I am hardly comfortable denying the necessity of the Baptism, as Christ Himself said to “Go be baptized, and wait for the Holy Spirit”. But by the same token, there is something to be said for the radio pastor’s words.
While it is certainly best to be baptized, and to follow the prescription as laid out in Scripture, certainly there are times wherein baptism is not done, or is simply not possible.
By way of example, the OP lays a valid claim for the salvation of the Hebrew forefathers- That God is the God of the living, ergo, the Hebrew fathers are even now alive, and presumably saved- Even though it is unlikely that they ever experienced a baptism.
The criminal on the cross who was promised, “Today you will be with me in Paradise,” was probably not baptized, though admittedly that is a presumption on my part.
And one might further speculate that a soldier, mortally wounded on the field of battle, who truly finds his Savior in the final moments of his life would not be turned aside for wont of a bit of water and a priest to perform the duty.
In all of these cases, the symbolism of baptism is prevented by circumstance. But it is truly the Blood that saves. I cannot believe that in such a condition, the circumcision of the heart (which is undoubtedly the purpose behind the symbolism of baptism) would not suffice.
Yes. You are describing, more or less, the Catholic doctrine of baptism of desire and baptism of blood. The same can be said about the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist. They are all necessary when they are available, but if a person is prevented by some obstacle form receiving them, but wishes to receive them, we trust in the infinite mercy of Christ that the disposition of his heart will alone suffice. The sacraments of the Church are called ordinary means of salvation, that is, they are necessary in ordinary circumstances.