Do you not fear being called out on your complete omission of
Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.’ "
...the crucial "why" he was told to do these things, and egregiously replacing and wash your sins away with your
"Because God said so" is a lot closer to being the correct answer ?
I mean, did you really think somebody wouldn't notice this omission and switcheroo that you did?
Secondly, why were Paul's sins not yet washed away three days after he did everything in Romans 10:9-10 as accounted for in...?
Acts 22:7-8, 10 I fell to the ground and heard a voice say to me, 'Saul! Saul! Why do you persecute me?' [8] “ 'Who are you, Lord?' I asked. “ 'I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom you are persecuting,' he replied. [10] “ 'What shall I do, Lord?' I asked. “ 'Get up,' the Lord said, 'and go into Damascus. There you will be told all that you have been assigned to do.'
Forgive me on all the bold, I couldn't figure out how to turn it off.
Because Paul doesn't have to say every aspect of getting saved in every verse. Paul doesn't even say belief/faith in every salvation verse. It's abominable to even suggest that Paul or anyone has to meet a quota of salvation baptism statements for it to be true. If they have said it once through the Holy Spirit, then it is so. And it is stated considerably more than once. Where on earth did you get this requirement that it must be stated so many times?!
Along the same lines, you can't debate sprinkling babies as it is no where in scripture, not once, and it has to be written there once for it to be true.
Your in between the lines theology is more valid to you than explicitly written texts. This is the by faith alone, through faith alone downfall, and only method of justifying (to themselves) teachings that never exist in the Bible.