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

[LightBearer316]

I’ve noticed that in many discussions here, people seem more interested in defending their system than in actually hearing what Scripture says. When that happens, verses get ignored or reinterpreted just to protect a position. But the point of studying God’s Word isn’t to “win” — it’s to submit.

We all have to guard our hearts against turning doctrine into an agenda. The moment we stop letting the Bible correct us, we’ve stopped learning from the Holy Spirit. As Jesus said, “If any man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine” (John 7:17).

Let’s keep humility at the center — not pride, not party lines, but a shared desire to rightly divide the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15).

Grace and peace to all who truly seek it.

 

[NightTwister]

That is a dismissive reply, considering I took the time to respond and show that I understand Acts 2:39 fully and in context.

Based on how your responses are formatted, and the speed with which you reply, I'm certain that most of them are cut-and-paste.

 

[NightTwister]

I’ve noticed that in many discussions here, people seem more interested in defending their system than in actually hearing what Scripture says.

You mean "hearing what you say." There's a difference.

 

[NightTwister]

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…”​

I'm not reading it halfway. I'm reading all of it, "...and...and..." not to the exclusion of.

 

[LightBearer316]

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) necessary to be joined to Christ's body

That’s actually a thoughtful response, but it makes a key interpretive leap that confuses symbolism with substance.

- antitype does mean the fulfillment or reality that the earlier type foreshadowed. But the mistake is assuming that because baptism fulfills circumcision, it therefore functions in the same way (as a requirement for covenant inclusion).

Peter clarifies what he means by “antitype” in 1 Peter 3:21 — and his own explanation prevents that conclusion:

“The like figure [antitype] 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.”

In other words, baptism corresponds to circumcision as a sign of faith, not as the act that joins someone to God’s people. The saving reality isn’t the water — it’s the inner work of the Spirit producing a cleansed conscience through Christ’s resurrection.

Paul says the same in Colossians 2:11–12 — believers are circumcised “with the circumcision made without hands,” which happens when we are buried and raised with Christ through faith. Notice that faith is the means of union, and baptism simply testifies to it.

So yes — circumcision pointed forward to the spiritual circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:29), and baptism symbolizes that reality. But the sign (water baptism) is not the saving substance; it’s the outward witness of an inward grace.

To say otherwise would make salvation depend on a physical act — exactly the error Paul refuted in Galatians 5:4 when he said, “Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law.”

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

You mean "hearing what you say." There's a difference.

That’s a classic deflection — it tries to make the issue personal instead of biblical.
I really do mean hearing what Scripture says. None of us should take offense at being asked to test our views by the Word.

If what I’m saying can’t stand under honest examination of Scripture, then it deserves to fall. But if it does line up with the Word, then it’s not “what I say” — it’s what God has already said.

That’s the standard we should all be willing to submit to, myself included.

Grace and peace.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

- antitype does mean the fulfillment or reality that the earlier type foreshadowed. But the mistake is assuming that because baptism fulfills circumcision, it therefore functions in the same way (as a requirement for covenant inclusion).

That's the most reasonable conclusion. When Peter said putting away the filth of the flesh, he could have been referring to putting off the old man through baptism into Christ's death (reconciliation), which won't save a person, as he said. However, rising up out of the water of baptismal death into Christ's resurrected life does save us, as he also said. Notice that reconciliation (buried in death) doesn't save us, whereas Christ's life (raised out of the water of death) does save us.

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. Romans 5:10 ​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

If what I’m saying can’t stand under honest examination of Scripture, then it deserves to fall. But if it does line up with the Word, then it’s not “what I say” — it’s what God has already said.

I have refuted things you've said several times by stating that justification alone doesn't save, it merely reconciles to God, whereas Christ's resurrected life is what saves, but you have not acknowledged that truth. In other words, faith alone justifies, but justification alone doesn't save.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Paul says the same in Colossians 2:11–12 — believers are circumcised “with the circumcision made without hands,” which happens when we are buried and raised with Christ through faith. Notice that faith is the means of union, and baptism simply testifies to it.

Which is what happens in water baptism. Faith is the means, but God recognizes water baptism as the actualization of that faith

 

[LightBearer316]

Which is what happens in water baptism. Faith is the means, but God recognizes water baptism as the actualization of that faith

That’s a very common reasoning—blending faith with baptism as the “moment” salvation occurs—but Scripture doesn’t actually make that connection in the way you describe.

I see what you’re saying, but that’s not quite what Paul teaches in Colossians 2:11–12.

Paul explicitly says this “circumcision made without hands” happens through faith in the working of God — not through a physical act. The phrase “buried with Him in baptism” is describing what faith accomplishes spiritually, not what water accomplishes physically.

If we read carefully:

“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.”​

The instrument of union is faith; baptism is the symbol that publicly displays that union.
If the act of baptism itself were the point at which salvation was conferred, Paul would be contradicting his own statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 —

“Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”​

If baptism were the saving moment, that verse would make no sense. The reality (salvation) comes through faith in Christ’s finished work; the sign (baptism) expresses that faith before others.

Baptism is obedience because we’re saved — not the act by which we become saved.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

@ChristRoseFromTheDead
Why do you believe water baptism is a saving agent?

Baptism is obedience because we’re saved — not the act by which we become saved.

Are you Roman Catholic?
Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

I have refuted things you've said several times by stating that justification alone doesn't save, it merely reconciles to God, whereas Christ's resurrected life is what saves, but you have not acknowledged that truth. In other words, faith alone justifies, but justification alone doesn't save.

That statement sounds sophisticated but it’s theologically confused — it divides what Scripture keeps united.

That’s an interesting distinction, but it’s one Scripture never makes. The Bible doesn’t separate justification and salvation into two different realities — it treats justification as part of salvation itself.

Romans 5:1–2 says:

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.”​

Justification is the moment we’re reconciled and made right before God. From that flows everything else — life, sanctification, glorification — all grounded in Christ’s resurrection power (Romans 4:25; 8:30).

Paul never says “justification alone doesn’t save.” In fact, he directly links the two:

“Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.” — Romans 5:9​

Notice — justified → saved. Not two separate stages, but one continuous work of grace.

Christ’s resurrection certainly gives life and power to those who are justified, but it’s not a separate mechanism of salvation apart from justification. Without the resurrection, justification wouldn’t even be possible (Romans 4:25). They’re inseparably connected — cause and effect within the same saving act.

So, faith alone justifies, and the justified are the saved. That’s Paul’s whole point in Romans 8:30 — “whom He justified, them He also glorified.” There’s no gap, no second requirement.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

People like @ChristRoseFromTheDead often build their whole framework around baptism as the instrument of salvation. So no matter how many verses you show about faith preceding baptism, they’ll circle back to make baptism the saving act rather than the sign of salvation.

 

[LightBearer316]

A quick breakdown:

• Precede = to come before
• Proceed = to go forward or come after

Faith precedes baptism --> You believe first, then get baptized.
Baptism proceeds from faith --> Baptism flows out of that belief.

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

People like @ChristRoseFromTheDead often build their whole framework around baptism as the instrument of salvation. So no matter how many verses you show about faith preceding baptism, they’ll circle back to make baptism the saving act rather than the sign of salvation.

Because that's the plain reading of the text. You assemble many words to try to dance around that, but what you're doing is really eisegesis.

 

[LightBearer316]

Because that's the plain reading of the text. You assemble many words to try to dance around that, but what you're doing is really eisegesis.

You call it “eisegesis,” but I’m actually doing the opposite — letting the full context interpret itself.

A plain reading means reading the whole passage, not stopping where it seems to support our view. When Scripture says “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), the same verse also says “he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Unbelief — not lack of baptism — is what condemns.

If baptism were the saving agent, Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 would make no sense:

“Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”​

If the water were the instrument of salvation, then Paul would have been neglecting the very thing that saves — yet he calls the gospel “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).

I’m not “dancing around the text.” I’m just refusing to treat symbols as substance. The text consistently puts faith first, and baptism follows as its outward confession — not its cause.

Grace and peace.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

That’s an interesting distinction, but it’s one Scripture never makes. The Bible doesn’t separate justification and salvation into two different realities — it treats justification as part of salvation itself.

You're being very deceitful here with your careful phrasing. Scripture does very obviously make the distinction between justification and salvation, but it also treats justification as part of salvation. But you try to establish the truth of only the latter by claiming the former is false. It's practiced deceit. I've watched it many times in you and others.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

You call it “eisegesis,” but I’m actually doing the opposite — letting the full context interpret itself.

A plain reading means reading the whole passage, not stopping where it seems to support our view. When Scripture says “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark 16:16), the same verse also says “he that believeth not shall be damned.”
Unbelief — not lack of baptism — is what condemns.

If baptism were the saving agent, Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 would make no sense:

“Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”​

If the water were the instrument of salvation, then Paul would have been neglecting the very thing that saves — yet he calls the gospel “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1:16).

I’m not “dancing around the text.” I’m just refusing to treat symbols as substance. The text consistently puts faith first, and baptism follows as its outward confession — not its cause.

Grace and peace.

You're a man of many words and little light on this matter. and IMO are heaping up judgment unto yourself

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

A quick breakdown:

• Precede = to come before
• Proceed = to go forward or come after

Faith precedes baptism --> You believe first, then get baptized.
Baptism proceeds from faith --> Baptism flows out of that belief.

Grace and Peace

Faith justifies; obedience saves. Justification is not salvation; it is merely the first step

 

[LightBearer316]

You're being very deceitful here with your careful phrasing. Scripture does very obviously make the distinction between justification and salvation, but it also treats justification as part of salvation. But you try to establish the truth of only the latter by claiming the former is false. It's practiced deceit. I've watched it many times in you and others.

I’ll let my words and the Scriptures stand on their own — no deceit intended or needed.

We both agree justification is part of salvation; where we differ is that Scripture doesn’t treat them as separate saving events. Romans 5:9–10 actually ties them together:

“Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.​

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.”​

Paul’s flow is clear — justification brings reconciliation, and reconciliation ensures salvation. They’re distinct in meaning, but inseparable in experience.

No word games, no “careful phrasing” — just reading Paul’s logic as written.
We’re saved because we’re justified, and we’re justified through faith in Christ alone.

Grace and peace.