The text only offers this: The Son of God told the man that “This day you shall be with me in paradise.” That settles things as to his final state – he was saved, not by baptism for there was no force to it; and not by adherence to the requirements of the new covenant. But he was saved by the direct word of God and the direct intervention of the Son of God toward one person based upon his faith and his response that day. Again, God has made plain: “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy.” It seems the thief knew more about Jesus than some of us stating “Have mercy upon me Lord when you come into your Kingdom.” He was saved both outside the Law and aside from the coming new covenant. It had nothing to do with baptism and baptism didn’t matter at that time (not to him). It would not be prudent on our parts to think that we ought to fall into this very small category of one.

There is no such thing in or out of the scriptures as a state a believer is found in thereby noting or noted by baptism. This is an argument that disposes of plain meaning. A person heads onto the path of becoming Christian by hearing and acting in faith, by confessing and repenting; and he is baptized as a token of the new covenant because he or she is commanded to be obedient in both action and word. And if he is not so found, missing this part or that, then the unfortunate conclusion is that he or she is not actually a believer at all, but is found yet to be something else and still on the outside, not a Christian and then certainly not a believer. You can climb up to a roof with a ladder but you will not get there by leaping over the rungs. The words for “faithful” or “believer” in any language leads to the inescapable conclusion that one has gone through the actions of being known and identified as such; and being immersed is an indispensible and intregal part of being classified thereby, and therefore incorporates that the person has in fact been baptized: immersed in water. There is no broader meaning of the word beyond that, and there is no place that can be appealed to in the scriptures that shows otherwise, whether noting nuances of language either ancient or modern, or from the reading of tea leaves.

There are no “several applications.” We through our endless studies and machinations make hard what is simple. Jesus said “Be baptized or be damned,” and yet we cannot fathom it. Such a pity. So, those who so hang and spin shall in fact be found unbelieving and will then (unfortunately) be damned. What I think or divine is irrelevant; what I am told to do and then set about to do is all that matters.

In all this it is yet nice to know that, “The common people heard him gladly.” The dummies got it; but we strain and choke on a knat and open wide to swallow a camel.

Regards,

Basically you’re confining the meaning to possible categories based on English, when the original may have several aspects, applications, significances, etc.: especially this passage of Scripture which has such specialized legalese (antitype, baptism (itself is not a simple term as people usually think), and this term you’re trying to translate one of three ways–it’s touch); the context is also very difficult, and it is “high context”; one cannot try to decide issues like this with a little Greek, a lexicon, or a mere reading of some convenient word studies that themselves oversimplify, but needs be studious in understanding the original usage, etc. of these terms: thus you might cite Vine’s, and I could cite Robertson’s Word Pictures (an actual contextual and grammatical, not popular, consideration) yet either is still just a starting point, not the end of truly grasping the text.

Take, even just “baptism”, for instance. In scripture it is used not just of the act, but of the state a believer is found in, depending on context: and may signify either; in what sense is this word here used? Is it in both? Does it have a primary shade of meaning and invokes the other in the background of the mind by its context? Is it just either? The mentioning of the “baptisms” of old and calling the Christian on an “antitype” of this greatly complicates the matter, and requires thorough knowledge and careful consideration of the previous ones and their nature (a high context demand), without disregarding what is being said here by overriding it with suppositions about those previous ones.

Furthermore don’t suppose that knowing this is an ‘inquiry’/'interrogation’/'appeal’ is so simplistic as you characterize it; the word could be used in the sense that The inquiring God would upon searching us (in court) find us guilty; but here’s the tricky part about this passage: it’s the baptism, not our act, that is the appeal (how the passage here uses the term and language) because it identifies us with Christ (…”through Christ”…); this leaves us, in effect, inactive, and this is what lends to interpreting the word “baptism” in context here as being assigned to a component of meaning regarding the state in which is a Christian (found “baptized” into Christ’s death, and alive with Christ)…and even that, I believe, is simplistic. It is mistaken, however, to here think it is portraying the believer as him or herself actively making the appeal, but rather the baptism is the appeal.

As for you separating the categories as distinct, that may/not be correct to do, but though we might think of some categories as separate, that may not be the case of the Greek (if those are even the correct categories in the Greek to use); this word, for instance, is used both for an “interrogation/inquiry” AND “response/pledge”…so the distinction, if even present, is very fine. It may/not be a good passage to demonstrate the non-correspondence of languages; but mentioning this is a digression from the previously said.

As for Vine’s: it can be useful, sometimes…but Vine’s was not a careful elucidator or words, or considerate of their uses; I find he’s quick to assign words to meanings that are absent their use in Greek, so beware EVER relying on that guy for any substantial support without much vetting first; he would read his suppositions about theology and doctrine into his definitions (hence “‘expository” dictionary”), which are areas that from his person and background are not considered his strongpoints, despite being a prolific writer and reader…that doesn’t mean he was a careful student.

I’ve been in churches that took very different stands from each other concerning the meaning of baptism. I’ve come to an in-between position. My own understanding is that there are at least three Biblical ways of answering the question, “Who or what saves us?”

1. Jesus saves us.
2. Faith saves us…yet not the faith itself, but the fact that faith is how we connect to Jesus who saves us.
3. Baptism saves us…yet not the baptism itself, but the fact that baptism expresses our faith in Jesus who saves us.

Can people be saved without Jesus? No.
Can people be saved without faith? No.
Can people be saved without water baptism? I’d point to the thief on the cross and say yes. However, we should not minimize water baptism. It is a divinely-given means of expressing faith in Jesus who saves. Is water baptism even more than that? I don’t know, but I’m confident that it’s not less.