Resolved: Baptism is not a requirement for Salvation.

My dear believer with blinders on; I certain am with the program. First I will concede your observations A and C. A.) Implicit in my response, I hold that water baptism is not required by indicating that it was symbolic. I was offering the alternate as the proper point of debate. C.) If you grasped the reference sufficiently, citing sources is unnecessary. As for the observation B, I will hold that my grammar is perfect unless particulars are noted, though I am shock you perceive a deficiency and thrilled to improve in any area, I would rather debate the issues than work on concepts of ‘High English'. Under your case A, I read the scripture but have difficulty grasping the connections that you are implying for me to grasp. Thus I will deal with your contention one separately and then try to grasp your point of the verses cited. Your contention one: Baptism is a public display of obedience which is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. As a public display, the word "Baptism" signals to me the ceremony of water immersion. Your contention furthered by your summary, "While baptism is practiced, it is not a requirement." implies that you hold the ceremony is not required and this I agree with. But from Romans 6: 3, 4 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. The scripture clearly requires baptism so that we may live a new life. I shall suppose that we are in agreement. Under your case B. 2 Timothy 3:16 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, A statement of self-reference proves nothing. It is not that I dispute the legitimacy of scripture, but the above indicates the value of scripture and the reason it has value, not that it is true or false. Under your case C. A man didn't have the opportunity to be baptized by John but was promised by one who walked on water that heaven wasn't denied. That is good enough for me. I would say he was baptized by blood. And so now we are left with the Contentious Two. "One must accept Jesus as their personal savior, believe that Jesus died for their sins, and confess him as Savior. (Romans 10: 9-10, 13)" We are in agreement that speaking, declaring and believing that "Jesus is Lord" is sufficient to be saved as per the citation, but that it is necessary is not what that scripture says. I didn't find a biblical reference that included the concept of ‘necessary' as you indicate was required with your words "One must accept…" thus I offer that though sufficient, Jesus is not necessary for salvation. Whether or not there is salvation outside of the church is an argument within the church. If you wish to push this point further you require a biblical reference that includes the concept of necessary in conjunction with salvation or that going in front of the ‘Father' would be necessary for salvation. Though I appreciate your references provided, and they proved necessary for me to grasp your confusion, but for my response I must merely mention that Buddhism and Hinduism offer paths to salvation that don't mention Jesus by name for you to have the bop. Eros for your correction.