Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38:

These two verses are pivotal in demarcating the two primary theologic constructs that Christians out there espouse.

I am from a background that believes these two verses hands down, most absolutely, and without any doubt whatsoever, prove that a water baptism must be accomplished before salvation occurs. (I no longer believe this now, however)

Of course, the other construct argues that a water baptism is evidence of what has already happened, that is, it is not salvific.

It is amazing to me that these two positions have gone on for centuries and never change. No matter how many discussions one has, the two sides stay the same, each accusing the other of taking verses out of context, not following the plain meaning of the text, etc. And I'm sure it will continue until the end of the world.

Does anyone here have a succinct, to the point, powerful rebuttal to these two passages of scriptures when produced to require a water baptism in our salvation?