The New Testament teaches that the penitent believer must be baptized for the remission of sins.

I appreciate my opponent's response, I am in no way offended by his actions. As the final round draws near, I will rebuke/clarify all of my opponent's contentions once and for all. With this said, I will exclude unnecessary grammar and details in order to incorporate everything I wish to say.God's Grace"why does he keep saying that baptism and faith are two different things?"- Because they are. The Bible teaches that faith is what saves the believer; baptism is merely an act of obedience after which the believer has been saved. (Eph. 2:8, Gal. 2:20)- Obedience is the result of faith in Christ, not vice-versa- Faith in Christ grants salvation from sin (Jhn. 5:24)- Faith is a mental, and spiritual "belief that is not based on proof" [1]- Baptism is a proclamation of this faith; which is dependent on free will- Free will is a gift, it is not a command- Forgiveness is an act of grace, it is not an act of obedience- Therefore, Baptism is not equivalent to forgiveness"I did not say that if baptism is necessary for the remission of sins makes repentance unimportant"- By conceding my argument regarding the sacrificing of animals, my opponent agrees that Christ's sacrifice was in vain.- My opponent's resolution lies contradictory to the above conceded detail. I have proven how Christ's sacrifice would be meaningless, as my opponent's view of baptism lies in correlation to ancient acts of sacrifice. Since my opponent has failed to rebuke my argument (as is just per every round) and as a general rule of debate, we can conclude the act of sacrificing animals in direct correlation to my opponent's false doctrine of baptism.- Secondly, my opponent includes salvation into the original resolution; this will not be accepted.Refuting prerequisite rebukes:(1) I stated that I agree, but not if it is necessary for the forgiveness of sin. Furthermore, my opponent reiterates a verse that logically proves that faith is the reason for salvation. I have proven that baptism is but a proclamation of faith; the result of obedience, through the previous formula that I have created in this round.(2) "God’s grace is manifested through Jesus Christ but it does not negate baptism."- It is not baptism that would be negated, but Christ's sacrifice. As my opponent has conceded, baptism would be parallel to animal sacrifice. Therefore, Christ's sacrifice would be in vain."The grace of God offers salvation"- Eph. 2:8 proves that God's grace is the gift of Jesus through faith- Gospel is "Good news." My opponent creates a straw man for his usage of this word. Gospel can be any of the four books of the New Testament which reflect on the ministry and life of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice; baptism, not withstanding.(3) "If salvation is not conditional then we are like universalists that teaches that everyone is saved with or without faith; with or without baptism."- My opponent is unaware of God's very nature. God is infinite(1 Kings 8:22-27; Jer. 23:24), omnipotent(Gen. 18:14; Luke 18:27), omniscient(Psalm 139:2-6; Isa. 40:13-14). Therefore, to state that God's salvation is conditional is to put limits on God. To worship a God that offers uncertain salvation is to worship a God who changes his mind, and is unjust; which contradicts the very nature of God according to the Bible [4].- My opponent restates a verse that he desperately holds on to, after I have proven he is using it out of context. I have certainly proven that the "condition" for salvation is faith in Jesus Christ; not baptism.Rebuttal: Round Four Mark 16:15-16 Conceded by my opponent."An alien sinner is justified by faith when it exercises itself in obedience."- I have proven this contention invalid by my previous formula. I have proven that justification derives through faith; this is specifically noted in Eph. 2:8 - My opponent's illustration is out of context. Obedience is not the nature of faith, but the result of faith. My opponent insists that the said "blessing" was received after completing their obedience. God's blessing was inherent to begin with, this instance simply demonstrates his power; not his blessing.Acts 2:38My opponent has conceded the contention regarding the cleansing of the Holy Spirit.One can tell that my opponent is eager from the sound of his tone. Unfortunately, my opponent has failed to demonstrate his success. My opponent, once again, has created a straw man in the hopes of dismantling my argument.- Baptism into Christ and his death is the result of obedience. - Obedience is the result of faith.- Faith is the result of acknowledging Christ's sacrifice and accepting him as savior.- It is this faith that saves the individual; baptism merely symbolizes the resurrection of Christ- hence, the "new creation"- Cleansing of the Holy Spirit occurs during the instance of acceptance- Therefore, this "new creation" occurs the instant one has faith in Jesus ChristMatt. 7:21My opponent has taken this verse out of context. Jesus is implicating how one cannot enter heaven simply by doing (going to church, etc.). As I have stated earlier, faith is the form of justification (Rom. 5:1). Therefore, in order to be justified through Christ, one must have faith. In order to receive faith, one must Call on the name of the lord to be saved (Rom 10:13).Acts 22:16I have, in fact, explained this to my opponent. There is only one baptism; however, is it baptism into Christ or baptism in water? As my opponent claims the latter, I claim the former to be the most genuine. I have proven that baptism into Christ is a result of faith; a cleansing of the Holy Spirit (Matt. 23:25; Matt. 7:7; 1 John 1:9; Rom. 8:13). Therefore, we should no longer confuse these two doctrines. My opponent thought I was creating two forms of baptism, when I was simply contrasting his doctrine with Biblical doctrine.Thief on the Cross & PrayerConceded by my opponent.1 Pet. 3:21A poor attempt by my opponent. He has clearly not studied my source; only to conclude that I have "twisted" scripture. I have demonstrated how Peter's mentioning of baptism is not related to salvation through Christ. In Acts 2:21, Peter quotes from Joel 2 and says, "And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved." His words preceding verse 38 were so convicting that his listeners were "pricked in their heart" in verse 37. [2]Col. 2:12Allow me to reveal the entire verse in context:"In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead." Col. 2:11-12Baptism represents a replacement of circumcision; a "pledge of a clear conscience toward God" (1 Pet. 3:21). It is but a pledge; a symbol; an act of obedience.Rom. 6:3-4Certainly. As I have stated in this round, baptism into Christ is the result of faith. Baptism by water; the public proclamation of this faith. Paul is referring to the former. If Paul was implicating the latter, he would simply be encouraging the Romans in their faith. But according to my opponent, this wouldn't matter anyway, would it? For these verses are apparently "irrelevant." Also, I have stated that "newness" is different than that of "everlasting:" Everlasting = Everlasting lifeNewness = Transformation of lifeGal. 3:26-27As I have stated above, Newness = Transformation of life = renewing one's mind. If my opponent is to conclude this (Rom. 12:2) irrelevant, he is to conclude Gal. 3:26-27 and Rom. 6:3-4 irrelevant, as both address Christians [3]. Therefore, my rebuke still stands.Onto Pro.[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.biblebelievers.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://christianity.about.com...