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

[LightBearer316]

At this rate, I’m just waiting for the next round of labels — “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobe,” or whatever fits the pattern.
When biblical discussion turns into name-calling, it usually means the argument’s already been lost.
Let’s get back to Scripture — it’s the only ground that actually holds.

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Labels don’t determine truth — Scripture does.
If something I’ve said aligns with the Bible, it isn’t “Calvinist,” it’s simply biblical.
And if it doesn’t align with Scripture, then it should be rejected no matter whose system it sounds like.
Let’s stay focused on the Word, not on categories invented by men.


Grace and peace.

From the Calvinist Dictionary.

“Discernment” is reading all of the Calvinistic books that you possibly can, listening to/watching all of the Calvinistic sermons you possibly can, going to a Calvinistic church and possibly even going to a Calvinistic seminary, to make sure that you read the Bible “properly.”

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

If you truly believe my reasoning is “specious,” then show where it contradicts Scripture. Otherwise, your response is just another diversion.

I don't have time or interest to unravel the minutiae of your twisted eisegesis. I will simply poke holes in it as the spirit leads and let God take care of the rest.

 

[LightBearer316]

I don't have time or interest to unravel the minutiae of your twisted eisegesis. I will simply poke holes in it as the spirit leads and let God take care of the rest.

That’s convenient — dismissing detailed discussion as “minutiae” whenever Scripture starts exposing weak arguments.
If the Spirit truly leads, then He will lead through the Word, not away from it (John 16:13; 2 Tim. 3:16).
Saying “God will take care of the rest” isn’t an argument — it’s an escape from one.
The Spirit never contradicts the Scriptures He inspired.


Grace and peace — still standing on the Word.

 

[LightBearer316]

From the Calvinist Dictionary.

“Discernment” is reading all of the Calvinistic books that you possibly can, listening to/watching all of the Calvinistic sermons you possibly can, going to a Calvinistic church and possibly even going to a Calvinistic seminary, to make sure that you read the Bible “properly.”

That’s a clever attempt at sarcasm, but it dodges the issue entirely.
I’ve quoted Scripture, not Calvin, Luther, or any “system.”
You can call it whatever you want, but if it’s grounded in the Bible, it stands — and if it isn’t, it falls.
Mockery doesn’t replace exegesis.

“He that is of God heareth God’s words.” (John 8:47 KJV)​

​

Grace and peace — still measuring truth by the Word alone.

 

[LightBearer316]

At this rate, I’m just waiting for the next round of labels — “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobe,” or whatever fits the pattern.
When biblical discussion turns into name-calling, it usually means the argument’s already been lost.
Let’s get back to Scripture — it’s the only ground that actually holds.

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

A lot of your posts have all the markings of being at least partially AI generated. Same fake friendly initial sentence, same type format. No one writes like that except AI. I bet you're using the AI tool in Logos software that you mentioned you have.

 

[GWH]

Even in this you can't avoid casuistry. To your mind it appears to be logical and rational, but the two are not even close in comparison. Casuistry is specious or excessively subtle reasoning intended to rationalize or mislead. That describes your writing style perfectly. But my writing style reflects vegetarianism? You're ridiculous.

So much for the reset I recommended in #123.

 

[GWH]

At this rate, I’m just waiting for the next round of labels — “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobe,” or whatever fits the pattern.
When biblical discussion turns into name-calling, it usually means the argument’s already been lost.
Let’s get back to Scripture — it’s the only ground that actually holds.

Grace and Peace

Yes please do, then maybe I will chime in (again) after that reset.

 

[mailmandan]

Brother, I’ve already stated many times — I’m not a Calvinist, nor do I follow any “-ism.” My loyalty is to Christ and Scripture alone..

Amen! In a different thread today he referred to me as a Calvinist as well. That must be his boogeyman.

Your ideas are Calvinist whether you consider yourself to be one or not.

 

[LightBearer316]

Amen! In a different thread today he referred to me as a Calvinist as well. That must be his boogeyman.

Exactly. When he can’t defend his theology from Scripture, the fallback is frustration, sarcasm, and name-calling.
It’s easier to attack labels than to address verses.
But truth doesn’t tremble under examination — error does.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

So much for the reset I recommended in #123.

Good call — stepping back is wise when someone refuses to engage in good faith.

I’m stepping back now so we can reset— the Word says,
“Shun profane and vain babblings, for they will increase unto more ungodliness.” (2 Tim. 2:16)
Some conversations just aren’t worth the strife.

Grace and Peace

 

[JBTN]

That's your spin. Peter explicitly said be baptized in order to receive forgiveness of sins and the spirit. You're readinng into other less explicit scripture the exact opposite

“And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭2‬:‭38‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/act.2.38.ESV

metanoesate translated repent is an aorist imperative active, something you do. Have a change of mind.

baptistheto translated be baptized is an aorist imperative passive. Not something you do, but something done to you.

eis is into.

This seems more correct.

“Kefa answered them, “Turn from sin, return to God, and each of you be immersed on the authority of Yeshua the Messiah into forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Ruach HaKodesh!”
‭‭Acts of Emissaries of Yeshua (Act)‬ ‭2‬:‭38‬ ‭CJB‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/1275/act.2.38.CJB

Its exactly the same thing that is said here:

“In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭13‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/eph.1.13.ESV

“In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace,”
‭‭Ephesians‬ ‭1‬:‭7‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/eph.1.7.ESV

When we believe/have a change of mind we are sealed/immersed into Christ by the Holy Spirit. When we are immersed into Christ we are also immersed into forgiveness of sins.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

baptistheto translated be baptized is an aorist imperative passive. Not something you do, but something done to you.

I had never thought about this before. It's something that someone submits to, not does themselves.

 

[JBTN]

I had never thought about this before. It's something that someone submits to, not does themselves.

Immersion into Christ/forgiveness of sins is something that is done to you by the Holy Spirit upon belief/repentance.

“and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭47‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/luk.24.47.ESV

 

[JBTN]

I had never thought about this before. It's something that someone submits to, not does themselves.

If Peter had commanded them to go submit to baptism that would have been an aorist imperative middle. But it wasn’t, it was an aorist imperative passive. So, it doesn’t seem like that is what he did.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

If Peter had commanded them to go submit to baptism that would have been an aorist imperative middle. But it wasn’t, it was an aorist imperative passive. So, it doesn’t seem like that is what he did.

Not understanding what your point is. My point was that people submit to being baptized. It's not a work they do; they merely submit to it being done to them.

 

[GaryA]

Not having read much of this thread as of yet (and not sure I want to spend the time on it), here is what I have to offer...

("from a 'grammar of the language' perspective")

Acts 2:

37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 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.

To properly understand verse 38, one must not only pay close attention to the word 'for' - but also - the two conjunction words 'and' - which can sometimes mean 'also'.

Consider:

In verse 38, the words 'and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ' are [inserted as] a process-based directive that is part of the overall instruction given - which is a response to the question 'what shall we do?' in the previous verse.

The words 'for the remission of sins' are referring to the [general] concept in the sense of 'for the sake of the cause of the remission of sins'.

We know this because the verse does not say or indicate 'for the remission of your sins' (specific to the actions of those told to 'Repent').

However, the words 'ye shall receive' does specifically address them in actionable terms with a verb component in the word translated.

In other words, the verse does not say 'Repent, and be baptized ... and your sins will be forgiven, and ye shall receive...'; rather, this part of the verse - having no verb sense of operation in the idea being conveyed - is making reference to the generalized concept of 'remission of sins' in a sense of 'because of' and not 'in order to obtain' (as was stated in the OP).

In the context of the passage, I believe:

1) Verse 38 is "instructional" - indicating what the men should do. It is not a defining lecture about what is specifically required to be saved - 'belief' and 'faith' are not even mentioned particularly. Why? It is understood as being necessarily included in 'Repent'.

2) The first 'and' is in the sense of 'also' and the second 'and' connects 'ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost' to 'Repent'.

The following are the places in scripture where the phrase 'for the remission of sins' is found:

Matthew 26:

28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

Mark 1:

4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

Luke 3:

3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;

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.

Romans 3:

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

In each of these verses/contexts, how does the "sense" of the phrase apply to what is being conveyed?

Study long before you jump to conclusions concerning what you think 'baptism of repentance' means.

 

[Wansvic]

Immersion into Christ/forgiveness of sins is something that is done to you by the Holy Spirit upon belief/repentance.

“and that repentance for the forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.”
‭‭Luke‬ ‭24‬:‭47‬ ‭ESV‬‬
https://bible.com/bible/59/luk.24.47.ESV

The scripture does not say repentance FOR forgiveness of sins, but rather repentance AND remission of sin. Peter states both repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin is required of everyone.

"And that repentance AND remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem." Luke 24:47 KJV

 

[Wansvic]

If Peter had commanded them to go submit to baptism that would have been an aorist imperative middle. But it wasn’t, it was an aorist imperative passive. So, it doesn’t seem like that is what he did.

The people at Pentecost asked what MUST WE DO. Peter's response/command was repent, AND be baptized everyone of you. The account is clear. The individuals were added to the church after belief and obedience. (Acts 2:36-42)

Peter also commanded water baptism of the Gentiles:
"Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord..." (Acts 10:47-48)