I see that your church of Christ indoctrination runs deep. I already refuted your arguments surrounding Acts 2:38 and Mark 16:16 numerous times but sadly, you just don't have ears to hear. Your biased interpretation of Acts 2:38 is not in harmony with the rest of scripture but you don't seem to care. All you seem to care about is accommodating your biased church doctrine.
Again, the only logical conclusion
when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31; 26:18).
*Perfect Harmony* Deal with it.
As Greek scholar AT Robertson stated: Change of number from plural to singular and of person from second to third. This change marks a break in the thought here that the English translation does not preserve. The first thing to do is make a radical and complete change of heart and life. Then let each one be baptized after this change has taken place, and the act of baptism be performed “in the name of Jesus Christ” (εν τωι ονοματι Ιησου Χριστου — en tōi onomati Iēsou Christou).
Greek scholar A. T. Robertson authored Word Pictures in the New Testament. In his comments on Acts 2:38 he said, - “One will decide the use here according as he believes that baptism is essential to the remission of sins or not. "My view is decidedly against the idea that Peter, Paul, or any one in the New Testament taught baptism as essential to the remission of sins or the means of securing such remission.
So I understand Peter to be urging baptism on each of them who had already turned (repented) and for it to be done in the name of Jesus Christ on the basis of the forgiveness of sins which they had already received.” The illustrations of both usages are numerous in the N.T. and the Koin, generally (Robertson, Grammar, page 592).
Acts 2 - Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament - Bible Commentaries - StudyLight.org
Greek scholar E Calvin Beisner said something similar - In short, the most precise English translation of the relevant clauses, arranging them to reflect the switches in person and number of the verbs, would be, “You (plural) repent for the forgiveness of your (plural) sins, and let each one (singular) of you be baptized (singular)….” Or, to adopt our Southern dialect again, “Y’all repent for the forgiveness of y’all’s sins, and let each one of you be baptized….”
When I showed this translation to the late Julius Mantey, one of the foremost Greek grammarians of the twentieth century and co-author of A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (originally published in 1927), he approved and even signed his name next to it in the margin of my Greek New Testament. These arguments, lexical and grammatical, stand independently. Even if one rejects both lexical meanings of for, he still must face the grammatical argument, and even if he rejects the grammatical conclusion, he still must face the lexical argument.
Does Acts 2:38 prove baptismal remission? No, it doesn’t even support it as part of a cumulative case. — E. Calvin Beisner
http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAA238.pdf
Greek scholar Daniel Wallace explains in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: It is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol
(although only the reality remits sins). In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38
(that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell):
Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit baptized.
https://christiandefense.org/general/3871/
In regard to Mark 16:16, Jesus
clarifies the first clause with
"..but he who does not believe will be condemned." It's the lack of belief that causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism. Did Jesus forget to mention baptism in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29.40.47; 11:25-26? Hmm. All you do is cherry pick pet verses, build biased doctrine on them and ignore the rest. That's called "flawed hermeneutics." I on the other hand
properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.
John 3:18 - He who
believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO)
does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO)
because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. Deal with it.