So I'm curious some denominations teach that "accept Jesus as personal Lord and Savior" and you will be saved?

[benhur]

It is clear that if you believe and don’t bother with baptism, you don’t have “saving faith”!

Yes and no. For sure what is clearer is that if you don’t believe you do not have eternal life. I can not in good conscience elevate baptism to the same effectual salvation and rebirth role as “belief”. No one has convinced me of an unregenerate man being able to believe, as is required, before water baptism.

 

[sallybutler]

…

Penance is not in my bible but the idea is only in the OT. The NT has a more perfect sacrifice where indeed “it is finished” and you do not cover/atone your sin with your work, for Calvary covers it,past present and future. The term in NT is repentance not penance and I believe newer Rheims bibles no longer translate metanoeo as penance. So did the adultress who was caught and forgiven by Christ the High Priest have to do any penance ? No. She had to “manteneoe” repent -“go and sin no more”.

…
.

Benhur,

Do you only have to repent once and that covers everything forever? What happens if you fail in the “go and sin no more” instruction?

 

[Porknpie]

Before we go ‘into the water’ of Baptism (by immersion or pouring) we are spiritually dead to God’s Grace.

Telstar, for the lurkers I’ll add sprinkling as the third permissible form of baptism.

Ezekiel 36 foretells:

25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

PnP

 

[SoMissCatholic]

I just read a fascinating article over at Called to Communion that is very relevant to this conversation. It essentially tracks the evolution in Calvinism/Evangelicalism from Calvin’s belief in baptismal regeneration to the modern evangelical understanding of regeneration as an individual, psychological exercise whereby one is regenerated by “accepting Jesus Christ as personal Lord and Savior.” The article is: “Have you been Born Again? Catholic Reflections on a Protestant Doctrine, or How Calvin’s view of Salvation destroyed his Doctrine of the Church”

I’ll give a “brief” summary of the article’s discussion on this evolution below:

Interestingly, as the article notes, Calvin himself believed in baptismal regeneration:

For Calvin, baptism was the normative means of salvation. “It is true,” Calvin writes quite bluntly, “that, by neglecting baptism we are excluded from salvation.”9 “All these graces,” Calvin writes, “are conferred on us, when it pleases him to incorporate us into his kingdom by Baptism. “[T]he truth and substance of baptism is comprised in [Christ] … as he communicates his riches and blessings by his word, so he distributes them by his Sacraments.”10 God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of His Church, and makes us His by adoption.11

The article then tracks the development of Calvin’s original belief into Puritanism:

Puritanism began as an attempt to reform the liturgy and sacraments of the Anglican Church along Calvinist lines. When this failed, English Calvinists were faced with a dilemma: how to confront questions of assurance and election without the “proper” ecclesiological context? Patrick Colinson summarizes the development of Puritanism this way:

The theological achievement of the Puritans, from William Perkins onwards, can be roughly interpreted as the adaptation and domestication of Calvinism to fit the condition of voluntary Christians, whose independence of the ordered, disciplined life of the Church Calvin would have found strange and disturbing.18

Their solution was a turn inward. “Self contemplation,” as Newman would later call it, or introspection, became the principle method for discerning regeneration and election. Hence, Perry Miller’s famous quip: “Protestantism liberated men from the treadmill of indulgences and penances, but cast them on the iron couch of introspection.”19

It then follows the development over to New England where the idea of the “invisible church” began to take root:

The Calvinists of New England drew out the ecclesial consequences of this new emphasis on interior experience and assurance. Puritan separatists sought to overcome their exclusion from the national church by “covenanting” with fellow “saints” to form autonomus congregations. The key to this ecclesiology was the conviction that one could reliably identify “the saints.” The novelty of “the New England Way,” therefore, was to make regeneration the condition of Church membership, rather than initiation into the Church the condition of regeneration. By 1636, most of the congregations of New England restricted membership to “visible saints.” This led ultimately, and ironically, to denying baptism to the children of those who could not “prove” their election. Authorities in Massachusetts created a concession in the form of the “half-way covenant,” allowing baptism for the children of the “unregenerate.” However, this was not universally accepted.

. . .

The death knell of traditional, Reformed ecclesiology sounded with the brilliant work of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). Edwards synthesized the best in Puritan thought with a keen philosophical sense, and produced one of the most profound set of reflections on religious experience. However, his strong advocacy of interior experience finally turned Reformed ecclesiology on its head. Breaking with the logic of the half-way covenant, Edwards insisted that the sacraments be denied to all who could not attest to their conversion. Edwards’s doctrine led directly to the logic of the First Great Awakening: above all, work for discernible “conversions.”21

. . .

New England Puritanism insisted on discerning the marks of election/regeneration, and saw this as essential to constituting a true, visible Church. However, the half-way covenant still allowed for the possibility of a mixed congregation, one containing both”Tares and Wheat.” Edwards rejected the half-way covenant, and pushed Puritan ecclesiology closer simply to identifying “true Church” with the discernibly regenerate. By making the marks of regeneration essentially interior (“religious affections”) rather than sacramental, he prepared the way for a radical, redefinition of “true Church.” Whitefield’s denominationalism now follows logically. The true Church is simply the one containing all those possessing the (self-attested) interior marks of regeneration.

(Continued below)

 

[SoMissCatholic]

(Continued from above)

Then through the innovations of the Second Great Awakening, which further separated the idea of regeneration from association with a sacrament administered by the visible church:

The innovations of the First Great Awakening led directly to the innovations of the second. If signs of regeneration can be reliably discerned apart from any normative conception of Church or sacrament, then why cannot any type of means be employed to produce them? The leaders of the Second Great Awakening applied this exact argument, holding that men could be brought to show these signs of regeneration through deliberate, revivalistic measures. Institutions like the “anxious bench” and the altar call were the direct results of this thinking.

. . .

The Premier theorist of the Second Great Awakening, Charles Grandison Finney, inventor of the “anxious bench,” reasons as follows:

I remark, then, that regeneration must consist, doubtless, in a change of the disposition of the mind — a voluntary consecration to God . . . I remark, again, in other words, that regeneration consists in a change in the ultimate intention, or end of life. The mind, in regeneration, withdraws itself from seeking, as the ultimate disposition and end, the gratification of self, and choose a higher end than itself. Its disposition is changed from supreme selfishness to an entire devotion of the whole being to the great end for which God lives, and for which he made man to live. Regeneration, then, consists in ceasing to live to sin and for selfishness, and to live to and for God.23

This is a far cry from the Patristic notion of regeneration, or even Calvin’s doctrine, in which regeneration is brought about by our union with Christ by the Holy Spirit through baptism and incorporation into the visible Church. Finney’s “measures” moved the concepts of regeneration and Christian initiation in a distinctively individual and psychological direction, even if many Protestants were unwilling to follow all his theological conclusions. Most importantly, Finney defended the idea that regeneration is something that can be chosen and effected immediately entirely through mental processes. And while he may have relied on quasi-liturgical methods – like the anxious bench – to influence those processes, there is no reason, given his premises, that any method at all be normative.

Finney placed a strong emphasis on the ethical component of conversion. Others influenced by him preferred to emphasize the more Calvinist elements of assurance and grace. What they inherited from the era of Finney, then, was the emphasis on personal decision and instantaneous change – leading, in this case, to assurance more than ethical transformation. A simple, unemotional, voluntary consecration to God – even the recitation of a formula – privately, apart from church – now counts as Christian initiation. Thus, the birth of “the sinner’s prayer.”

Paul Harrison Chitwood has identified D. L. Moody (1837-1899) as the evangelist who first used such formulaic methods to define Christian conversion and initiation.24 After Moody, however, the practice and the doctrine it implies became commonplace. Billy Graham presents a version of this in his book Peace with God. Bill Bright, the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ, makes this doctrine central to his famous pamphlet The Four Spiritual Laws. The website of Campus Crusade, for example, explains that one receives Christ, and experiences regeneration, immediately through an act of the will. It suggests a specific prayer to effect this, and follows it with the exhortation: “Now that you have received Christ . . .”25

The article then goes on to discuss ecclessiological implications and provide further assessment, but I’ll let those interested navigate over to the article and read it there.

 

[Counterpoint]

So what verses are used in support for this doctrine? Is it biblical? I would also like to know when they mean “saved” is it a past-tense and you can no-longer lose your salvation?

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Acts 16:30-31

Pretty simple huh?

 

[whosidiss]

John 3:16, Romans 10:9, Ephesians 2:8-9, and etc. are all used in support. Of course, the ones who teach this (Evangelical, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Fundamentalist) are just making assumptions. If they read verses like 1 Peter 3:21, John 3:5, Acts 2:38 etc. they would know that we need Baptism. You see these verses that they use as “proof” text are just emphasizing on the need of faith. If an adult is baptized without faith, or takes does good works without faith, or partakes in the sacraments without faith, then he has not received any grace of any kind. We need faith in order to receive grace from things like these. No verse in the Bible says we need faith alone, the only Bible verse that says ‘faith alone’ is found in James 2:24, and in James 2:24 it says that with faith alone you can’t be saved. Now when these types of Protestants use the word “saved” in the past-tense, they use it because they (and all Protestants alike) believe that salvation is a one time thing, and that there is no process to it. Of course they just ignore verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9, and I John 5:16-17. If someone of this teaching asks you if you’re saved, respond: 'I am saved, and continuing to be saved."
I was a former non-denominational-evangelical-fundamentalist-Baptist, who believed in this. But I found the true CATHOLIC church of Christ a few years back. (And yes, there are non-denominational Baptist because Baptist is not a denomination it is a protestant sub-tradition.)

 

[benhur]

Benhur,

Do you only have to repent once and that covers everything forever? What happens if you fail in the “go and sin no more” instruction?

The issue is proper translation of repentance and penance. That we are not freed from our sinful old man till that great day does not change the efficacy of Calvary or the correct translation of repentance.what, if you do penance you sin no more ? Continual penance is better than continual repentance ? what you plead the blood the first time and there after with penance? 70 x 70 isn’t it ?

 

[Telstar]

So was I and St. Paul and St. Peter (talking about the purpose of the law waaaaaay before Christ, during Christ and even now - there are still Jews today living under the law which the Spirit is trying to reach). By the works of the law or works of righteousness no man is saved, yesterday, today or tomorrow, Any law/works, any covenant, any time. The law is the schoolmaster. Again the idea is saved by grace by faith, lest any man boast.That is all…Maybe that is why St. Paul says, " I came not to baptize but to preach the gospel…" 1 Cor 1:17 It is like baptism is a work in righteousness, that in itself does not save for it is faith in Christ by grace we are saved. Again it is the why of baptism we are discussing. That is being converted by the gospel is what saves you. Paul knew it and hence put the bigger emphasis on it than water baptism.

:banghead:

I’m just banging my head against the wall cuz it feels so good when I stop.

Peter & Paul were both talking about the effectiveness of the*** OT Law at the time they were preaching***, which was after the NT Covenant was already active! They said that the OT law could no longer save the Jews that they were preaching to.

The OT Law was able to save the Jews before Jesus came to preach, but only if they had been faithful and ***followed ***it. If the OT Law could not have saved them (according to your interpretation), then all souls that were born before the time of Jesus would have already been lost. In fact, if what you’re proposing is true, then everyone on earth is either already saved or going to hell, and Jesus’ coming to earth, and dieing on the cross, were all done in vain. So… wait, are we all fine and dandy, or going to hell? Do we all just say, “I believe”, and we’re good to go?

Again, you are confusing/combining the teachings of the OT Law with NT teachings and visa versa. You (or whoever you’re learning this from) seem to just pick and choose whichever little bits of each one you (or they) can manipulate to justify your own interpretation of what Jesus ***actually ***taught. I can’t even begin to understand it because it’s just not even logical, theologically speaking. The two Covenants are not interchangeable or even complimentary to one another. You have to pick one to believe in and stick with it. You can’t live by both.

I really need to sleep, so I’ll have to finish the rest of this post, tomorrow.

 

[Telstar]

Telstar, for the lurkers I’ll add sprinkling as the third permissible form of baptism.

Ezekiel 36 foretells:

25 I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27 I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances.

PnP

Yes, of course you’re right. I forgot about the ‘sprinkles’. Thanks!

 

[ltwin]

Agreed!

It seems a “saving faith” is one that leads to repentance and confession, and that enables one to persevere?

Yes, I agree.

I suppose one who’s faith is not strong enough to continue confessing under persecution is not a “saving faith”?

Jesus says that if we deny him before men he will deny us before his father. Of course, like Peter, there is forgiveness for those who have denied him.

Yes, a rose is a rose is a rose. And saving faith is faith that saves! But faith does not save, Jesus does.

Yes, and water baptism does not save. Jesus does. But I guess anyone who is saved is also baptized in water.

Just as Catholics would argue that the initial God-ordained means by which saving grace is bestowed to a person is through baptism, I would argue that the God-ordained means by which saving grace is bestowed on a person is “faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God”.

I gather that a “saving faith” is one that is such that the possessor obeys Jesus.

Yes and when he/she is disobedient there is evident repentance. We are called to be perfect, but we certainly will not always be perfect. There is a growth in grace that happens as we mature in the faith and our walk with God.

The wonderful thing about faith is that it makes us realize that salvation is not based on what we have done or what we can do. It is all based on Christ, whose dwelling places we have become. His death is our death. His life, our life. So, there is a transformation and an identification that has to occur.

Sanctifying ourselves is a part of that. Obedience is a part of that. But it is much more than behavior modification. It has to be Christ in us, the hope of glory (Colossians 1:27).

Agreed, “saving faith,” is faith in action, as I said. (But not agreed that man can boast in himself, but on the contrary, boast in God.)

That was an unfortunate typo.Just to clarify, that should have been “so that man cannot boast in himself.”

I think it’s the other way around, about missing the point.

It seems to me that the non-biblical term, “saving faith” was invented by those who hold to the “once saved, always saved” belief (not you!). Because experience showed to them that there were Christians among them who presumably were “saved” but nevertheless backslid and even quit or denied the faith. These seemingly had faith and were “saved,” but obviously then they didn’t have “saving faith” since they eventually fell away.

From this point of view, since you (and I) are not OSAS, we are using the term “saving faith” in a less specific sense than they.

And it’s true, a lighthearted confession is unlikely to persevere under threat of the lions or the stake; it won’t stand up under duress.

Well, it depends on how you define “faith”. I think “saving faith” is a useful term because many people in our culture take “faith” to be something less than the Bible means by “faith”. To many in American culture, faith is merely “belief”. I can “believe” that Jesus was who he said he was, but mere “belief” does not save.

“Saving faith” makes it clear that no mere “belief” can suffice. It must be a gift from God that comes by hearing the Word.

 

[ltwin]

An evasion.

I don’t see how it’s an evasion to note that outliers like Quakers and Salvationists do not represent even a sliver of most of the world’s Protestants or evangelicals or “born-again” Christians.

No, you didn’t say it was right. But I presume that the Salvation Army folks think they are born again?

I would assume they do. I have no reason to doubt that they can be. Their reasons for cessation of the sacraments are given here. To me it seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I don’t think that someone who is truly saved in a Salvation Army church is any less saved than I am. (Because, remember, I don’t believe I was saved the moment I was baptized but well before it.) However, I do believe that once the Salvationist is made aware of Jesus’ commands to be baptized, then he should be baptized in obedience to Christ’s command. As the link above states, the Salvation Army does not prevent their members from being baptized in other churches.

Their reasons for cessation of the sacraments are interesting. I reminds me of several groups in the milieu of pre-Reformation and Reformation Europe who ceased to observe the sacraments so as to highlight the greater importance of spiritual communion with Christ.

Doggone it, I still don’t quite follow your comment.

Anyway, only those “born-again Christians,” (not you) who teach they do not need to be baptized are disobeying Jesus’ command. Obviously those “born-again” Christians who teach they need to be baptized and are baptized are not disobeying Christ’s command.

I believe that the purpose of water baptism is obedience and to receive other spiritual blessings that flow from baptism. I do not believe that the purpose of baptism is to remove original sin or to effect salvation. This is what most “born-again” Christians (besides the outliers like Salvation Army) believe and teach.

We baptize not to save but to obey. Therefore, are we in disobedience?

Of course, this is ignoring the question of why Christ commanded it.

I’ve already went over what I believe the purpose of baptism is already in this thread. You may not agree.

Touche’! Sarcasm against sarcasm!

No, I was hoping that the term “means of grace” came from a higher place than it turned out to be. And I was hoping that I would get more than a man-made explanation. Since you are not OSAS, “means of grace” are important in your theology, as in Catholic theology. Although I don’t know if “means of grace” fit in with OSAS theology.

Well, I’m definitely using “means of grace” in a more Wesleyan and overall Protestant way. They can just as easily be called “spiritual disciplines”.

Almost agreed, except that it is water baptism that is how one gets baptized into the body of Christ by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, that water baptism does literally wash away sins as per scripture is the point of disagreement. But if that is denied, then some other, non-biblical, explanation of the benefits of baptism have to be manufactured.

Yes, this is the heart of the disagreement. However, I don’t think my side is “manufacturing” anything.

Yes, faith precedes baptism. Those to whom Peter preached in Acts were convinced by his speech; that is they believed and then what next? Peter answered, “Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins.”

Yes, this did happen. But most Christian churches (Catholic and Protestants included) do not follow this plain Scriptural pattern. We often temporally separate the act of repentance and baptism by considerable length.

And in Mark 16:16, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved, but he who disbelieves will be condemned.” (It is true Mk 16:16 is in the long ending so you may not consider it truly part of scripture, but at least it is an early witness to what the early Christians thought about baptism.)

The important point here is that nowhere does it say that not being baptized condemns! Condemnation comes from unbelief. Belief (rather than water baptism) is the controlling factor.

Good question. But, why would someone be baptized if they disbelieved? How about forcible baptisms?

It might not be apparent now, because in the West Christianity has lost a lot of its clout, but in the past, to not be a Christian in “Christendom” was a serious problem. Just ask the Jews.

If you are a Jew and all you have to do to stay in Spain in 1492 is get baptized and have some communion and confession every once in a while, the waters of baptism start to look a lot nicer.

Although, it is true, a small boy being washed by his mother gets clean whether he likes it or not.

Unless, he only jumped in and out of the water long enough to tell his mother he got a bath so she wouldn’t spank him (or kick him out of Spain).

 

[PRmerger]

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Acts 16:30-31

Pretty simple huh?

Actually, Catholics take the Word of God in its entirety. We do not take one verse in isolation of the rest of the Bible.

Here’s what the Bible actually says is required in order to be saved.

We are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By feeding the hungry and clothing the naked (Matt: 25:42)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

 

[sallybutler]

Actually, Catholics take the Word of God in its entirety. We do not take one verse in isolation of the rest of the Bible.

Here’s what the Bible actually says is required in order to be saved.

We are saved:

By believing in Christ (Jn 3:16; Acts 16:31)

By repentance (Acts 2:38; 2 Pet 3:9)

By baptism (Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 3:21; Titus 3:5)

By eating his flesh and drinking his blood (Jn 6)

By the work of the Spirit (Jn 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6)

By declaring with our mouths (Lk 12:8; Rom 10:9)

By coming to a knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4; Heb 10:26)

By works (Rom 2:6-7; James 2:24)

By grace (Acts 15:11; Eph 2:8)

By his blood (Rom 5:9; Heb 9:22)

By his righteousness (Rom 5:17; 2 Pet 1:1)

By keeping the commandments (Matt 19:17)

By feeding the hungry and clothing the naked (Matt: 25:42)

By our words (Matt 12:37)

But that’s so hard :crying:

 

[PRmerger]

But that’s so hard :crying:

I know, right?

One of the biggest lies the Great Deceiver was successful in duping (a lot of) souls with was whispering, “You don’t need to believe in the Word of God in its entirety. Just take one or two verses out of the Bible and ignore the rest!”

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?

31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Acts 16:30-31

Pretty simple huh?

Context Counterpoint, you left out the result of the rest of the story here, that results in an action from the apostle.

Acts 16:30-31 concludes with Acts 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him to all that were in his house (Catholics practice this in the Liturgy of the Word at Mass). 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he BAPTIZED at once with all his family…and he rejoiced with all his household that he had BELIEVED in God.

The profession of faith , the Word must be included with the baptism for one to be saved, it is biblical. A profession of faith without baptism is never biblical.

Here is Peter speaking to the Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost the birthdate of the Church, devout men from every nation under heaven Acts 2:5.… concludes with Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart and said to Peter…**.“Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
**41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Yes and no. For sure what is clearer is that if you don’t believe you do not have eternal life. I can not in good conscience elevate baptism to the same effectual salvation and rebirth role as “belief”. No one has convinced me of an unregenerate man being able to believe, as is required, before water baptism.

In the Catholic Church all are saved by baptism including new born infants, toddlers, mentally handicapped, those with a speech and hearing impediment, the die-ing, the sick and old who may not be able to express a faith, yet the two witnesses at baptism (God parents) stand in according to the ancient biblical practice to establish Truth of the faith in Christ.

Baptism excludes NO ONE from the Kingdom of God in the body of Jesus Christ HIs Church.

A profession of faith alone by one person does not establish the biblical principle of Truth nor can that person save himself. God saves each one who is born of Water and Spirit. It is always God who saves “HOSANNA”, man cannot save himself.

The profession of faith alone at many times excludes the less fortunate who may be handicapped by speech, hearing and or mentally ill. Many do not reach the profession of faith that is required or gauged by some non-Catholic Christians in order to be saved. Such a false practice places an obstacle for God’s people to be saved…

The faith alone apart from baptism places an obstacle for salvation for many who do not know how to believe, or may lack the faith yet want to be saved, God intervenes here to save such as these by Water and the Holy Spirit in baptism.

Peace be with you

 

[Porknpie]

I know, right?

One of the biggest lies the Great Deceiver was successful in duping (a lot of) souls with was whispering, “You don’t need to believe in the Word of God in its entirety. Just take one or two verses out of the Bible and ignore the rest!”

Yes, the Great Deceiver wishes that people misinterpret scripture, guarded and protected by The Church for 2000 years:

1 Peter 3
18 For Christ also suffered for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, in order to bring you to God. He was put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit, 19 in which also he went and made a proclamation to the spirits in prison, 20 who in former times did not obey, when God waited patiently in the days of Noah, during the building of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons,* were saved through water*. 21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

PnP

 

[Counterpoint]

Context Counterpoint, you left out the result of the rest of the story here, that results in an action from the apostle.

Acts 16:30-31 concludes with Acts 16:32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him to all that were in his house (Catholics practice this in the Liturgy of the Word at Mass). 33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he BAPTIZED at once with all his family…and he rejoiced with all his household that he had BELIEVED in God.

The profession of faith , the Word must be included with the baptism for one to be saved, it is biblical. A profession of faith without baptism is never biblical.

Here is Peter speaking to the Jews in Jerusalem at Pentecost the birthdate of the Church, devout men from every nation under heaven Acts 2:5.… concludes with Acts 2:37 Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart and said to Peter…**.“Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit
**41 So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

Yeah, some believe you must also be baptized as well as accept Christ. But OP wanted a scriptural reference. So, I provided one.

 

[PRmerger]

No one has convinced me of an unregenerate man being able to believe, as is required, before water baptism.

Cornelius believed, and as you do not know when he was regenerated (your words, right here), you are contradicting yourself.

If you don’t know when Cornelius was regenerated,(and you say you don’t) then you cannot say whether “an unregenerate man” is able to believe.