when it is too late, clearly are not true believers.

However, I suppose if a person actually believes that salvation is by works, then they believe Christians can lose their salvation by not doing works. That's a very low and unbiblical view of God's saving grace.

Then why are you accusing me of implying work based salvation? My intention is the opposite.

First, how does that answer my question? Second, if you answer the questions I asked, we can sort this out, because the way you have worded things, intentional or not, you are pushing works-based salvation.

I’ve pointed out that most sermons on this portion are pushing philanthropic works and social welfare, that’s the real work-based salvation, a pitfall which we should be aware of.

Works are works, whether philanthropic, geared towards social welfare, or anything else.

Lord Jesus sets them apart, he judges the sheep and goat nations based on how they have treated “my brethren”, not how “my brethren” have treated one another or anybody else.

First, you're implicitly teaching works-based salvation. Second, you again didn't answer my question: "Who says they are set apart?" You had asked, 'what sets “my brethren” apart from the sheep and goats?'. That is what I'm referring to--who says that the brethren are set apart from either of those two groups? Third, you also didn't answer my question, "Who are the sheep and who are the goats?". Put another way, who are sheep, as stated throughout the gospels?

 

[JLB]

So, to be consistent then, you must necessarily believe that babies that die by miscarriages and abortions, or are stillborn, cannot enter the kingdom of God. Is that your position?

My position is that for a person to be born again, they must first be born.


Babies and those who are not of age are innocent, not knowing good from evil.


Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:3


Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.
Deuteronomy 1:39

 

[Free]

My position is that for a person to be born again, they must first be born.


Babies and those who are not of age are innocent, not knowing good from evil.


Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:3


Moreover your little ones and your children, who you say will be victims, who today have no knowledge of good and evil, they shall go in there; to them I will give it, and they shall possess it.
Deuteronomy 1:39

Okay, so those "babies that die by miscarriages and abortions, or are stillborn," cannot be saved according to you, correct?

 

[Dave...]

I was thinking more along the lines of "why were Adam and Eve removed for the garden of Eden ?".
Back to your point, though, where is it written that they were removed from God's presence ?
Adam and Eve won't be reunited with God until the day of judgement.

Genesis 3:20-23 And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. Also for Adam and his wife the Lord God made tunics of skin, and clothed them. Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"--therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken.

Dave

 

[Dave...]

[sarcasm]Paul got it wrong...[/sarcasm]

1 Corinthians 1:10-19 Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe's household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, lest anyone should say that I had baptized in my own name. Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas. Besides, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of no effect. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."

He should have said [sarcasm] Quick, those who were water baptized into Paul, Apollos, or Cephas. You got the wrong name. You are not saved. Lets fix that right now and get you saved. That's what I came to do, to water baptize people into salvation in the correct name.[/sarcasm]

In reality. OT saints would water baptize themselves into the name of the teacher that they identified with. I'm guessing it's kind of like us having denominations. This idea, obviously carried over into the new testament. Paul, seeing this, chastises them for being divided over this and reminds them it's Jesus' name that they should be publicly identifying with in water baptism.

The only way this discussion goes anywhere is is we can build truth upon truth. It's called context. It doesn't seem to be happening. The baptism that saves is a Spirit baptism by Jesus. It's not initiated by water baptism. It's initiated by faith. The Bible is so clear on this.

Dave

 

[JLB]

Okay, so those "babies that die by miscarriages and abortions, or are stillborn," cannot be saved according to you, correct?

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote?

Babies in the womb or out of the womb and little children are considered innocent.


Jesus actually said that if we don’t become as little children then we can not enter the kingdom.


Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 18:3

 

[Free]

How do you arrive at that conclusion from what I wrote?

Babies in the womb or out of the womb and little children are considered innocent.

You stated: "My position is that for a person to be born again, they must first be born."

Basic logic tells us that if a person must first be born in order to be "born again," then if a person isn't born, they can never be born again and enter the kingdom of God. If babies in the womb are excluded, "considered innocent," then that makes Jesus's statement pointless; it would go without saying that a person must be born in order to be born again.

Either way, it points out that interpreting "born of water" as being born from the womb is problematic--it either sends the unborn dead to hell, or "born of water" is meaningless. As such, it likely refers to something else, like water baptism.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Except that we all know that Jill is saying, "All motorcycles have two wheels each" or "Every motorcycle has two wheels."

You're probably correct ... but it is still an assumption. The point was to show multiple potential meanings of the word "all".

For sure. It is something we have to be careful with, but generally we can determine the meaning by the context.

Probably ... but the universalists use verses with ALL ..

• 2 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
• He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.” (Heb. 2:9)
• we trust in the living God, Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.” (1 Tim. 4:9-11)
• etc

Other popular verses to distort that use ALL ...
1 Timothy 2:6
Hebrews 2:9
2 Corinthians 5:14-15
1 Corinthians 15:22
Romans 5:18

I grant that you are well versed and consider context, but I'd say a majority do not.

 

[Free]

You're probably correct ... but it is still an assumption. The point was to show multiple potential meanings of the word "all".


Probably ... but the universalists use verses with ALL ..

• 2 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
• He, by the grace of God, might taste death for everyone.” (Heb. 2:9)
• we trust in the living God, Who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. These things command and teach.” (1 Tim. 4:9-11)
• etc

Other popular verses to distort that use ALL ...
1 Timothy 2:6
Hebrews 2:9
2 Corinthians 5:14-15
1 Corinthians 15:22
Romans 5:18

I grant that you are well versed and consider context, but I'd say a majority do not.

Which is why, of course, we take the totality of the biblical revelation into account. When groups like Universalists ignore passages that show exactly what is meant by "all," or any other word, that is how they fall into their error. Context is king.

 

[Fastfredy0]

Which is why, of course, we take the totality of the biblical revelation into account. When groups like Universalists ignore passages that show exactly what is meant by "all," or any other word, that is how they fall into their error. Context is king.

I also like that God doesn't contradict Himself in verses to sort out differences of opinion.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

I did, right here: "Even Christians will be judged on how they treated fellow believers."

No you didn't. What sets apart "fellow believers" from "they"? How on earth would one be judged while the other not? Treatment goes both ways, it's not based on socioeconomical status or something.

Please just answer the question.

You answer mine first. Don't ask me what you're guilty of.

They aren't rhetorical questions. They're serious questions that point out some serious holes in your understanding of the passage in question. Please answer them.

No, those are all rhetorical questions irrelevant to the passage in Matt. 25, none of those is mentioned in the text, you added them in, you put on the load.

Based on what, exactly?

On the fact that "My Brethren the least of these" is not being judged, only the sheep and goats are. Show me any evidence that "my brethren" is lumped into either of these groups.

Yes, that is exactly my point. Those who merely profess to be Christians (cf. Matt 7:21-23), but do nothing to prepare for the Lord's coming, that is, they show no interest in him and being obedient to him until he actually appears, when it is too late, clearly are not true believers.

However, I suppose if a person actually believes that salvation is by works, then they believe Christians can lose their salvation by not doing works. That's a very low and unbiblical view of God's saving grace.

Then what does it mean in Rom. 2:5-6, 1 Cor. 3:14-15 and Rev. 20:12? Just to clarify, salvation is NOT by works, you can't earn your salvation, but blessings and rewards are surely based on work, salvation is just the start, it's the seed of gospel in the parable of the sower. There're four types of soils, and the "works" in these verses are referring to the harvest in the last one, the fertile soil, the only type in which the seed survives, sprouts, grows and yields, obviously it's the seed that leads to the harvest, not the harvest to the seed.

But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds."

If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.

First, how does that answer my question? Second, if you answer the questions I asked, we can sort this out, because the way you have worded things, intentional or not, you are pushing works-based salvation.

No I'm not, that's a false accusation. How about you read those verse above and tell me why they are worded this way.

Works are works, whether philanthropic, geared towards social welfare, or anything else.

And what's wrong with that? I said it many times, you work BECAUSE you're saved, not you work to be saved. I thought you're bright enough to know the difference.

First, you're implicitly teaching works-based salvation.

I'm teaching it as much as you're with your statement, "even Christians will be judged on how they treated fellow believers." And in the context of Matt. 25:31-46, this "treatment" is explicitly referring to philanthropic works for basic psysiological needs - food, drink, shelter, clothing, visitation, which you seem to disapprove.

Second, you again didn't answer my question: "Who says they are set apart?" You had asked, 'what sets “my brethren” apart from the sheep and goats?'. That is what I'm referring to--who says that the brethren are set apart from either of those two groups?

Again, show me any evidence how "my brethren" belongs to either group. Show me where did the Lord judge one "brethren" based on how he has treated another "brethren". Will he judge me based on how I've treated you? Or you based on how you've treated me? Who's the plantiff and who's the defendant?

Third, you also didn't answer my question, "Who are the sheep and who are the goats?". Put another way, who are sheep, as stated throughout the gospels?

See the Day of Atonement ritual where two goats are chosen, one blessed and sacrificed, the other carrying all sins of Israel and exiled into the wilderness. Except in this case the first one is an obedient sheep, not a stiffnecked goat.

 

[Hopeful 2]

Paul was referring to the word of the Lord as spoken through Joel and He defined it for us. It didn't state what you state that it is referring to water baptism.

How do you know that ?
Can you show some scriptures from Acts where someone "called on the name of the Lord" that were not during water baptism in the name of the Lord for the remission of past sins ?

Regardless Jesus is not bound to water baptism in order for Him to forgive sin and I have no reason to believe anyone who calls on Him for forgiveness will NOT be saved unless they add water baptism. The key I see is sincere FAITH in Him. Jesus is Lord and God raised Him from the dead. The Christ the Son of God. In other words, knowing Him and the Father is eternal life.

Why would anyone with the cited sincere faith doubt what Peter said in Act 2:38 ?
Or Ananias in Acts 22:16 ?
While Jesus waked the earth, He had power to forgive sin, and He did so on many occasions.
Even we can forgive sins that are committed against us.
But Peter has told us exactly how to have our past sins remitted, in Acts 2:38.
Why are you opening another door to forgiveness, when we all know what God gave to Peter on our behalf ?

Did He state anything about water baptism?
Lives by believing in Him.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. The one who believes in me will live, even though they die; 26and whoever lives by believing in me will never die. Do you believe this?”

Without being baptized into Him, you cannot believe from within Him.
Jesus never said "Whosoever believes from without me will live."
Peter told us how to have our sins remitted, in Acts 2:38.

That said I don't know why one would refuse to be baptized.

They might refuse, if they go after your substitute remission doctrine.

But I think before the baptism if they called on Him and believe in Him their sins are already forgiven. Jesus has no need to wait.

I can't agree.
If He really would forgive without baptism, wouldn't the Ethiopian eunuch, in the middle of a desert, have been a great time to demonstrate a "no water" remission of past sins ?