Five Invalid Arguments Concerning Baptism

1). I don't need baptism because I trusted Jesus to be my Lord and Savior. Jesus said this, "He that believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be damned." (Mark 16:16) In John 6:29, Jesus said faith was a work. "This is the work of God, that you believe on him whom he has sent." James 2:26 says " For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." We see in 1 John 3:18. "My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth." So, not getting baptized into Jesus Christ, is to disbelieve Him. Paul connected faith and baptism. "For you are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:26-27)
2). The thief on the cross was forgiven, and didn't need to be baptized, so neither do I. First, nobody can say if he was baptized, that's unknown. The thief died in the Old Testament. And Jesus had power to forgive sins. Before His death Jesus directly granted forgiveness to some people (Mark 2:5-12; Luke 7:48-49; John 8:1-11). The thief is another such case. Second, and more importantly, baptism was not even instituted until the New Testament. Salvation in the New Testament is based on Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:1-7). Jesus did not give the Great Commission of Mark 16:15-17 and Matthew 28:18-20 which requires baptism, until much later.
3). Some, in wishing to deny the importance and purpose of baptism, claim that the original Greek word eis (which is found 1,750 times) in Acts 2:38 means "be baptized because you already have remission or forgiveness of sins." In Matthew 26:28, Jesus said His blood "is shed for many for the remission of sins." Did Jesus shed His blood because people already had forgiveness or in order that they might obtain it? For the last several centuries, English speakers have exclusively seen eis as looking forward and never backward. At least forty translations say of Acts 2:38 is "for the remission of sins." Why change it now to suit those who just want to deny the gospel of God? (Colossians 2:8)
4). Calling upon the name of the Lord alone saves me (Romans 10:8-13). If that's true, why did Peter who already preached to the 3,000 repentant Jews that calling on the name of the Lord saves in Acts 2:21, still require baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus? The Apostle Paul fasted, prayed and yet was ordered to get baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus to wash away sins by water baptism in Acts 22:16. Why? Because they both knew that that everyone must call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ in all things (Colossians 3:17), and that baptism does also now save us (1 Peter 3:21). Paul mentions that baptism in Jesus name gets us into Christ in Romans 6:3-5 (written in 66 A.D.) , therefore we must use His name in our baptism. Salvation began in the book of Acts on 33 A.D. not later!