If baptism were necessary for salvation, we would expect to find it stressed whenever the gospel is presented in Scripture.
This is a pre-supposition that can only prejudice one's reading of Scripture. One cannot pick up walnuts when one's sack is filled with pecans.
Paul never made baptism any part of his gospel presentations.
Paul does discuss baptism a doctrinal theme in Romans 6, and even acknowledges having baptized people. And just because Paul does not believe his personal mission was to baptize does not mean that others with him did not perform the task.
Perhaps the most convincing refutation of the view that baptism is necessary for salvation are those who were saved apart from baptism.
The Apostles may or may not have been baptized (Jesus was.) However, we have no way of knowing. Also, might their special relationship with the Lord, as confirmed at Pentecost, have played a role? They certainly had special authority due to this? Also, weren't they the ones who received the Great Commission? It said that they should baptize others, not each other. Hmm.
The Bible also gives us an example of people who were saved before being baptized.
Why don't you actually READ my post. You may be enlightened about this topic.
Exactly! What in your doctrine explains why Jesus never baptized by water?
Baptismal regeneration is definitely the minority position - and I have studied the issue for over 30 years of ministry.
I did read your entry, and find it unconvincing.
Grace and peace to you.
I would *strongly* argue that the apostles were baptized along with the 3,000 on Pentecost. Anything else would be the same kind of special exception you (correctly, IMO) deny the thief.