What need is there of exegesis when you can not deal with a simple declarative sentence? Don Martin quotes a Lutheran apologist on Mark 16:16:

Quote
"The two participles are substantivized and describe the person that shall be saved ("believeth" and "baptized," dm)" comments R. C. H. Lenski, Interpretation of St. Mark's Gospel, pg. 765). "'Believeth' and 'baptized' are aorists," Lenski continues (by aorists, Lenski means denote single acts, dm). "Both verbs have forward or anticipated fulfillment (goal). This goal to be obtained is 'salvation.'" (Ibid., pg. 766).

Your Zwinglian view that baptism is a work of man is refuted by Calvin. The Auburn Street Presbyterian Church quotes the "Antidote to Trent":

Quote
For in the Sacraments God alone properly acts; men bring nothing of their own, but approach to receive the grace offered to them.  Thus, in Baptism, God washed us by the blood of his Son and regenerated us by his Spirit; in the Supper he feeds us with the flesh and blood of Christ.  What part of the work can man claim, without blasphemy, since the whole appears to be of grace?  The fact of the administration being committed to men, derogates no more from the operation of God than the hand does from the artificer, since God alone acts by them, and does the whole. .