Not at all the thought. Your imaginative assumption is that water baptism has anything at all to do with The Father's decision to save an individual from eternal death and, on the basis alone of The Father's acceptance of the placement by Jesus, as The Eternal High Priest, of His Life-giving Incorruptible Shed Blood upon the Mercy Seat of Heaven by which alone The Father's righteous demands for the damages caused by Sin were completely satisfied, and by which The Father was unilaterally and righteously able to offer reconciliation and recommencing fellowship as with Adam to the otherwise worthless product of Adam's flesh, thus giving him/her the gift of eternal life.
Do you understand that, although the water baptism has a great significance when correctly demonstrating the agreement of the confirmed and permanently committed bondslave disciple of King Jesus Christ as to publicly recognizing his new eternally valid status as disciple-follower unto death, the act of submitting to baptism has nothing to do with imparting or conferring eternal life?
The ordinance announced by Jesus just prior to His Ascension was that of perpetually delegating authority to the members of His Company to signify their acceptance into that Company to such already-regenerated and sufficiently trained diligent students by the public rite figuratively demonstrating and literally sealing the recruitment of a permanent member of that Company, that Body.
That method of enlistment/induction had already been practiced from the initiation of Jesus' public ministry. This ordinance was not a procedure of recognition and commitment foreign to the selected members gathered for their final orders. Its only novelty was that, going forward, it was to be a continuing element in recruiting and training not only Jews (primarily), but also responsible men and women drawn from all the Gentile cultures by actively going out and seeking candidates from the whole world. The common denominator in acceptance into the Body was by public recognition, by immersion baptism, of individuals confirming their irreversible addition to the company of the committed.
I hope this puts a clear and well-defined boundary on what water baptism is in the course of the development of a disciple, according to the Scriptures cited, and what it is not (without mentioning a plethora of irrelevant practices and assumptions).
Let me suggest there are two parts to one baptism, one part the sinner does by faith, and the second is completed with God giving the Holy Spirit by grace.
That is an interesting concept regarding interpretation of Ephesians 4:4-7 and how it comprehends two baptisms, one spiritual and one temporal. I believe (and it is fairly clear from Pauline writings) that they are not, and not likely to be, concurrent.
That the process of water baptism is a rehearsal of that regeneration which has already taken place. These are one in thought and concept, but not one in time. One baptism can be practiced upon many individuals, at widely spaced occasions; yet it is still one baptism in kind, though not in time. It would be rudely pedestrian to presume otherwise.
For example:
"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. 1:17-18 AV)
Many Corinthians were doubtless regenerated as a result of conviction and personal commitment apart from the moment of Paul's delivery of God's answer to sin and depravity; and their incorporation into the local assembly by water baptism through satisfying local recognized elders of their knowledge of, and sincerity in adhering to, The Faith of The Christ was yet again apart from both the moment of preaching and the personal moment of decision. Paul was aware of this, and spoke of not even being instrumental on the baptism of many who trusted in the Spoken Word of The Gospel that he announced as a herald.
I think Paul would agree that making salvation contingent on the application of water baptism would be an utterly asinine presumptuous humanly devised connection amounting to the foolishness he mentioned. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the ρηματος, The Spoken Words, of The God, not by a one-time immersion nor (God forbid!) a wet thumb or sprinkled drops of water on one's forehead.
In Peter's Pentecostal Day response to the convicted believers' cry for further instruction:
"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38 AV).
The correct interpretation of this is that Peter was strongly urging them to receive the gift by the Holy Ghost, the spiritual gift of acceptance into the Body of Christ(the newly birthed local church which the 120 had received just that day) as His committed disciples, on the basis of the forgiveness of their sins, reconciliation through the shed Blood of Christ, and entry into fellowship offered to the former enemy by The Father.
This is a construction by implementing the word "for" (Greek εις) as it is used in the foundational sense of Mt. 12:41:
". . . they repented (having been convicted) at (= on the basis of) the preaching (as a herald) of Jonah . . .".
Another verse causing contention is incorrectly used in attempting to prove that water baptism is a cause of salvation, rather than salvation is a prerequisite for water baptism:
"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned" (Mk. 16:16 AV). The issue here is "Is baptism of an intellectually and/or emotionally assenting, behaviorally convincing subject into the Company an act that forces God to withhold His judgment on an secretly unrepentant heart?" The answer must be "No" (Judas to those first receiving this account).
Is baptism into discipleship a condition of salvation invoked by assuming that this is an exclusive Bible truth? No, because it would be inconsistent with the greater context, which declares through all time that faith is the essential ingredient, not baptism. And it is really an unmoveable, rock-solid, persistent faith in God's faithfulness that counts; not just a faith in one's own reliability, which is just a false undependable fideism.
In the above passage, the individual who has publicly delared his/her allegiance to God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, been baptized into the Company as a disciple, and then apostasizes (in that verse the Greek for "unbeliever is απιστησας = "unbelieving one"), like Judas, never had a saving faith to begin with.
So, taking Mk. 16:16 as a prop for the "baptismal regeneration" theory is just a pit of sharp stakes for one's New Testament theology of "salvation by works."
******
Jesus was not wrong in setting up a perennial, self-renewing induction rite for use to get adherents and practitioners to physically identify themselves as loyal to Him, til He comes.
I have walked with the Lord over 40 years. I'm an old man with Parkinson's Disease, and typing is very difficult for me, and just to type and correct this short response takes a long time. I never said water baptism alone saves as you are determined to attribute to me, and we made it very clear in the article the Lord does not see water baptism as salvation by works, or a work of the flesh. That said, I will make my point and then leave you.
They came to Bethsaida, and some people brought a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. He took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. When he had spit on the man’s eyes and put his hands on him, Jesus asked, “Do you see anything?”
He looked up and said, “I see people; they look like trees walking around." Once more Jesus put his hands on the man’s eyes. Then his eyes were opened, his sight was restored, and he saw everything clearly. NIV Mk 8:22-25
Jesus used spit on the man's eyes to heal the man. Was this healing using spit a work of the flesh or faith working?
If the Lord uses spit in healing, why do you think it so strange He uses the element of water in baptism? Could it be He wants to confound the wise by using one of the most common elements found on earth? He clearly has used water in the past working miracles.