Alll that baptism to receive salvation produces is a wet sinner.
Besides, what if a person is on his or her deathbed and cannot be baptized? Or on a jet liner and wants salvation but it crashes before they can get to a baptistery? What if one is in the midst of a desert and no oasis is near? What if a person has a rare medical condition that discourages exposure to large amounts of water?
Baptism for salvation is ridiculous.
See post 5. If you wanna talk more I hope I’ll be feeling better tomorrow.
(Note: I’m not arguing in 5 that Baptism is a work that God demands be performed for salvation, so... yeah, just making sure that’s clear.)
Besides, what if a person is on his or her deathbed and cannot be baptized?
Believing that the unbaptized go to hell, they initiated infant baptism. Problem solved. Well, except for the fact the sins committed after baptism were deemed much more grave than those committed unbaptized, because the baptized were supposed to be living in a state of grace.
So they put off baptism as long as possible. Problem solved. Well, except for the fact that a prince of the church who fell off his horse and died unbaptized went to hell.
What to do? Well, let’s go back to practicing infant baptism, to guarantee a pleasant afterlife, but devise a means to work off our post-baptismal sins after death but before heaven.
We’ll purge our sins. And that’s why we have purgatory, children. And if that doesn’t work, we’ll make up something else.
No it's not, and it's un-Biblical, IMHO, to discuss salvation without baptism as an critical part. I Peter 3:21, and, in addition to that, Christ himself even went through the process of baptism.
If baptism is an outward sign of one's acceptance of Christ, what would be the reason for omitting it?
Baptism meaning immersion, of course.
While I understand that God is the ultimate judge of such things, I see no basis for baptism to be omitted, and ample basis for it to be integrally included whenever possible.