It's not there in John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,49,47; 11:25,26. In Acts 2:38, repent is connected with remission of sins and baptism is parenthetical. Repentance is a "change of mind" and the new direction of this change of mind is faith in Christ for salvation. Two sides to the same coin. That's in harmony with Acts 3:19; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 15:8,9; 16:31. You need to harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching your conclusion instead of distorting and perverting passages of scripture in an effort to "patch together" your so called gospel plan.
In Mark 16:16, it's the lack of belief that causes condemnation, not the lack of baptism. In Acts 22:16, The Greek aorist participle, epikalesamenos, translated "calling on His name" refers either to action that is simultaneous with or before that of the main verb, "be baptized." Here Paul’s calling on Christ’s name for salvation preceded his water baptism. The participle may be translated "having called on His name" which makes more sense, as it would clearly indicate the order of the events. It also should be noted that Paul at the time when Ananias prayed for him to receive his sight, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17)--this was before he was baptized (Acts 9:18). Verse 17 connects his being filled with the Spirit with the receiving of his sight. We know that he received his sight prior to water baptism.
That is exactly what you are doing and now you are forced to either take your handful of verses that "on the surface" appear to teach salvation through baptism and "patch them together" with the multitude of verses that make it crystal clear we are saved through believing in Him/faith "apart from additions or modifications" or else try to "shoe horn" baptism into believing in Him/faith in order to accommodate your theology. Of course, both of those methods of interpretation amount to flawed hermeneutics.
Very serious. It's painfully obvious.
I'm not frustrated at all and I clearly proved my case. As I already stated in post #102 - It's a big assumption to assume that the thief was already saved and water baptized. Being crucified as a thief is not the fruit of repentance/faith. Neither is blaspheming, mocking, and shaking your head at Jesus (Matthew 27:39-43). Do you really believe that being crucified as a thief, blasheming, mocking and shaking your head at Jesus is the fruit of repentance/faith?
But moments later, we see that the thief had a "change of mind" (repentance) placed his faith in Christ for salvation and was saved (Luke 23:40-43). Of course, the thief died before having the opportunity to be water baptized.
Even a good defense lawyer can't refute these facts.