The main reason for the continuance in debating about water baptism allegedly remitting sin rests within the failure to rightly divide the word of truth:
2 Timothy 2:14-19
14 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.
19 Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.
Granted, the above context is about the rapture. However, the concept is indeed valid. Those who teach the works-based salvation of the Kingdom Gospel, they are stuck with the hope that the Kingdom Gospel still has a power to save them, for they certainly have fallen from grace to dare try and preach another gospel to those whom they convert into their religion:
Galatians 5:3-6
3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.
6 For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
Water baptism was of the Law just as was circumcision. Paul, however, who was of the circumcision, preached not baptism in command, although he practiced it at times among a small number of people.
Galatians 2:7
But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
I enlarged the relevant wording to show that there is indeed two different gospels, therefore two different dispensations, both of which rest upon the foundation of Christ Jesus and what He accomplished on the cross. If it were one and the same gospel, the wording would have reflected that by saying something like, "The gospel of the uncircumcision and the circumcision given unto Peter and to me." The intentional wording in the direction of distinctive gospels is clearly stated, even though some reject and ignore that in leu of their chosen beliefs.
The idea of us today being remitted for our sins on the basis of any element of the Mosaic Law, no:
Within our system of the Mosaic Law within Israel, our priests were baptized (washed) in water before entering service at the age of 30. See such verses as Exodus 29:4 and Leviticus 8:6. So, with water baptism (washing) having its foundations within the Mosaic Law, it makes sense that Paul was instructed by Christ to put aside ALL that is of the Law and to move forward into that which is by the Spirit alone through faith, thus the reasoning for the need that we rightly divide the word of truth.
I can't say that those who look to the Kingdom Gospel, deeply rooted in the Mosaic Law, are saved today if they still adhere to that aspect of the Mosaic Law, but chancing that by boasting of one's water baptism, that's a dangerous place to be...given that those who preach it are accursed according to Paul of Tarsus. If that touches upon salvation, then they perhaps have something of a more serious nature to consider. James, in Acts 15, nowhere declared the continuance of the Law among you Gentiles and us Jews under the Gospel of Grace except for four items, none of which included that baptism (washing).
MM
