Baptism is essential to salvation

", the ephesians there seeks to be save through the works of the law"It doesn't matter what it seeks, it just said it's impossible to be saved by any works. This isn't a debate about what kind of stupid things people sought."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."Does not help you. Our choices are: Interpret this as a contradiction of Ephesians, meaning the Bible is wrong, or interpret it as merely one means among many through which God happens to respond to the faithful, and thus rendering the washing of regeneration optional."Now onto his arguments, he picks out of the context "be baptized" out of what i wholly said. "It is your job to demonstrate that to be problematic. I am addressing substantive terms, nothing more, in the interest of space."...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.""already addressed this and "all truth", so clearly I didn't drop the context, I just split it into manageable bits. I addressed every bit. Premise 1, premise 2, irrelevant conclusion. You don't have a "whole" to "wholly say.""- in here he makes Peter a liar, and worse the Holy Spirit a Liar,(john 16:13"Make your arguments explicit. I had to look up John 3:16 and it is prima facie irrelevant to the conclusion that I "make the Holy Spirit a liar"As for making Peter one: It's not me that's doing this, it's another Bible phrase. Sorry. My hands are clean.Long list of bible citations:That's not an argument. Give me text. Give me enough information that your argument can stand as a logical structure."Later in his argument he said that Acts 2:41 is a non sequitur. I would like to define "non sequitur""False. You could apparently use as much improvement in reading my arguments as you could in reading the Bible.I said that THIS is a non sequitir:"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."They gladly received his word (Premise from Acts)They were baptized (Premise from Acts)Baptism is necessary for salvation. (Your conclusion, to which the premises have no bearing)That is a non sequitir. That is the argument you were making, logically speaking." 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),"Oh, so your argument is"Peter said 'Save yourselves'" ( Premise from from Acts. Notably, you have not reconciled Ephesians with this premise)"They gladly received his word and were baptized." (Premise from Acts) We learn that baptism is necessary for salvation. (Conclusion of yours to which the premises are irrelevant.)"Again my oppenent makes a disorder of things"As we see above, I take the core of what you make. It is already a goddamn disorder. I am not your Creator, I can't help you be orderly."whole context"Which gave you nothing of value.I addressed the rest of the context previously. To summarize "Peter commanded X of Cornelius, Peter said X would gain him salvation" does not even remotely establish "X is necessary to salvation." Commands, sufficiency, necessity, one doesn't help you establish the other, nor does Peter saying something make it true. And since we have the additional premise from Ephesians (X is impossible), we know that A. Peter here was lying, unless the narrator of Ephesians was, and B, X cannot be necessary for salvation unless salvation too is impossible."it says save yourselves(Acts 2:40) so, it is understood that we have to do something (Acts 2:41)."Bible says previously that you can't save yourselves. Statements that something is impossible have priority to statements commanding that thing. Strictly speaking, Peter doesn't even have to lie for this one, he just has to command someone to attempt the impossible. Nothing wrong with that, but nothing useful to your case.""Pleasure is not salvation. well it's not you've just again picked out a context out of the whole context"That's not an argument. It doesn't ***ing matter unless you have an ARGUMENT with premises in the rest of the context."in here he misinterprets Rom. 6:3-5 maybe he missed the word "newness of life""Does not follow. Newness of life does not contradict presalvation resurrection, or other possible interpretations. Since your interpretation, however, does lead us to a contradiction you have not rebutted, you must either A. reconcile it, B. believe your interpretation is wrong, C. believe the whole thing is wrong, abandon Christianity. Otherwise, you will default to D, Intellectual Dishonesty. The choice of what to attempt is yours"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?"This is a symbol of baptism, which now saves you also -not the removal of dirt from the body, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, it saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.The Bible: "SYMBOL OF BAPTISM" WHICH SAVES you, NOT THE REMOVAL OF DIRT FROM THE BODYME: SYMBOL OF BAPTISM which saves you, NOT Baptism itself (=not the removal of dirt from the body-- baptism is the removal of dirt from the body)You-- misread both.Where is your argument that "Symbol of Baptism" is the same thing as "Baptism?"Where is your argument that "Baptism" is "Not the removal of dirt from the body?" Where does "Baptism," the entity, appear as a subject or object? Nowhere, it's merely brought up as something related to the symbol. The symbol is what this passage says saves you, not the baptism. It's fairly simple really. Just think carefully about which words refer to which other words."This is another misinterpretation"That is not an argument. That is a waste of text. Stop saying that crap and get to arguing."I tell you the truth, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter thekingdomofGod.""A. That is irrelevant to whether my previous statement is a misinterpretation it's a totally differe" going to do with Colossians 2:12"That's random crap mixed with my quote. If you can't address it with an argument, don't quote it, move on, argue somewhere else. Don't just mix a random phrase in that makes no syntactical sense."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,"Where did I say that? You didn't quote where I said that. Remember, anything else means anything else, not that thing. Anything other than baptism means NOT BAPTISM, it does not mean BAPTISM. Also, I didn't say anything about translation. I said interpretation. We're arguing about what a poetic metaphor means in English, not about what some Aramaic word means in English-- neither of us know what the Aramaic words even are. I'm sure we could look it up but for us to argue about them would be an ad authoritatem fallacy inevitably."once again..."Once again I ask you to respond with argument, not "THAT's a misinterpretation," "Context, NYAHHH." Explain the relevance of the context. "the answer: yes it does"You're not here to give answers unless I ask you a goddamn question. You are here to argue."...HAVE PUT ON CHRIST"This in its context doesn't even make grammatical sense.