SM, I've read the bible from cover to cover many, many times in my 60 years.
I think I missed the verse where the redeeming blood of Christ is applied at water baptism.
It is applied at baptism, but not a water baptism.
Could you show me that verse?
The Bible doesn't specifically say that God created germs either, so are you going to contest that germs don't exist? The Bible does't say that Melchisedek was saved...yet he was the High Priest of God in Abraham's day...are you then going to contest that we can deduce from the facts given to us that Melchisedek was not saved?
From cover to cover the Bible is all about covenant. When we study covenanting as God ordained them, we learn that each redemptive covenant has a ceremonial rite of entrance into that covenant, and that all of the stipulations of that particular covenant are ONLY applicable to those who participate in that particular covenant.
The Old Covenant was entered into through circumcision, and no one received any of the promises of the Old Covenant unless they were participating in that covenant through walking in obedience to the covenant law of that covenant, being the 10 Commandments.
The New Covenant is entered into through water baptism, and no one receives any of the promises, gifts, blessings, or benefits of the New Covenant unless they are participating in it by walking in obedience to the covenant law of the New Covenant, the Law of Christ (trust, love - I John 3:23-24).
Since the atonement in Christ is a New Covenant stipulation, no one receives it unless they enter into the covenant by water baptism and faith. We don't need to have it spelled out to us when we follow the natural line of understanding given to us in the Scriptures, and understand and apply the cultural amenities through which the writers of the NT Scriptures wrote.
Paul does not tell you not to spit in someone's face, according to your reasoning, then, do you take it that it wouldn't be a sin to spit in someone's face?
The bible does specifically say this,
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God."
It's through faith, not water.
Charlie, again and again and again you keep quoting one verse and making your stand upon that ONE, single, solitary verse. You can't do that if you ever hope to come to a full and complete understanding of the Scriptures. And since your eternal destiny depends upon what you believe, you really need to start studying the Word outside of calvinist doctrines, because they are practically completely wrong at every turn. Why? Because they do the very same thing you are doing here, taking one passage instead of studying the subject matter topically and gathering ALL of the pertinent passages together for a clear, full, complete picture of what Scriptures states about that subject.
Case in point: faith is the conduit by which we receive from God...it is not a magical iota that gives you salvation just because you tap into it. That is not what Scripture teaches...that is what false calvinist doctrines teach. We appropriate salvation THROUGH faith, NOT by faith, not BECAUSE OF faith, when we do what God commands us to do.
when one receives water baptism and makes his covenant oath to do his best to walk in obedience to God, and comes up out of the water symbolizing new life in Christ, his faith becomes the avenue by which the application of the blood or Christ is applied to his life. Like I said earlier, if you get dunked without faith, you are not saved. If you have faith, but do not receive baptism into Christ, then you are not saved according to the Scriptures. If you walk in obedience to God even if you have faith, but do not receive baptism, then you are not saved according to the Scriptures, which you have been shown over and over again but throw them into the trash.
You cannot have it YOUR way...it has to be "the way of God" or you get nothing. Read...
24 Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was an eloquent man, competent in the Scriptures.
25 He had been instructed in the way of the Lord
. And being fervent in spirit, he spoke and taught accurately the things concerning Jesus, however he knew only the baptism of John.
26 He began to speak boldly in the synagogue, but when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.
You are in the same boat that Apollos was in. You have been taught ABOUT Jesus...that He is the Savior, which is true, and he taught others "accurately" things about Christ. However, "he knew only the baptism of John"...in other words, he was NOT saved. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him preaching, they recognized that he was missing something, that he was not yet saved, presumably because he didn't manifest any of the anointing or spiritual giftings in his preaching or teaching.
The pulled him aside and explained to him "the way of God more accurately," and from the identical narrative in Acts 19:1-7 we can accurately assume that Priscilla and Aquila told him that he had not yet entered into saving relationship with God because he had not yet been baptized into Christ. Therefore, we are also safe in presuming that Apollos immediately wanted to get baptized, just as the 12 did in the following reference.
They, like Apollos, believed...but they were not saved until they received water baptism.
You have no solid grounds for the argument that you present, particularly when we have given you numerous passages that dictate, militantly, that the Scriptures teach that one is not saved until and unless they enter into Christ, the living new covenant, through water baptism. Baptism does not save anyone, it is the same as a marriage ceremony.
You love your fiance, but you are not married until you go through the ceremony. It is the same here...you have faith in God, GREAT!!! But you are not married to God, not adopted by God, until you go through the ceremony that He has ordained for just that purpose. I don't know how it can be explained any simpler. And so far all I see is you arguing out of your bias, not because you are trying to learn anything.
Perhaps you should try humbling yourself, saying, "Perhaps I am wrong...what if "so-and-so has a better grasp of this subject than I do..." Then maybe you will actually look at what is being given to you.