The Bible teaches that water baptism is unto - to obtain - the forgiveness of sins

If anyone would like to see the con's argument, word-for-word, just go to: bible-truth.org/BaptismNotNecessary.html. Sir, what you've done is not known as "debating" at all; what you've done is known as "copying and pasting." That's ridiculous: you put yourself up as the negative, and didn't notice a single question (out of six) and didn't pay a lick of attention to three of the four affirmative points. You went to a website and copied/pasted almost the entire thing and pretended to be answering someone. I asked six questions, and with reference to the stated and agreed-upon conditions, these questions - three permissable in each post - were to be answered by the other disputant in the next round. I'm beginning to think I'm debating a Jew because he's still observing the Passover; he ignored all six of them and passed them right over. I brought up Mark 16: 15- 16 as supporting evidence and invited attention to it. What was said about it? Not one word. I brought up Acts 22: 16 as supporting evidence. What was said about it? As far as I can tell, not one word. I brought up II Thess 1: 7-9. What was said about it? Not one word. I asked six questions, and we each agreed to answer, what was said about them? Not one word. Rather than launching into a pro argument on "salvation by faith only", I'd respectfully suggest that you answer the questions that you agreed to answer (better late than never) and deal with the pro arguments. Copying and pasting an entire reply is not gonna cut it. I won't even bother to ask three more questions - you have a six-pack in the refrigerator now. I'm tempted to boil every question down to that parallel sentence in the form requested: this debate will close, and we'll never see it - but I won't do that. Alright, I'll take the negative (someone needs to). 1. I said, "The issue is not, "Are men saved by faith?", but, rather, the issue is, "When are men saved by faith?" You (or Cooper Abrams) replied, "The clear teaching of the New Testament is that it is faith and faith alone that saves." I didn't ask IF man was saved by faith; I asked, "When?" I'd be happy to shake hands with you on, "Men are saved by faith," but you feel compelled to insert "faith alone." Why is that? Because repentance, confession, loving God, and baptism are not mentioned? Would you like to see the only use of "faith alone" or "faith only" in the New Testament? Ole Cooper is going to get you in trouble. "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only ... for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2: 24, 26) There's your "faith alone" in action - or inaction. "Faith alone" is as dead as a door-knell just as a body without the spirit is dead, and you are teaching salvation at the point of a dead faith. I'm not saying you HAVE a dead faith; I'm saying you teach salvation at the POINT of a dead faith. 2. I said: "Any passage which predicates salvation upon "faith" without a specific mention of repentance and baptism necessarily includes repentance and baptism; the synecdoche is employed in which "faith" or "belief" is the "part for the whole", an all-inclusive living, acting faith, and repentance and baptism are necessarily implied." You replied, "salvation is received by faith with no mention of baptism." I already said baptism wasn't mentioned in every passage. Neither is repentance, but you'll include it. Neither is loving God, but you'll include it. Neither is confessing Christ. Your view on faith is pretty elastic - it sure does stretch, but it snaps, crackles, and pops just prior to baptism, I guess. I maintained that the figure of speech "synedoche" is employed many times in the Bible, and you didn't say a word to offset it. You "passed-over" it. 3. You said, "the fact the thief on the cross was saved as Jesus declared, and was never baptized." Fact? Prove it. Assertions count for nothing, and I could care less what Cooper Abrams has to say. How do you know he was never baptized? How do you know he wasn't a back-slidden Jew, baptized with the baptism of John? For that matter, how do you know he wasn't a back-slidden follower of Christ? I'm not saying either way, but since you boldly asserted that he was never baptized, and I'd like to see your proof of that. 4. You said, "The thief could not have believed that because Christ had not yet arisen. The problem with that idea is that it does not take into account how were people in the Old Testament saved?" Well, at least you admit that the thief was saved under the Mosaic Law. That's better than most, but why in the world look to a dying thief saved under a different covenant as your example of salvation under the Christian dispensation in the first place? 5. You said: "Sixty passages, including the classic passage of Ephesians 2:8-9, say that salvation is received by faith and faith alone." No, they don't. Not a one says, "by faith alone." You added it or forged it. I call for your passages that say, "by faith alone", not the ones that say, "by faith". I can find passages that say we are saved by repentance, saved by baptism, and saved by hope, but I'm not silly enough exclude other things on the basis of what the verses do not say. 6. You said: "Old Testament saints were saved by faith, through the grace of God as Hebrews 11 explains." Yep, and not ONE time does Heb 11 mention any "salvation by faith alone or salvation by a dead faith." In every instance, it was a working, living, active faith. 7. You said: "eis" and simply means "with a view towards," "in connection with," "because of," or "in light of." No, it doesn't. It means "into", "unto", and as Dr. Thayer says, "to obtain." There is not one Greek lexicon that is so bold as to assert the "because of" meaning, and not one standard translation renders the preposition "because of"; if so, I'd like to see the lexicon or translation that does so. Would you like to see a "because-of" eis? "For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many because of (eis) the remission of sins." (Matt 26: 28). Land's sakes, you have Jesus shedding his blood looking BACKWARDS - because of - the remission of sins, for one thing. And for another, you have a man repenting "because of" the remission of his sins: saved first, then repenting in Acts 2: 38. The NIV (1971) which you stated you preferred to use says, ""Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven. …" There is no room for a "because of" even in that translation. 8. You said: "There is no example of an unbaptized Christian in the New Testament." I'll endorse that whole-heartedly. Then why appeal to the thief on the cross? 9. You said: "Jesus was explaining to Nicodemus how to be "born again" and enter the Kingdom of Heaven. If baptism is necessary for salvation, then why did he not tell this Pharisee to go and be baptized by John the Baptist?" Well, John 3: 5: "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." Every "church father" ... every "early Christian" ... familiar with the idiom uniformly state that "born of water and of the Spirit" has direct reference to water baptism. Why is that? I'll assert that you can't name an exception, whereas I can line up twenty in my favor. You have four pretty decent, though not fully developed, affirmative arguments to answer, plus six questions. I did not go into these four "pro" arguments any deeper because you never noticed three of them and never answered a single question. I implore you to address the "con" duty in a debate, dispute the four arguments and answer the six questions. And copying/pasting a smatterer like Cooper Abrams is the worst thing you can do.