Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View
- Thread starter LightBearer316
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
No, that doesn't prove anything. The thief could have been baptized unto John, or even Jesus before the cross. But even if he wasn't, an exception doesn't disprove a rule.
I don't think you are an honest person because this is what scripture actually says and you reject it and cast doubt on it, like the serpent did to Eve in the garden, in order to twist it around to mean something else.
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ into the remission of sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Acts 2:38
The antitype, baptism, also now saves us; Not the laying aside filth of the flesh, but the petition of a good conscience toward God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21
That response reveals a Roman Catholic or possibly Eastern Orthodox view of salvation, not a Protestant or biblical Reformed one. Let’s break down what @ChristRoseFromTheDead is asserting versus what Scripture actually teaches:
Your View (Summarized)
- Faith precedes baptism — they agree with that.
- Faith alone justifies, but justification doesn’t save — they split justification and salvation into separate steps.
- Baptism is a required rite to receive forgiveness — they treat water baptism as a means of grace.
- Justification is only the “first step” — implying salvation is a process rather than a completed act of grace.
Romans 5:1 (KJV):
“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Justification is the moment God declares a sinner righteous — it’s not “step one” but the very point of salvation’s beginning. To say it “doesn’t save” contradicts Paul directly.
2. Salvation is by grace through faith — not by rites or obedience.
Ephesians 2:8–9 (KJV):
“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
If baptism were required “to receive forgiveness,” it would be a work added to grace — which nullifies grace entirely (Romans 11:6).
3. Baptism follows salvation — it doesn’t produce it.
Acts 10:44–48 shows Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before baptism:
“The Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word… Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”
They were already saved — baptism came after, as a testimony of that faith.
4. “Spiritual circumcision” isn’t separate from faith — it’s what faith does.
Colossians 2:11–12 describes this metaphor:
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands… buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God.”
The spiritual circumcision is the inward work of God — the regeneration by the Spirit — not a ritual performed by man.
I agree that faith precedes baptism — but the distinction you’re making between justification and salvation isn’t found in Scripture. Paul consistently teaches that to be justified by faith is to be saved (Romans 5:1; Titus 3:5–7).
Baptism is commanded, yes, but not as a means to obtain forgiveness — rather, as an act of obedience after receiving it. The thief on the cross was never baptized, yet Jesus said, ‘Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.’ (Luke 23:43).
Faith unites us to Christ; baptism testifies to that union. To make baptism the channel of forgiveness is to place the work of man where only grace belongs.
Grace and Peace
@ChristRoseFromTheDead - Holds Roman Catholic or possibly Eastern Orthodox view of salvation, not a Protestant or biblical Reformed one. No matter how much he tries to hide it.
My response is inline with the faith taught by the earliest church fathers, not the calvignostic one.
Excellent — that’s a classic move: appealing to “the early church fathers” as authority over Scripture itself.
Appealing to “the earliest church fathers” doesn’t establish truth — Scripture does.
The Bereans were commended because they “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). Truth is not measured by who said it first, but by whether it aligns with the Word of God.
The so-called “earliest church fathers” also disagreed among themselves on major doctrines — baptism, the millennium, and even penance. Their writings show a developing theology, not a uniform apostolic consensus. That’s why the Reformers returned ad fontes — “to the sources,” meaning Scripture alone.
Romans 10:9-10 says salvation comes by confessing with the mouth and believing in the heart that God raised Jesus from the dead — not by baptismal ritual or church tradition.
So if your view requires tradition to define or complete the gospel, that’s not apostolic faith — it’s post-apostolic theology. The apostles preached salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), not grace plus sacrament.
Grace and Peace
If only Calvin had resorted to the writings of the earliest church fathers instead of the former gnostic Augustine from whom he developed his calvignostic theology.
You deceitfully act like you resort to scripture alone, but your teachings and ideas are imbued with Calvinist theology
@ChristRoseFromTheDead You’re revealing a Roman Catholic or possibly Eastern Orthodox view of salvation, not a Protestant or biblical Reformed one. That is not sound theology.
I don’t claim loyalty to Calvin, Luther, or any system — only to Christ and His Word.
If something I say aligns with Scripture, then the source isn’t Calvinism — it’s truth. And if it doesn’t align with Scripture, then it should be rejected, no matter who said it.
The issue isn’t whether an idea sounds “Calvinist,” “Catholic,” or “Arminian,” but whether it’s biblically true.
Acts 17:11 praises the Bereans because they “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” That’s all I’m trying to do — to measure every teaching, mine included, by the Word of God.
Grace and Peace
Yes, it's a real stretch and an unscriptural one as well, to assume that words like "household" or "all that were in his house", etc, included infants or young children. Cornelius is the only example wherein the others are mentioned at all, and those mentioned were servants and a soldier. The other instances, nothing is mentioned, HOWEVER, it's said the word was preached to them; so, can an infant, being one the word was possibly preached to, understand and make a decision as to what they heard, like believe the message and act upon it? Like I said, it's a real stretch as well as a dangerous one.
Exactly — you put that perfectly.
It’s a serious stretch to read infant baptism into those passages. The text itself shows that the gospel was preached to each household member, and that they believed before baptism (Acts 16:32–34).
What’s beautiful is that this pattern never changes throughout Acts:
- "The Word is preached →"
- "Faith is expressed →"
- "Baptism follows as the outward testimony."
That’s consistent with Christ’s command in Mark 16:16 — “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.” Belief comes first, baptism second.
It’s not only biblical; it also protects the gospel from being reduced to a ritual. Baptism declares salvation — it doesn’t cause it.
Grace and peace to you — I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with the text.
Justification
Rom 5:
1 Therefore, since we have been justified [that is, acquitted of sin, declared blameless before God] by faith, [let us grasp the fact that] we have peace with God [and the joy of reconciliation with Him] through our Lord Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed).
2 Through Him we also have access by faith into this [remarkable state of] grace in which we [firmly and safely and securely] stand. Let us rejoice in our hope and the confident assurance of [experiencing and enjoying] the glory of [our great] God [the manifestation of His excellence and power].
Parallel passage
Rom 10:
9 If you acknowledge and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord [recognizing His power, authority, and majesty as God], and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.
10 For with the heart a person believes [in Christ as Savior] resulting in his justification [that is, being made righteous—being freed of the guilt of sin and made acceptable to God]; and with the mouth he acknowledges and confesses [his faith openly], resulting in and confirming [his] salvation.
(MY NOTE: Above verses posted are a direct C&P from the Amplified Bible. Their translators wrote/placed all the brackets of emphasis.)
JUSTIFICATION is a declaration made by a sovereign God/Jesus the Christ, that the sinner, through FAITH in His finished sin atoning sacrificial/work is forever forgiven! Like physical birth, spiritual birth is a one time event.
Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words
Justification, Justifier, Justify
[ A-1,Noun,G1347, dikaiosis ]
denotes the act of pronouncing righteous, justification, acquittal;" its precise meaning is determined by that of the verb dikaioo, "to justify" (See B); it is used twice in the Ep. to the Romans, and there alone in the NT, signifying the establisment of a person as just by acquittal from guilt. In Romans 4:25 the phrase "for our justification," is, lit., "because of our justification" (parallel to the preceding clause "for our trespasses," i.e., because of trespasses committed), and means, not with a view to our "justification," but because all that was necessary on God's part for our "justification" had been effected in the death of Christ. On this account He was raised from the dead. The propitiation being perfect and complete, His resurrection was the confirmatory counterpart. In Romans 5:18, "justification of life" means "justification which results in life" (cp. Romans 5:21). That God "justifies" the believing sinner on the ground of Christ's death, involves His free gift of life. On the distinction between dikaiosis and dikaioma, See below. In the Sept., Leviticus 24:22.
[ A-2,Noun,G1345, dikaioma ]
has three distinct meanings, and seems best described comprehensively as "a concrete expression of righteousness;" it is a declaration that a person or thing is righteous, and hence, broadly speaking, it represents the expression and effect of dikaiosis (No. 1). It signifies
(a) "an ordinance," Luke 1:6; Romans 1:32, RV, "ordinance," i.e., what God has declared to be right, referring to His decree of retribution (AV, "judgment"); Romans 2:26, RV, "ordinances of the Law" (i.e., righteous requirements enjoined by the Law); so Romans 8:4, "ordinance of the Law," i.e., collectively, the precepts of the Law, all that it demands as right; in Hebrews 9:1, Hebrews 9:10, ordinances connected with the tabernacle ritual;
(b) "a sentence of acquittal," by which God acquits men of their guilt, on the conditions
(1) of His grace in Christ, through His expiatory sacrifice,
(2) the acceptance of Christ by faith, Romans 5:16;
(c) "a righteous act," Romans 5:18, "(through one) act of righteousness," RV, not the act of "justification," nor the righteous character of Christ (as suggested by the AV: dikaioma does not signify character, as does dikaiosune, righteousness), but the death of Christ, as an act accomplished consistently with God's character and counsels; this is clear as being in antithesis to the "one trespass" in the preceding statement. Some take the word here as meaning a decree of righteousness, as in Romans 5:16; the death of Christ could indeed be regarded as fulfilling such a decree, but as the Apostle's argument proceeds, the word, as is frequently the case, passes from one shade of meaning to another, and here stands not for a decree, but an act; so in Revelation 15:4, RV, "righteous acts" (AV, "judgments"), and Revelation 19:8, "righteous acts (of the saints)" (AV, "righteousness")
That's what Christ's death accomplished. That is one aspect to salvation. the other aspect is his resurrection, which with justification saves us. But justification alone does not save us.
And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. 1 Corinthians 15:17
Justification by Faith - Posted verses are a direct C&P from the Amp Bible
Rom 3:
22 This righteousness of God comes through faith in Jesus Christ for all those [Jew or Gentile] who believe [and trust in Him and acknowledge Him as God’s Son]. There is no distinction,
23 since all have sinned and continually fall short of the glory of God,
24 and are being justified [declared free of the guilt of sin, made acceptable to God, and granted eternal life] as a gift by His [precious, undeserved] [c]grace, through the redemption [the payment for our sin] which is [provided] in Christ Jesus,
(MY NOTE: Believers are justified/declared free of the guilt of sin, made acceptable to God & granted eternal life as a gift, by His precious, undeserved grace, through the redemption [the payment for our sin] which is [provided] thru FAITH in Christ Jesus)
25 whom God displayed publicly [before the eyes of the world] as a [life-giving] [d]sacrifice of atonement and reconciliation (propitiation) by His blood [to be received] through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness [which demands punishment for sin], because in His forbearance [His deliberate restraint] He passed over the sins previously committed [before Jesus’ crucifixion].
26 It was to demonstrate His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the One who justifies those who have faith in Jesus [and rely confidently on Him as Savior].
(MY NOTE: Christ/God who knows the true heart of men. Is the JUSTIFIER based on FAITH in His death (sins required wage PAID) burial (proof Jesus died) & resurrection (Fathers receipt sins wage received & accepted)
27 Then what becomes of [our] boasting? It is excluded [entirely ruled out, banished]. On what principle? On [the principle of good] works? No, but on the principle of faith.
(MY NOTE: The believer is justified/declared righteous, All based on the believers FAITH. Jesus (to His praise & glory) did all the work.
@ChristRoseFromTheDead That behavior — refusing to identify his theological position or orthodoxy — is actually a common tactic among people who hold to non-mainstream or hybrid doctrines (especially those in baptismal-regeneration, Oneness, or restorationist circles). It’s not just disagreement on doctrine — it’s the way he’s debating that makes it deceptive. He’s presenting himself as “just a Bible believer” while secretly advancing a particular system that he won’t name, won’t own, and won’t defend openly.
When someone who already avoids naming their doctrinal position suddenly appeals to “the early church fathers”, it’s usually not because they truly follow patristic teaching — it’s another deflection tactic meant to sound authoritative without committing to a clear standard.
1. His Wording Suggests a “Process” Salvation View
Notice how he splits salvation into “aspects” — death and resurrection — and then says justification alone does not save.
That’s a clue that he’s not holding to the classic “justification by faith alone” position (Romans 5:1).
He’s implying that justification (faith) is necessary but incomplete until another step occurs — and he identifies that as the resurrection.
Now, someone who believes baptismal regeneration (baptism = salvation) often equates the “resurrection” moment with the act of baptism, since they see baptism as the point at which one is united with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3–4).
He’s probably equating Christ’s resurrection with the believer’s baptism, meaning he sees baptism as the completion of salvation.
2. The Tell: “Justification Alone Does Not Save Us”
That’s a very revealing phrase.
Someone who holds to salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9) would never say justification “does not save.”
But those who see baptism as the moment one is saved will say this — they view justification as merely preparation that must be completed by water baptism.
So his theology likely goes like this:
- Christ’s death provides the means (atonement).
- The believer’s faith accepts it.
- The baptism (symbol of resurrection) completes salvation.
3. The 1 Corinthians 15:17 Quotation Strengthens That Guess
“If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.”
He’s likely using that verse to argue:
“Just faith (justification) isn’t enough — something must happen that joins you to Christ’s resurrection.”
And for people who hold baptismal-regeneration theology, that “something” is water baptism — their supposed moment of being “raised with Christ.”
4. What the Response Really Shows
So, reading between the lines, here’s what his response shows/proves:
Basically:
He’s subtly re-framing “resurrection” to point to baptism, and using it to argue that faith/justification alone is insufficient.
That’s consistent with a baptismal regeneration or Oneness-type interpretation — not with the Pauline “justified by faith apart from works” gospel (Romans 3:28; 5:1; Galatians 2:16).
Grace and Peace
@LightBearer316 tell us what your thoughts are on John Calvin. I didn't realize he was such a murderer
'Bernard Cottret, a university professor in France, wrote a book titled, Calvin: A Biography in which he clearly shows his admiration for Calvin on several levels. Thus, given that Cottret is not what you would call a critic of Calvin, it lends credibility to the more than 36* executions with which Calvin was directly or indirectly involved that are recorded in the book.
*Some resources regarding the Calvin-related executions have given numbers as high as 58.
'Bernard Cottret, a university professor in France, wrote a book titled, Calvin: A Biography in which he clearly shows his admiration for Calvin on several levels. Thus, given that Cottret is not what you would call a critic of Calvin, it lends credibility to the more than 36* executions with which Calvin was directly or indirectly involved that are recorded in the book.
*Some resources regarding the Calvin-related executions have given numbers as high as 58.
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. 1 John 3:15
https://www.lighthousetrailsresearc...e-he-got-his-theology-and-his-manner-of-life/Well yeah, but I think we’ve all witnessed to people outside of church and they get saved. I encourage them to get baptized and hopefully they do. It’s the right thing to do. Everyone’s salvation experience is different, and I would imagine that people saved outside of church, face this issue.