Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Brother, that’s an important question — and it gets right to the heart of what Jesus meant by giving Peter “the keys of the kingdom.”

Let’s start with the verse itself:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”​

— Matthew 16:19 (KJV)​

Keys Represent Authority to Open Access — Not to Forgive Sins Personally

Keys open doors. Jesus entrusted Peter with the authority to open the door of the kingdom to new groups — Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8), and Gentiles (Acts 10).

But nowhere does Scripture say Peter personally remitted sins by his own act. Only Christ holds that power:

“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” — Mark 2:7​

“Through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43​

Peter’s role was declarative, not sacramental: he proclaimed forgiveness through Christ, not administered it through ritual.

“Remitting or Retaining Sins” Refers to Declaring the Gospel’s Terms

In John 20:23, Jesus told all the apostles:

“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”​

This authority is representative — to announce forgiveness to those who believe and repentance to those who reject it.
When Peter preached at Pentecost, he didn’t say, “I forgive you”; he said:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...” — Acts 2:38​

The remission wasn’t in Peter’s hands, nor in the water — it was in the name of Jesus Christ, by repentance and faith.

The Keys Were Used Through Preaching, Not Ritual Power

Peter “used the keys” each time he proclaimed the gospel to a new audience and God confirmed it by giving the Holy Spirit:

• Acts 2 – Jews: Spirit falls, many believe and are baptized.
• Acts 8 – Samaritans: confirmed by Peter and John’s laying on of hands.
• Acts 10 – Gentiles: Spirit falls before water, proving acceptance by faith.

That’s how Peter “opened the kingdom.”
He didn’t dispense forgiveness; he declared the way into it.

The Rite of Baptism Bears Witness — It Doesn’t Cause Remission

Baptism is the public seal of inward faith, not the instrument of forgiveness.
Peter himself clarifies this later:

“Baptism doth also now save us — not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.” — 1 Peter 3:21​

So baptism testifies to salvation already received — it doesn’t create it.
Basically:

• Peter’s “keys” opened gospel access, not a pipeline of ritual forgiveness.
• He remitted sins declaratively by preaching Christ, not administratively through water.
• The remission itself comes by faith in Christ’s finished work — confirmed by the Spirit, symbolized by water.

Grace and peace —
Salvation is always by grace through faith, and the Spirit’s indwelling confirms it — not the ceremony that follows.

Is the content of your posts produced by an AI engine, either online or in your software, either in whole or in part?

 

[TheLearner]

That’s a fair observation, brother — but notice that the assumption that there were infants in those households is every bit as speculative as the assumption that there weren’t. The difference is that the text actually gives us clues that point one direction.

In every single case, the inspired record connects the whole household with hearing, believing, receiving the Spirit, or serving — all conscious acts of faith:

• Cornelius’ house (Acts 10:44–48): “All who heard the word” received the Spirit. Infants can’t “hear and believe.”
• Jailer’s house (Acts 16:32–34): Paul “spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” Verse 34 concludes, “He rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”
• Crispus’ house (Acts 18:8): They “believed on the Lord.”
• Stephanas’ house (1 Cor 16:15): They “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.”
• Lydia’s house (Acts 16:14–15): The only heart specifically mentioned as opened is hers, but the natural reading is that the rest likewise responded to Paul’s message.

So yes — the word household doesn’t rule out children, but the context of each passage rules out the idea of baptism apart from faith. The New Testament pattern never changes:

“They that gladly received his word were baptized.” — Acts 2:41​

No passage describes anyone baptized before believing the gospel.

If we let Scripture interpret Scripture, the weight of evidence runs one way:
Faith → Salvation → Baptism.

Grace and peace, always in the Word.

The infant may have been decated to the Lord.

 

[TheLearner]

interrestinggggg ouch shoulderrr

 

[LightBearer316]

Is the content of your posts produced by an AI engine, either online or in your software, either in whole or in part?

I came from a generation where we were actually expected to be able to write.
What I post comes from my own study, reflection, and time in Scripture — not from any AI program. I still believe thoughtful writing and clear reasoning matter, especially when discussing God’s Word.

We might use digital tools today for convenience, but discernment, study, and prayer can’t be automated. Those come from time spent with the Lord and His Word.

Some of the work is stuff from my school years... I won't post my academic credentials here since they can not be verified.
Also, what you’re witnessing isn’t some greatness on my part.
It’s simply what used to be normal — back when we were actually taught to think, reason, and write clearly. The sad truth is that the decline you see today isn’t because people suddenly lost the ability, but because our academic systems stopped expecting it.


I’m not boasting — just stating what used to be standard. Good writing and sound reasoning used to be the baseline, not the exception.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

I came from a generation where we were actually expected to be able to write.
What I post comes from my own study, reflection, and time in Scripture — not from any AI program. I still believe thoughtful writing and clear reasoning matter, especially when discussing God’s Word.

We might use digital tools today for convenience, but discernment, study, and prayer can’t be automated. Those come from time spent with the Lord and His Word.

Some of the work is stuff from my school years... I won't post my academic credentials here since they can not be verified.
Also, what you’re witnessing isn’t some greatness on my part.
It’s simply what used to be normal — back when we were actually taught to think, reason, and write clearly. The sad truth is that the decline you see today isn’t because people suddenly lost the ability, but because our academic systems stopped expecting it.


I’m not boasting — just stating what used to be standard. Good writing and sound reasoning used to be the baseline, not the exception.

Grace and Peace

Even these men from time past show a command lost today.... Just look at those dates!?!
Thomas Jefferson — Letter to John Adams (1813):

“The friendship which has subsisted between us, now half a century, and the harmony of our political principles and pursuits, have been sources of constant happiness to me through that time, and are now among the highest enjoyments of my old age.”

Elegant, structured, heartfelt — not a wasted word.

Abraham Lincoln — Letter to Joshua Speed (1842):
“You cannot fail to see, that a hypocrite would have a much harder task to sustain the character of a Christian, through life, than to be one.”

Frederick Douglass — “What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?” (1852):
“At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed. O! had I the ability, and could reach the nation’s ear, I would today pour out a fiery stream of biting ridicule, blasting reproach, withering sarcasm, and stern rebuke.”


John Adams — Letter to Abigail Adams (1776):
“Posterity! You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom! I hope you will make good use of it.”

The tragedy isn’t that modern people are less capable — it’s that we no longer train minds to write like this.
Clarity, grammar, and depth once reflected both education and character.
Now, mediocrity is defended as “authenticity.”

America fell from greatness to second-rate....
Grace and Peace

 

[DJT_47]

BAPTISM

Necessity or option?
​

Baptism is required in order to:
· Be saved

Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”

1st Peter 3:20/21 “Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (3:21) The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ

Titus 3:5 “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost”;

· Wash away/remit sins
· Contact the blood of Christ
· Be added to the Lord’s body which is the church
· Be buried/planted with Him in the likeness of his death thus enabling like resurrection
· Get “into” Him, put on Christ, and become a child of God
· Receive blessings in Him

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost”.

Acts 2:41 “Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls”.

Acts 2:47 “Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”

Acts 22:16 “And now why tarriest thou? arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord”

Rom 6:3 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death”?

Rom 6:4 “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life”.

Gal 3:26/27 “For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ”.

1st Cor 12:13 “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

Rom 6:5 “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection”:

Rev 1:5 “And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood”-----

Heb 10:22 “Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of Faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water”.

Col 2:12 “Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead”.

Steps to becoming a Christian
· (1) Hearing the word/gospel (Rom. 1:16, Mk. 16:15, Rom. 10: 14 thru 17, 1 Cor. 1:21 thru 24, Mat 7:24)
· (2) Believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Mk. 16:16, Heb. 11:6, John 12:46)
· (3) Confessing this before men (Rom. 10:9, 10, Rom. 10:13, Acts 8:37, Mat 10:32)
· (4) Repenting of your sins (Acts 2:38, Luke 13:3, 5, 14:47)
· (5) Being baptized (immersed in water) for the remission (forgiveness) of your sins after which, you are added to the Church (above referenced). (Acts 2:38-41, 47)

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

I came from a generation where we were actually expected to be able to write.
What I post comes from my own study, reflection, and time in Scripture — not from any AI program. I still believe thoughtful writing and clear reasoning matter, especially when discussing God’s Word.

We might use digital tools today for convenience, but discernment, study, and prayer can’t be automated. Those come from time spent with the Lord and His Word.

Some of the work is stuff from my school years... I won't post my academic credentials here since they can not be verified.
Also, what you’re witnessing isn’t some greatness on my part.
It’s simply what used to be normal — back when we were actually taught to think, reason, and write clearly. The sad truth is that the decline you see today isn’t because people suddenly lost the ability, but because our academic systems stopped expecting it.


I’m not boasting — just stating what used to be standard. Good writing and sound reasoning used to be the baseline, not the exception.

Grace and Peace

I didn't consider it greatness, it's just sounds and looks like AI. You must be doing a lot of repetitive copy/pasting

 

[NightTwister]

That’s a fair observation, brother — but notice that the assumption that there were infants in those households is every bit as speculative as the assumption that there weren’t.

Agreed.

The difference is that the text actually gives us clues that point one direction.

Yes, it does. Just as circumcision represented the sign of the Mosaic Covenant and circumcision of the heart, water baptism is the sign of the New Covenant and represents the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Just as the prior sign was for Abraham's decedents and their children, so the new sign is also for believers and their children.

 

[LightBearer316]

Agreed.

Yes, it does. Just as circumcision represented the sign of the Mosaic Covenant and circumcision of the heart, water baptism is the sign of the New Covenant and represents the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Just as the prior sign was for Abraham's decedents and their children, so the new sign is also for believers and their children.

That’s an interesting comparison, and it’s true that both circumcision and baptism function as signs — but Scripture makes a crucial distinction between a sign of the covenant and the means of entering it.

In Romans 4:11, Paul says Abraham “received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised.”
In other words, the sign came after faith — it didn’t produce it. The same pattern applies to baptism: it’s the outward sign that follows an inward faith.

Also notice that Paul explicitly separates Spirit baptism (what saves) from water baptism (what symbolizes):

“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body…” — 1 Corinthians 12:13.

That’s the real baptism that brings new birth. Water baptism testifies to it — it doesn’t cause it.
Even Peter clarifies this in 1 Peter 3:21, saying baptism saves “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.”

So yes, baptism is a New Covenant sign, but like circumcision, it points to what faith has already accomplished — the cleansing of the heart by the Holy Spirit (Romans 2:29).

“For by grace are ye saved through faith… not of works.” — Ephesians 2:8–9

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

That’s an interesting comparison, and it’s true that both circumcision and baptism function as signs — but Scripture makes a crucial distinction between a sign of the covenant and the means of entering it.

Physical circumcision was the sign of the covenant with God, but it was also the means of entering into the covenant, because any seed of Abraham who wasn't circumcised was cut off from the covenant and the promises. That appears to be the type of water baptism, and what Peter called the antitype.

 

[NightTwister]

That’s an interesting comparison, and it’s true that both circumcision and baptism function as signs — but Scripture makes a crucial distinction between a sign of the covenant and the means of entering it.

Families in OT times knew that their children (via circumcision) were part of their covenant. Those who converted in the 1st Century would've been surprised to find that the new, better covenant didn't include their children. We would expect questions to be asked why that was no longer the case, including the "household" examples in Acts.

 

[LightBearer316]

Families in OT times knew that their children (via circumcision) were part of their covenant. Those who converted in the 1st Century would've been surprised to find that the new, better covenant didn't include their children. We would expect questions to be asked why that was no longer the case, including the "household" examples in Acts.

That’s a fair observation — and you’re right that God has always worked through covenant relationships that impact families. But the key difference is how one becomes part of the covenant community under the New Covenant.

In the Old Covenant, physical birth determined inclusion: a male child was circumcised on the eighth day because he was physically born into Israel — the covenant nation.

In the New Covenant, spiritual rebirth determines inclusion. As John 1:12–13 says:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:​

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”​

That’s why baptism follows personal faith and repentance, not physical descent. Each believer personally enters the covenant by faith — not by family connection.

The “household” baptisms in Acts actually confirm this pattern. In every example (Cornelius in Acts 10, Lydia in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer in Acts 16, and Crispus in Acts 18), the text either states or strongly implies that everyone in the household heard the gospel and believed before being baptized (Acts 16:32–34). There’s no mention of infants or automatic inclusion.

So while the Old Covenant was genealogical, the New Covenant is spiritual and personal — entered through faith in Christ, not physical birth.
That’s the “better” part of the better covenant: it brings people into God’s family not by lineage, but by new life.

Grace and Peace

 

[NightTwister]

That’s a fair observation — and you’re right that God has always worked through covenant relationships that impact families. But the key difference is how one becomes part of the covenant community under the New Covenant.

There's no difference. "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." - Acts 2:39 EST

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

In the Old Covenant, physical birth determined inclusion: a male child was circumcised on the eighth day because he was physically born into Israel — the covenant nation.

And he was cut off from Israel if he wasn't circumcised. So realistically, circumcision was the entrance into the people of God.

And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant. Genesis 17:14​

 

[FlyingDove]

Physical circumcision was the sign of the covenant with God, but it was also the means of entering into the covenant, because any seed of Abraham who wasn't circumcised was cut off from the covenant and the promises. That appears to be the type of water baptism, and what Peter called the antitype.

Acts 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
(MY NOTE: John the Baptist is sent to preach, the Baptism of Repentance to All the People of ISRAEL. To Prepare the way for the coming LORD. Isa 40:3, Matt 3:3, Mk 1:3, Lk 3:4. Through whom remission/pardon of sin would be realized)

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on the One that would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
(MY NOTE: John the Baptist is sent to preach, the """baptism of repentance""". That they should believe on him which should come after John, that is, on Christ Jesus.)

The gospel message/good news: Is heard through the Word, regarding sin forgiveness & eternal salvation in/through Christ.

Acts 10:17 Faith/Belief comes by hearing.

Acts 10:44: The Holy SPIRIT falls on those that were listening/hearing & believed, the gospel message/good news of Christ' sin atoning sacrifice/payment.

Acts 10:47 clearly says those who """have""" received the Holy Spirit. They """had""" received the Holy Spirit by """FAITH""". Before they were told by Peter to undergo water baptism.

Additionally:

Matt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
(MY NOTE: John the Baptist made clear: He/John baptized with water & that Christ would baptize with the HOLY SPIRIT)

1 Cor 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
(MY NOTE: For by one """SPIRIT""" are """ALL""" are baptized into one body! Translators capitalized Spirit to identify when referring the Holy Spirit. Only Christ can baptize with HIS salvation sealing eternally indwelling Holy Spirit.)

Col 2:11 In whom also """ye are circumcised with the circumcision""" """made without hands""", in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh """by the circumcision of Christ"""
(MY NOTE: The baptism of the ETERNALLY SEALING (2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, Eph 4:4) FOREVER INDWELLING (Jn14:16) Holy Spirit is a """Spiritual/Circumcision/Covenant""" done """by Christ Alone""", WITHOUT HANDS & WITHOUT WATER.)

Rom 2:29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
(MY NOTE: Circumcision of the heart, in the spirit)

Deut 30:6 (A) the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart,

Water baptism is a declaration of belonging/an outward public expression, of one's inner spiritual transformation.

Water Baptism isn't the first breath of one's new spiritual life/birth. It's an act of obedience/the gateway to discipleship. It isn't the ticket to heaven/eternal salvation. The ticket to heaven is punched when the believer is FOREVER (Jn 14:16) indwelt/BAPTIZED via Christ's salvation SEALNG (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14), eternal life giving Holy Spirit! > NO water & NO hands (Col 2:11 also see 1 Cor 12:13) are needed for this event.

 

[LightBearer316]

There's no difference. "For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." - Acts 2:39 EST

That’s a great verse to bring up — and it actually reinforces what I’m saying.

Acts 2:39 does include “you, your children, and all that are afar off” — but notice the qualifying phrase that Peter adds right after:

“even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”​

That phrase defines who the promise applies to — not merely biological descendants, but everyone whom God calls to Himself through the gospel. It’s about the scope of grace, not automatic inclusion.

Under the Old Covenant, physical birth made you part of the covenant people. Under the New Covenant, spiritual calling does. The promise now extends beyond ethnic or family lines — to Jews, their children, and even Gentiles (“those afar off”) — but the unifying condition remains the same: the Lord’s call that brings repentance and faith (Acts 2:37–38).

So Acts 2:39 doesn’t erase the difference; it actually highlights it.
The covenant community is now defined not by ancestry, but by response to God’s call through Christ.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

Physical circumcision was the sign of the covenant with God, but it was also the means of entering into the covenant, because any seed of Abraham who wasn't circumcised was cut off from the covenant and the promises. That appears to be the type of water baptism, and what Peter called the antitype.

That’s a thoughtful point, but I think it’s important to clarify how circumcision functioned as both a sign and a condition under the Old Covenant — and how baptism, as its New Covenant counterpart, differs in purpose and effect.

You’re right that in Genesis 17, circumcision was the covenant sign for Abraham’s descendants, and any male who refused it was “cut off” from Israel’s covenant privileges (Gen. 17:10–14). But that external act didn’t automatically impart spiritual life or saving faith — as Paul makes clear:

“For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:​

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit…”​

— Romans 2:28–29​

So even under the Old Covenant, the sign marked outward membership, but inward faith was always required for true covenant relationship with God.

When Peter refers to baptism as an antitype (1 Peter 3:21), he’s not saying baptism itself is the means of entering salvation — he actually explains the opposite:

“Not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”​

That means baptism symbolizes what saves — the appeal of faith and repentance toward God, grounded in Christ’s resurrection.

So...

Circumcision was a type — an outward mark tied to a national covenant.
Baptism is the antitype — the outward testimony of inward faith in the risen Christ.

One sealed a physical lineage; the other declares a spiritual rebirth.

Grace and peace.

 

[NightTwister]

That’s a great verse to bring up — and it actually reinforces what I’m saying.

Say you didn't understand the verse without saying you didn't understand it.

 

[LightBearer316]

Say you didn't understand the verse without saying you didn't understand it.

That is a dismissive reply, considering I took the time to respond and show that I understand Acts 2:39 fully and in context.
I do understand the verse — I just refuse to stop reading it halfway.

Acts 2:39 says:

“For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off…”​

But the verse doesn’t end there. Peter immediately adds the qualifier:

“…even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”​

That last phrase defines who receives the promise — not every biological child automatically, but everyone whom God calls through the gospel.

That’s why, in the very next verses, those who “gladly received his word were baptized” (Acts 2:41). Belief came first, then baptism followed.

So it’s not a misunderstanding of the verse — it’s taking the whole verse seriously, not just the first half.

Grace and peace.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Circumcision was a type — an outward mark tied to a national covenant.
Baptism is the antitype — the outward testimony of inward faith in the risen Christ.

Antitype means the reality that a type points to, so it follows that physical circumcision, which was the requirement to be joined to God's people, pointed to the reality of water baptism, which signifies the spiritual circumcision (putting off the body of flesh) that is necessary to be joined to Christ's body