A person Becomes a Christian at the Point of Baptism and not before

My opponent claims that he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt his stated objective #1, that "belief alone does not save" due to my statement in R1 that "believers should be doers of the Word, and not hearers only" (James 1:22). However he chooses to remain ignorant of the full argument I made, which is that Christians should not live hypocritical lifestyles. James' statement that we should practice what we preach must be drastically twisted into what my opponent would like it to say, that everyone who doesn't adhere to a certain pattern of actions is as of yet unsaved. ACTS 2:38 My opponent is fallaciously claiming that baptism is just as important as repentance simply because of the use of a conjunction: "A conjunction is a part of speech that connects two thoughts of equal importance or value." As I do not wish to waste much space addressing the absurdity of this argument, I shall leave you with a few examples: a penny and a dollar, a Ford Escort and a Ferrari, Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf, etc. Furthermore, my opponent claims that I asserted that the Greek word "eis" should always be translated "because of" instead of "for." Rather, I simply clarified that due to the vast semantic range of the English word "for", it can sometimes be tricky to understand. For example, notice how the word "for" is used in the following two sentences: I wished for a new toy. I was happy, for I received what I wanted. In the first sentence "for" is used to mean "to obtain", while in the second sentence it means "because." What a stark difference! Most translations of the Bible render Acts 2:38 "for the forgiveness of your sins" because it reads more smoothly in modern English, but the most literal translation would be "unto remission of your sins" because this takes away most of the ambiguity and gives a more clear understanding of the Greek word "eis" in this particular context (not all contexts), that they should be baptized BECAUSE they have been saved. CORNELIUS (Acts 10:1-48) An excellent example of the relationship between salvation and baptism is the Gentiles in Caesarea. Peter preached the Gospel to Cornelius and his household (vv 34-43) and they were filled with the Holy Spirit (v44) and began speaking in tongues (v46), THEN Peter baptized them (v48). If my opponent, in the face of this clear example, would still claim that a person cannot be saved before they are baptized, then he would have to say that an unsaved nonbeliever could somehow receive the gift of God's Holy Spirit! Absurd! THOSE WHO DIE BEFORE BEING BAPTIZED I asked my opponent in R1 about an individual who professes faith in Christ but dies before being baptized. My opponent claimed that "God would never allow anyone to die on the way to be baptized" and cited as his "proof" 2 Peter 3:9, a verse that tells us that God desires for all to be saved. I agree that because God desires for all to be saved, anyone and everyone that would ever accept Christ will do so before dying, by the grace of God. But this response does not address the question. By saying that God would not allow a person to die on the way to being baptized, my opponent is assuming that such a person is still unsaved but will be very shortly. This is the fallacy of "begging the question" because we are debating whether this person on his way to being baptized is already saved or not. If he is, then he could die on the way to his baptism and 2 Peter 3:9 would not be violated. CLAIMS It is unfortunate that my opponent has stooped to characterizing me by the stereotypes he must have of those who disagree with his stance, and I take some of them very personally. I will list some of the accusations my opponent has made about me and demonstrate how nothing but the complete opposite could be derived from what I have actually said in this debate. This will also serve to recap the falsities my opponent has continued to perpetuate despite my multiple clarifications. Claim #1: I tried to separate God's grace from the Gospel. Claim #2: I "refuse baptism." Claim #3: I "ignore all other Scripture that doesn't go along with what [I] believe." Claim #4: I "ignore the very Gospel of Christ. This is God's power to save." Claim #1: This falsehood came in R2 and somehow stemmed from my explanation of Ephesians 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." These verses clearly explain that God's gift of salvation is just that, a gift, and thus begins solely with His gracious decision to offer it to sinners. I have affirmed throughout this entire debate that salvation cannot be merited by any actions but that it is freely given by God, and I therefore have tied together God's grace and the Gospel that saves, not separated them. Claim #2: As readers will notice in my R1 argument, I stated that I have been baptized (as a teenager) and that I hope all Christians will choose to be baptized after maturing enough in their walk with God to understand the significance of it. I affirmed in both R1 and R2 that baptism is a way of identifying with Christ and publicly displaying to others that you have already accepted Christ as your Savior, and it is for this reason that baptism is an important event. I have clearly at no point in my life rejected the significance of nor altogether "refused" baptism. Claim #3: I have been accused of ignoring verses that seem to refute my argument when in fact I have clarified the proper understanding of many verses that my opponent has quoted. I even went so far as to introduce some additional verses that are often used in support of my opponent's position and clarified their proper understanding as well. To claim that I have been ignorant of verses that seem to oppose me shows how much my opponent has chosen to ignore what I have actually said. However, my opponent HAS ignored several verses that refute his argument. I explained in both R1 and R2 that Paul made it clear what is part of the Gospel and what isn't when he said that the Gospel saves (1 Cor. 15:1-2), but clarified that he was called to preach the Gospel instead of baptizing (1 Cor. 1:17). This makes it clear that baptism is not part of the Gospel that saves but that it is something different. My opponent's "response" to this was to point out that there is only one Gospel. I of course agree that there is only one Gospel, but is baptism a necessary part of that Gospel or not? This is the issue being debated that Paul gives us a definitive answer to, but my opponent chose not to respond to it. I also presented my opponent with the case of the criminal on the cross who was saved without being baptized (Luke 23:40-43). Instead of responding to this excellent example of being saved without ever being baptized, my opponent evidently felt it was more important to waste a good portion of his last argument with a lecture on grammar. Claim #4: This is the most personal and baseless attack my opponent has made against me. Declaring that I have ignored God's power to save would mean that I myself could not possibly be saved right now. Not only would I then be lying when I say I'm a Christian, but by my opponent's definition I must also be lying about having been baptized since that baptism allegedly saved me. I have explained repeatedly how one can be saved, obviously affirming my belief in God's saving power. CONCLUSION Clearly, my opponent has chosen to attack me with his typical talking points (http://www.debate.org..., http://www.debate.org...), none of which apply to anything I've actually said. My opponent has ignored multiple examples that directly contradict the resolution. He has attempted to turn belief into a work of man, thus placing it above the grace of God that has already done everything necessary for salvation.