[Tao Yin]

Please note that the malefactor was one of, if not the, last soul saved under the Mosaic/Davidic Covenant, for whom water baptism was not an issue. He was saved by faith alone in Jesus alone, the same way that people are saved under the New Covenant. However, obedience to the command of Christ to be inducted into the Company of The Committed, His Bride, is to submit oneself to the baptismal rite of accepting the role as a disciple under the New Covenant.

I would strongly disagree. Baptism isn't required for salvation. If some accepted Jesus as their savior and died in a car crash before they could be baptized, there is no theological problem with saying that they are saved.

If someone isn't baptized and rejects the idea that they need to be baptized for salvation, then there is a theological problem that is above my pay grade.

The thief on the cross is someone who died before he could be baptized, rather than someone who rejected baptism. There is no theological problem with the thief's salvation without baptism.

[imardmd1]

I would strongly disagree. Baptism isn't required for salvation.

You don't have anything to be disagreeable about.

First, on the Cross, the Mosaic Covenant, The Law, was in effect and Jesus was fulfilling it. Why don't you read over carefully what I wrote.