The thief on the cross is also not truly applicable. He was saved under the Old Covenant, because the New Covenant wasn’t really “up and running” until Pentecost. Baptism wasn’t requirement — not even a normative requirement (versus an absolute one) — for salvation under the Old Covenant. You might as well argue that Moses or Elijah or Abraham, not receiving Christian baptism yet nevertheless being saved, are arguments against baptism.
people in the old testament were saved the same way new testament people are- by faith in christ, they looked forward to the cross, we look back.
Sorry does not fly. Christ died before the thief died. The covenant was finished, biblically the veil was torn the moment he died signifying the end of the old covenant.
So your argument fails and the bible itself proves so.
There are many other reasons why but I will stick with your train of thought. You are making the case specific to a few choice elements of scripture, in this case scripture does not support you at all
The thief on the cross is also not truly applicable.
***He IS truly applicable, especially since [from our timeline perspective] he is the first one to enter into Paradise with Jesus.
He was saved under the Old Covenant,
***He was saved under the NEW Covenant, which was sealed at the DEATH of Christ, even before Jesus rose from the dead.
because the New Covenant wasn’t really “up and running” until Pentecost.
***Nonsense. The New Covenant was up and running the moment Jesus died. That was the moment the veil in the temple was torn and the earthquake happened.
Baptism wasn’t requirement
***And isn’t a requirement. It’s a sign of obedience and identification with the body of believers.
— not even a normative requirement (versus an absolute one) —
***Mumbo Jumbo.
for salvation under the Old Covenant.
***Nor under the New Covenant.
You might as well argue
***You might as well argue that aliens have the power to save you. When you write a phrase like that, it’s a gigantic blinking light that says “What follows is a straw argument”. Knock off the nonsense.
that Moses or Elijah or Abraham, not receiving Christian baptism yet nevertheless being saved, are arguments against baptism.
***Yup. Straw argument. And a red herring to boot. There are people who argue this set of points about pre-Christ believers, so I’ll let them take you on about this, since I am not convinced you are here to argue in good faith.
I think you can argue that many NT Christians received the Holy Spirit simply through words or laying on of hands without water baptism.