The subject of first clause has nothing to do with the subject of second clause.
The second clause clarifies the first clause.
The first clause deals with the subject of salvation and it is given two requirements: belief and baptism.
The second clause clarifies the first clause, so these are not two requirements. These are general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized. As long as you are speaking of one who truly believes (trusts) in Christ as the all sufficient means of their salvation, you can most certainly say of him, "he shall be saved." Surely, if he that believes is not condemned (John 3:18), then he that believes and is baptized shall be eternally saved as well. *If water baptism is absolutely required for salvation, then why did Jesus not mention it in the following verses? - (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26). What is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions 9 times in each of these complete statements?
BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism? *Hermeneutics.
The second clause deals with the different subject of condemnation and has only one requirement: unbelief.
And NOWHERE does the Bible say that whoever is not water baptized will be condemned.
No one can mix and match requirements for two the different subjects. Therefore unbelief is the only requirement necessary to be met to be condemned.
John 3:18 - He who
believes in Him is not condemned; but he who
does not believe is condemned already..
And since Jesus made belief a PREREQUISITE to baptism that automatically means the unbeliever is unbaptized. Therefore in the Mk 16;16b, since the phrase "he that believeth not" ALREADY AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDES the unbaptized then it would be pointless and redundant for Jesus to say "he that believeth not and is not baptized due to his unbelief is condemned".
Your argument here is based on faulty human logic. Show me from scripture "baptized or condemned".
Therefore there is no such thing as a baptized unbeliever.
There most certainly is! There are many people who are
not genuine believers but have been water baptized anyway. You are very naive to believe otherwise.
An unbeliever can be dipped in water and get all wet, but he is still lost and unbaptized according to Christ's own words.
Now you are saying an unbeliever can be dipped in water. That is still baptism. He is still lost if he does not believe. Genuine believers are saved and trust exclusively in Christ for salvation before, during and after water baptism.
Infants can be dipped but they are just getting wet for baptism does not do anything for an unbelieving infant - (which has no sins to be remitted anyway)
Infants and adults who
do not believe are just getting wet.
You are STILL are ignoring the power of connective conjunction "and" that ties belief to baptism. You argument fails on many levels but fails here in your continued attempt to separate the two. Since the "and" joins the two making them BOTH of EQUAL IMPORTANCE AND NECESSITY Therefore if one need not be baptized to be saved then one need not believe either. Again, trying to mix or match qualification of the two different subjects cannot be done and cannot get rid of the "and".
I'm not trying to get rid of "and" (it makes no difference) because once again, Jesus clarifies the first clause with
"but he who does not believe will be condemned" so condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism, so salvation rests on belief, which is in harmony with John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47, 11:25,26 which you continue to ignore. If he who believes will be saved (John 3:18; Acts 10:43) then he who believes and is baptized (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) will be saved as well.
Your argument is Condemnation rests on unbelief, not on baptism.
Amen! John 3:18 - He who
believes in Him is not condemned; but he who
does not believe is condemned already..
Why? Because he has not been water baptized? NO!
Because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
Again unbelief = unbaptized.
False! Unbelief = does not believe in Jesus for salvation. We believe BEFORE we get water baptized.
You may have been dipped in water as an unbeliever but you were never biblically baptized as an unbeliever per Christ's own words.
Being immersed in water is still getting water baptized. The question is, were we a genuine believer or not when we got water baptized. If not, then we got water baptized for the wrong reason. Because you are trusting in water baptism (and not exclusively in Christ) to save you is the wrong reason. Baptized as an unbeliever is not Biblical baptism, but unbelievers are still immersed in water, just as believers are immersed in water. Baptism is like a marriage ceremony, like the receiving of rings as "tokens" of the covenant. The ring, like baptism, is not what actually unites the hearts of two people, but is the formal acknowledgment of it. If one gets water baptized, without first receiving Christ through believing in Him/faith, then he becomes an imposter, and is declaring, in baptism, to be what he is not.