Wrong on two counts. I am neither an anti-sacramentalist nor do I think baptism is merely a suggestion. It is commanded and we are to do it joyfully with thankfulness to God for our salvation and entrance into the new covenant, but it doesn't save us. You don't find it odd that Jesus "apparently" taught this to the eleven, but
never once taught it to anyone else when he was talking about salvation?
Those are valid points regarding Mark 16:16, however, there is more to take into consideration. As
mailmandan noted, Jesus said a lot regarding belief for salvation, but little (likely nothing) about baptism. For instance:
Joh 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up,
Joh 3:15
that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
Joh 3:16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,
that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Joh 3:17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
Joh 3:18
Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. (ESV)
Three times Jesus mentions belief as necessary for salvation in a positive sense and twice in a negative sense, in just four verses. That would have been a great time to mention the need for baptism, yet he doesn't. There are several more times in John alone where Jesus mentions only belief, which is why John himself reiterates that teaching, most notably at the very beginning and at the ending of his gospel (John 1:12; 20:31).
It's worth noting that your argument largely rests on a passage whose authenticity is questionable and is most likely a later addition.
As for Acts 2:38, it's worth noting that "repent" is plural, but "be baptized" is singular. That suggests that repentance is what is necessary for salvation, for forgiveness of sins, and baptism is distinct from that but is to immediately follow.
Given the preponderance of NT evidence, baptism is
not required for salvation. Being saved is the prerequisite for baptism and so baptism is to follow salvation, as a public sign of entering the new covenant, but it is not a requirement for salvation.
It is also worth noting that baptism in the Bible is always "believer's baptism." That is, one
first believes and
then is baptized on the basis of that belief. This seriously calls into question the Catholic tradition (and some Protestant ones) of baptizing infants, where baptism comes years before belief and sometimes belief never comes.
You said: "It's obvious that Jesus and His Apostles understood that
no one who refused the Gospel was going to be baptized. Why would he?" Then why would the CC baptize infants who are, by definition, unbelievers? They haven't refused the gospel but neither can they accept it. Doesn't that imply that baptism saves? Are adults rebaptized after they make a confession of Christ as Lord? It not, why isn't the biblical way followed?
I never said that baptism itself was just a suggestion.
