Baptism is essential to salvation

My opponent seems to have misinterpreted all of the biblical preference that i have given and he has left some texts unread and he has put Eph. 2: 8-9 an excuse to prove his arguments. Well, first of all read the whole chapter of Ephesians 2 if you have a bible, the ephesians there seeks to be save through the works of the law(jewish law), secondly, read Titus 3:5- Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewal of the Holy Spirit- it talks about works of obedience to be saved apart from works of righteousness, and it also talks we are saved by his mercy through baptism.Now onto his arguments, he picks out of the context "be baptized" out of what i wholly said. I said "Since Acts 2 is theimplement of the Great Commission, the gospel was being preached when Peter exhorted, “be baptized.” Also, since John 16:13 was fulfilled in Acts, we learn that baptism is part of the “all truth.”.... And the great commision says in Mark 16:16 "And he said unto them, Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.He that believes and is baptizedshall be saved, and he that disbelieves shall be condemned." Later, he says- "Peter exhorted, "Save yourselves" (Acts 2:40),"Peter may exhort whatever impossible things he wishes. Yet the Bible maintains it is not possible to save yourself.- in here he makes Peter a liar, and worse the Holy Spirit a Liar,(john 16:13) - there are many things in the bible that pertains to salvation: God's grace (Ephesians 2:4-10; 1:7; Titus 2:11,12; Acts 15:11)Jesus' death and resurrection (Ephesians 1:7; Romans 5:6-10; 1 Peter 1:18,19; Revelation 1:5; 1 Corinthians 15:17; 1 Peter 3:21)The gospel (Romans 1:16; 1 Peter 1:23-25; Acts 11:14; James 1:18,21; 1 Corinthians 15:1,2; John 8:31,32)Learning God's will (Acts 11:14; John 6:44,45; Romans 10:17; 1:16; 1 Corinthians 1:21)Faith (see the verses listed above)Love (1 Corinthians 16:22; 13:1-3; Galatians 5:6; 1 John 4:7,8)Hope (Romans 8:24)Repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 17:30; Luke 13:3,5; 2 Peter 3:9)Obedience (Hebrews 5:9; Romans 6:17,18; 1 Peter 1:22; Acts 10:34,35; 2 Thessalonians 1:8,9; Galatians 5:6; James 2:14-26)Confession of Christ (Romans 10:9,10; Matthew 10:32)Baptism (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; 1 Peter 3:21; Romans 6:3-7; Galatians 3:26,27; Colossians 2:12,13)Faithfulness (Matthew 10:22; Revelation 2:10; 1 Corinthians 15:58; Matthew 28:20; Titus 2:11,12; 1 John 2:1-6)Church membership (Acts 2:47; 20:28; Ephesians 5:23,25) Some of these are things God has done; OTHERS WE MUST DO. All are essential to our salvation. Later in his argument he said that Acts 2:41 is a non sequitur. I would like to define "non sequitur"Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises.[1] In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies. http://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)Again my oppenent makes a disorder of things; picking context out of the whole context, in order to refute his argument i will again write the whole context: (2) Acts 2:38 conjoined with Acts 2:40, 41.Observing that Peter exhorted, “Save yourselves” (Acts 2:40), which such an exhortation being immediately followed by, “then they gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41), we learn that baptism is necessary for salvation. Add to this, that since Peter was to tell Cornelius words whereby he was to be saved (Acts 10:6; 11:14), and he told (commanded) him to be baptized (Acts 10:47, 48), we know that baptism is essential to salvation.it says save yourselves(Acts 2:40) so, it is understood that we have to do something (Acts 2:41). another basic (pattern) example is in the following sentence:"Add to this, that since Peter was to tell Cornelius words whereby he was to be saved (Acts 10:6; 11:14), and he told (commanded) him to be baptized (Acts 10:47, 48), we know that baptism is essential to salvation." Later again he says""This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.""Pleasure is not salvation. well it's not you've just again picked out a context out of the whole context"Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his."It is already contradicted that our act of accepting baptism can offer salvation, hence, the only noncontradictory interpretation here is that the resurrection we gain a share in is something other than our ultimate salvation.in here he misinterprets Rom. 6:3-5 maybe he missed the word "newness of life".The symbol of baptism which saves you is not the baptism, not the removal of dirt from the body. Grammatically it is clear. The baptism is the removal of dirt from the body. The symbol is the answer of a good conscience toward God-- faith. This is mildly inconsistent in that faith hardly seems like a good attribute of conscience, and it certainly makes Plato roll over in his grave at his Christian descendants for stating that the shadow on the wall is heavenly and the form the earthly act, but it is less blatantly contradictory than the alternative.The bible:... baptism which saves you, not the removal of dirt from the body...My opponent: baptism which does not save you, the removal of dirt from the bodywhich will you believe?andyou were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead."And I play football in the midst of a certain field, yet that field is not a necessary condition to football. The 2nd person in this sentence faithed his way to salvation in the midst of baptism, that's no reason someone else can't faith their way to salvation somewhere else.This is another misinterpretation what is "in the midst of a certain field, yet that field is not a necessary condition to football. The 2nd person in this sentence faithed his way to salvation in the midst of baptism, that's no reason someone else can't faith their way to salvation somewhere else." going to do with Colossians 2:12I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter thekingdomofGod."Since interpreting this as baptism would be contradictory, we are forced to interpret it as anything else. Perhaps God gives the faithful a bath in watery spirits after their death after their first resurrection or two. It sound silly, but the Law of Identity takes precedence over not sounding silly. my opponent says that "born of water and spirit" will be inappropriate to translate it to baptism later he said we are forced to translate it to baptism, the question is what is a better translation of it?"And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip"When, not "only because of"once again this a text taken out of the WHOLE CONTEXT and he gives a lacking definition in it, again i will ask you to read the whole context then you might wanna argue with me, okFor you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ."This can be read as a contributory or a sufficient condition to faith in Christ-- the latter is problematic if you assume humans have free will over faith-- but it clearly does not establish necessity.I will continue this in the comment section