Rebuttal to the Baptist "And" argument for Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16

Points made:
1) Mark 16:16 & Acts 2:38 teach baptism saves
2)The thing mentioned after "and" and before "saved" or "for the remission of sin" is not superfluous
a)If it was intended to be unnecessary detail then Jesus and Peter were both guilty of poor communicating
b)They could have phrased the verses in such a way as to say baptism does NOT save
c)John 3:5 likewise has two things joined together by an "and"--this would mean only "being born of water" saves, and not being "born of Spirit"!


Two significant verses that link baptism with salvation and forgiveness of sins are:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.--Mark 16:16 KJV

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Acts 2:38 KJV

Some Protestants in their last ditch effort in order to deny baptismal regeneration / salvation have concocted another theory that goes like this:

Mark 16:16 is like sayings "whoever believes and is born in Dallas shall be saved" that doesn't mean being in Dallas makes you saved or had any contribution to being saved!

The argument essentially is that the second thing mentioned in the "and" is absolutely superfluous and was just added for detail. Here is how these Protestant essentially understand the verses:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved--Crossing out the "extra, unnecessary section" of Mark 16:16 following the fake "and rule" 

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Crossing out the "extra, unnecessary section" of Acts 2:38 following the fake "and rule"

This means they believe Jesus was saying something unnecessarily and placing it in a sentence where it would be bound to be more than likely misinterpreted! If Jesus WANTED to say being baptized had nothing to do with being saved why didn't He instead say it like this:

He that believeth shall be saved and [should] be baptized; but he that believeth not shall be damned.--How some Protestants want to read Mark 16:16

Likewise, with Acts 2:38, why didn't St Peter just say:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent every one of you for the remission of sins and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--How some Protestants want read Acts 2:38

Okay, let's assume that the "is/be baptized" in Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 are just added, completely unnecessary detail the Lord and St Peter just threw in there. Let's now apply this rule that the thing following after "and" is just unnecessary, added detail and has no real bearing on salvation.  We have John 3:5, a favorite verse especially among Baptists:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.-John 3:5 KJV

 Now this is how the verse looks like when we apply their fake "what's mentioned after and doesn't matter rule" is applied (let's cross out the "unnecessary, added detail that follows and, just as they did with Acts 2:38 & Mark 16:16):

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.--Apply the same Protestant rule used in Acts 2:38 & Mark 16:16 to John 3:5

Congratulations! Universalism is now true! Now everyone will enter the kingdom of God because they are simply "born of water" (the amniotic vaginal fluid according to Baptists) by this fake rule.

Conclusion: We should not arbitrarily make rules up to fit our theology as some Protestants do with Acts 2:38 and Mark 16, as well with their fake rule about parables not having "names" like in Luke 16 with the "rich man and Lazarus."