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

[LightBearer316]

It is one's trust/faith in Jesus that prompts belief and obedience to God's command of water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin.

The Spirit is not automatially received the moment a person believes as indicated in detailed conversion accounts:
Acts 2- Believers at Pentecost did not automatically receive the Holy Ghost upon belief.
Acts 8- Believers submitted to water baptism in the name of Jesus and received the Holy Ghost days later.
Acts 9- Paul did not receive the Holy Ghost until days after he believed in Jesus.
Acts 10 - While Peter was speaking those who believed received the Holy Ghost and obeyed the water baptism command afterward.
Acts 19 - Paul questioned, Have you received the Holy Ghost since you believed? His question indicates the Holy Ghost is not received automatically upon belief.

Circumcision was more than just a sign for those living in the OT. Those who were not circumcised were cut off from their God for breaking His covenant. Just as circumcision was required of those in the OT, water baptism in the name of Jesus is required of everyone living in the NT era as seen in Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16.

If the aforementioned scriptures are not enough to prove the point, Jesus Himself said, "...Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16:15-16



Obedience to the OT command of circumcision was not a work of righteousness, nor is water baptism in the name of Jesus. The reality associated with water baptism is being buried with Jesus into His death.

My take: That’s a long and layered argument from Wansvic, blending truth (faith prompts obedience) with the Oneness view (Spirit not received until baptism).

Brother, I agree that faith should lead to obedience, but Scripture never makes obedience the condition for grace — only the response to it. The pattern of Acts you listed actually proves the opposite of what you’re claiming:

• Acts 2 — The Spirit came upon the believers after Christ’s ascension because the promise had just been given (John 7:39 KJV). That was a unique moment in redemptive history, not a model of delay.
• Acts 8 — The Samaritan delay was intentional to show apostolic unity between Jerusalem and Samaria — not a rule that faith without baptism leaves one unsaved.
• Acts 9 — Paul’s case involved a personal commissioning by Christ; he was filled with the Spirit before any mention of “washing away sins” (Acts 9:17–18 KJV).
• Acts 10 — The Gentiles received the Spirit while Peter was still preaching, before baptism — explicitly showing salvation precedes the water (v. 44–47).
• Acts 19 — Paul corrected disciples who had received only John’s baptism — once they believed the full gospel, the Spirit came.

These are not contradictions — they’re transitions in the unfolding of the gospel from Jews to Gentiles. Ephesians 1:13 KJV summarizes the permanent order:

“After that ye heard the word of truth… after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.”​

As for circumcision, Romans 4:10–11 KJV makes it clear: Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. Likewise, we’re justified before baptism — and then baptized as the sign of faith, not the source of righteousness.

Mark 16:16 KJV fits perfectly with that pattern: belief saves; baptism follows. The condemnation comes from unbelief, not from lack of baptism — “He that believeth not shall be damned.”

So yes, baptism is commanded, beautiful, and meaningful — but it’s never presented as the channel of forgiveness or the moment of Spirit reception. The blood of Christ alone cleanses; baptism proclaims it.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[LightBearer316]

The individuals in the account believed in Jesus as recorded in Acts 2:37. Afterward Peter told them what they must do. And they believed his words and submitted to being baptized:

"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

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.

39 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.

40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

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

42 And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine..." Acts 2:36-42

This is one of the most common proof-texts used to defend baptismal regeneration, but it actually proves the opposite when read carefully and in context.

Brother, you’re right that those in Acts 2 KJV believed Peter’s message — but that belief itself was the turning point. Verse 37 says they were “pricked in their heart” — conviction and faith had already taken root before Peter even mentioned baptism.

Peter then called them to repent (change of heart toward God) and be baptized as the public confession of that repentance. Verse 41 makes the order unmistakable:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.”​

They received the word first — that’s faith — then were baptized.​

When Peter later preached the same gospel to Gentiles, he clarified what brings remission:

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

That’s Peter interpreting Peter. Faith in Christ’s name brings forgiveness; baptism follows as obedience and testimony.​

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[Wansvic]

"...
If baptism itself were the channel of forgiveness, Peter wouldn’t later say,

“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 KJV​

That’s the same apostle explaining the same gospel. Repentance and faith in Christ’s name bring remission; baptism is the obedient response of those who have already believed.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

Notice Peter said those who believe in Jesus would receive remission of sins through His name. When is the name of Jesus connected with remission of sin? It's in water baptism. In each and every detailed account of water baptism, the apostles baptized the individuals in the name of Jesus. See the accounts below.

Jews, Acts 2 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

Samaritans, (half Jew-half Gentile) Acts 8 - (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Gentiles, Acts 10 - 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.

12 Men of Ephesus, Acts 19 -Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Apostle Paul, Acts 22 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[LightBearer316]

Notice Peter said those who believe in Jesus would receive remission of sins through His name. When is the name of Jesus connected with remission of sin? It's in water baptism. In each and every detailed account of water baptism, the apostles baptized the individuals in the name of Jesus. See the accounts below.

Jews, Acts 2 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

Samaritans, (half Jew-half Gentile) Acts 8 - (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Gentiles, Acts 10 - 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.

12 Men of Ephesus, Acts 19 -Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Apostle Paul, Acts 22 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

This is one of the more sophisticated Oneness arguments: Wansvic’s tying “the name of Jesus” to the act of baptism and then claiming that’s where forgiveness occurs.

Brother, “through His name” doesn’t mean “through the act of baptism in His name” — it means “through the authority and power of who He is.”
Throughout Acts, people are healed, forgiven, and saved in His name, but not every instance involves baptism. For example:

“And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong.” — Acts 3:16 KJV​

The man was healed by faith in His name, not by water.​

When Peter said in Acts 10:43 KJV, “Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” he was explaining that forgiveness comes through believing in Christ Himself — not through repeating His name during baptism.

Yes, every baptism was done in the name of Jesus, because He is the only Savior (Acts 4:12 KJV). But the remission is through His blood (Ephesians 1:7 KJV), applied by faith, not through the water that bears His name.

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.” — Titus 3:5 KJV​

So, baptism identifies us with His name publicly; faith unites us with Him spiritually. One confesses what the other has already accomplished.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[Wansvic]

Brother, I agree baptism is commanded — the issue is what causes remission. You quoted Acts 10:43 yourself:

“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”​

That’s Peter’s own interpretation of what he preached in Acts 2. Belief brings remission; baptism follows.​

Even in Acts 2:38, the word “for” (Greek: eis) can mean “because of” or “in view of.” The same word appears in Matthew 12:41 — “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah.” They didn’t repent to get Jonah’s message, but because of it.

Peter later saw the Spirit fall on Gentiles before baptism (Acts 10:44–47) and explained in Acts 15:8–9 that God “purified their hearts by faith.” That’s the apostle interpreting himself.

Naaman and Jericho were acts of obedience after faith in God’s word — not conditions that earned God’s favor. In the same way, baptism testifies to the grace already received, not the act that secures it.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

Faith, if it hath not works/action, is dead, being alone. (James 2) I find it hard to believe that anyone would think the result would have been the same for Naaman and those at Jericho had they just believed God and traveled on down the road. God brought about what He promised AFTER the individuals obeyed Him.

 

[LightBearer316]

Faith, if it hath not works/action, is dead, being alone. (James 2) I find it hard to believe that anyone would think the result would have been the same for Naaman and those at Jericho had they just believed God and traveled on down the road. God brought about what He promised AFTER the individuals obeyed Him.

James 2 and the examples of Naaman and Jericho actually confirm faith as the cause and obedience as its fruit — not the condition of grace. Brother, I agree that genuine faith always acts — but Scripture never reverses the order. Faith produces obedience; obedience doesn’t create faith or earn grace.

Naaman and those at Jericho obeyed because they already believed God’s word. Their actions demonstrated trust, but the power came from God’s promise — not from the physical act itself. That’s exactly what James meant:

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.” — James 2:18 KJV​

Likewise, baptism is the believer’s response of faith, not the requirement for God to act. The moment we make obedience the cause of grace, it ceases to be grace (Romans 11:6 KJV). True faith saves — and because it’s alive, it obeys.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[mailmandan]

James 2 and the examples of Naaman and Jericho actually confirm faith as the cause and obedience as its fruit — not the condition of grace. Brother, I agree that genuine faith always acts — but Scripture never reverses the order. Faith produces obedience; obedience doesn’t create faith or earn grace.

Naaman and those at Jericho obeyed because they already believed God’s word. Their actions demonstrated trust, but the power came from God’s promise — not from the physical act itself. That’s exactly what James meant:

“I will shew thee my faith by my works.” — James 2:18 KJV​

Likewise, baptism is the believer’s response of faith, not the requirement for God to act. The moment we make obedience the cause of grace, it ceases to be grace (Romans 11:6 KJV). True faith saves — and because it’s alive, it obeys.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

Amen! I have often heard folks who teach salvation by water baptism compare the healing of Naaman when he dipped in the Jordan river 7 times in order to receive healing from leprosy with receiving remission of sins in the waters of baptism. Yet in the first place, if being healed from leprosy is an illustration of salvation, we have another case in that reveals one can be saved without any water. (Luke 5:12-15) No water is found here.

Second, Naaman was not even a believer until "after" dipping in Jordan. He said "now" (after being healed) I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," (2 Kings 5:15) and vowed to worship only Him (vs. 17). If we follow this "example," we will have to baptize unbelievers! Naaman received cleansing from leprosy (but not the gift of eternal life) after he dipped in the Jordan 7 times. No sins were literally remitted for Naaman in Jordan river. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.

The Bible uses the experience of Naaman as illustrative of the sovereignty of God and not of salvation by water baptism. Naaman was a heathen, not a believer, and did not know God until the miracle occurred. The purpose of the miracle had nothing to do with salvation by H2O but was to demonstrate "there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8) and that "there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," as Naaman found out. (2 Kings 5:15)

You were absolutely right when you said - "Naaman and those at Jericho obeyed because they already believed God’s word. Their actions demonstrated trust, but the power came from God’s promise — not from the physical act itself."

 

[JBTN]

"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

I understand what you see when you read this, but let me tell you what I have found while studying this.

In Acts 10:48 there are a couple of key words or phrases. They are ”commanded” and “to be baptized”. According to BDAG prosetaxen/commanded means to issue an official directive or make a determination. Baptisthenai is translated ”to be baptized”. Baptisthenai is an aorist infinitive passive which says a couple of things. The action is already complete and the action was done to them As opposed to something they did. So, what does this really say?

Peter determined them baptisthenai. Peter determined them to have already received immersion.

 

[LightBearer316]

Amen! I have often heard folks who teach salvation by water baptism compare the healing of Naaman when he dipped in the Jordan river 7 times in order to receive healing from leprosy with receiving remission of sins in the waters of baptism. Yet in the first place, if being healed from leprosy is an illustration of salvation, we have another case in that reveals one can be saved without any water. (Luke 5:12-15) No water is found here.

Second, Naaman was not even a believer until "after" dipping in Jordan. He said "now" (after being healed) I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," (2 Kings 5:15) and vowed to worship only Him (vs. 17). If we follow this "example," we will have to baptize unbelievers! Naaman received cleansing from leprosy (but not the gift of eternal life) after he dipped in the Jordan 7 times. No sins were literally remitted for Naaman in Jordan river. Likewise, water baptism does not literally remit sins.

The Bible uses the experience of Naaman as illustrative of the sovereignty of God and not of salvation by water baptism. Naaman was a heathen, not a believer, and did not know God until the miracle occurred. The purpose of the miracle had nothing to do with salvation by H2O but was to demonstrate "there is a prophet in Israel" (2 Kings 5:8) and that "there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel," as Naaman found out. (2 Kings 5:15)

You were absolutely right when you said - "Naaman and those at Jericho obeyed because they already believed God’s word. Their actions demonstrated trust, but the power came from God’s promise — not from the physical act itself."

Amen, brother — beautifully said. I appreciate how you highlighted Naaman’s case from 2 Kings 5 — it’s a perfect example of God’s sovereign power, not a ritual for salvation.

As you pointed out, Naaman didn’t even acknowledge the true God until after he was healed (v.15). The miracle was about God’s authority, not a formula involving water. In the same way, the walls of Jericho didn’t fall because of human effort but because of faith in God’s promise.

That’s exactly what I meant when I said faith causes obedience, not the other way around. Once we reverse that order, grace becomes something to earn instead of something to receive.

“By grace are ye saved through faith… not of works, lest any man should boast.” — Ephesians 2:8–9 KJV​

If only people could see the truth beyond the layers of Oneness brainwashing — Scripture becomes so much clearer once you let the Word interpret itself instead of forcing it through a man-made system.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[LightBearer316]

I understand what you see when you read this, but let me tell you what I have found while studying this.

In Acts 10:48 there are a couple of key words or phrases. They are ”commanded” and “to be baptized”. According to BDAG prosetaxen/commanded means to issue an official directive or make a determination. Baptisthenai is translated ”to be baptized”. Baptisthenai is an aorist infinitive passive which says a couple of things. The action is already complete and the action was done to them As opposed to something they did. So, what does this really say?

Peter determined them baptisthenai. Peter determined them to have already received immersion.

Brother, I appreciate your effort to study the Greek closely — but grammatically and contextually, Acts 10:48 doesn’t say they were already baptized.

The aorist infinitive passive (βαπτισθῆναι) simply describes the action Peter commanded them to undergo, not something already completed. In Greek, the aorist often expresses the action as a whole, without reference to time. It doesn’t imply that baptism had already occurred — only that Peter issued the directive.

That fits perfectly with the context:

“Can any man forbid water…? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.” — Acts 10:47-48 KJV​

They had just received the Spirit (v. 44-47), which proved God had accepted them by faith — THEN, as the NEXT STEP of obedience, Peter commanded baptism. The order is crystal clear: faith --> Spirit --> baptism.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[Wansvic]

My take: That’s a long and layered argument from Wansvic, blending truth (faith prompts obedience) with the Oneness view (Spirit not received until baptism).

Brother, I agree that faith should lead to obedience, but Scripture never makes obedience the condition for grace — only the response to it. The pattern of Acts you listed actually proves the opposite of what you’re claiming:

• Acts 2 — The Spirit came upon the believers after Christ’s ascension because the promise had just been given (John 7:39 KJV). That was a unique moment in redemptive history, not a model of delay.
• Acts 8 — The Samaritan delay was intentional to show apostolic unity between Jerusalem and Samaria — not a rule that faith without baptism leaves one unsaved.
• Acts 9 — Paul’s case involved a personal commissioning by Christ; he was filled with the Spirit before any mention of “washing away sins” (Acts 9:17–18 KJV).
• Acts 10 — The Gentiles received the Spirit while Peter was still preaching, before baptism — explicitly showing salvation precedes the water (v. 44–47).
• Acts 19 — Paul corrected disciples who had received only John’s baptism — once they believed the full gospel, the Spirit came.

These are not contradictions — they’re transitions in the unfolding of the gospel from Jews to Gentiles. Ephesians 1:13 KJV summarizes the permanent order:

“After that ye heard the word of truth… after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.”​

As for circumcision, Romans 4:10–11 KJV makes it clear: Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. Likewise, we’re justified before baptism — and then baptized as the sign of faith, not the source of righteousness.

Mark 16:16 KJV fits perfectly with that pattern: belief saves; baptism follows. The condemnation comes from unbelief, not from lack of baptism — “He that believeth not shall be damned.”

So yes, baptism is commanded, beautiful, and meaningful — but it’s never presented as the channel of forgiveness or the moment of Spirit reception. The blood of Christ alone cleanses; baptism proclaims it.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

You make an assumption. I do not believe people receive the Holy Ghost at the point of water baptism. Obedience to water baptism in the name of Jesus brings about remission of sin in association with Jesus' sacrifice. And receiving the Holy Ghost is a separate experience. Both are essential elements of the NT rebirth according to Jesus. (John 3:3-5, Mark 16:15-16)

What's the word of truth Paul referenced in Ephesians 1? See Acts 19:1-7. After sharing the truth regarding the need to believe in Jesus, and baptizing them in His name, Paul laid hands on the 12 Ephesians and they received the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues and prophesying. I believe scripture reveals the sealing with the Holy Ghost and the initial infilling is one in the same experience. Note that Paul stayed in Ephesus and taught there for years afterward. There is no reason to believe Paul taught anything other than what was first revealed to the 12 men. The account is direct evidence that the gospel never changed. Paul was still preaching the same message and requirements Peter initially presented 20+ years earlier at Pentecost.

All detailed conversion accounts reveal man is to believe in Jesus, turn in repentance, and submit to water baptism in the name of Jesus. And God gives the Holy Ghost at His discretion in accordance with His purposes.

 

[LightBearer316]

You make an assumption. I do not believe people receive the Holy Ghost at the point of water baptism. Obedience to water baptism in the name of Jesus brings about remission of sin in association with Jesus' sacrifice. And receiving the Holy Ghost is a separate experience. Both are essential elements of the NT rebirth according to Jesus. (John 3:3-5, Mark 16:15-16)

What's the word of truth Paul referenced in Ephesians 1? See Acts 19:1-7. After sharing the truth regarding the need to believe in Jesus, and baptizing them in His name, Paul laid hands on the 12 Ephesians and they received the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues and prophesying. I believe scripture reveals the sealing with the Holy Ghost and the initial infilling is one in the same experience. Note that Paul stayed in Ephesus and taught there for years afterward. There is no reason to believe Paul taught anything other than what was first revealed to the 12 men. The account is direct evidence that the gospel never changed. Paul was still preaching the same message and requirements Peter initially presented 20+ years earlier at Pentecost.

All detailed conversion accounts reveal man is to believe in Jesus, turn in repentance, and submit to water baptism in the name of Jesus. And God gives the Holy Ghost at His discretion in accordance with His purposes.

Wansvic just revealed his core position clearly: He separates baptism and Spirit reception but still makes baptism a condition for remission of sins, which is classic Oneness Pentecostal theology (baptismal regeneration + tongues as the evidence of Spirit baptism), and other Oneness circles teach.
Here’s the key part of Wansvic’s post that signals it clearly:

“After sharing the truth regarding the need to believe in Jesus, and baptizing them in His name, Paul laid hands on the 12 Ephesians and they received the Holy Ghost as evidenced by speaking in tongues and prophesying. I believe scripture reveals the sealing with the Holy Ghost and the initial infilling is one in the same experience.”​

That line shows several things unmistakably:

1. He equates “receiving the Holy Ghost” with the Acts 2 / Acts 19 pattern — tongues as proof.
   
   “As evidenced by speaking in tongues and prophesying.”
   That’s classic Oneness Pentecostal doctrine: the Spirit’s presence is not confirmed until tongues appear.​
2. He rejects the idea of being sealed with the Spirit at belief (Ephesians 1:13) and instead redefines “sealing” as the later “infilling” moment accompanied by tongues.
3. He ties this to rebirth and salvation — by citing John 3:3–5 and Mark 16:15–16, he’s saying water baptism and Spirit baptism (tongues evidence) together equal being “born again.”

So yes — even though he didn’t say “tongues are the evidence of the Holy Spirit” outright, his wording is the textbook phrasing used in United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) and other Oneness circles that teach tongues as the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost.

The United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) and other Oneness Pentecostal groups are outside the bounds of historic Protestant orthodoxy — both doctrinally and historically.
Origin and Background

• The UPCI arose from a split within early Pentecostalism in the early 20th century (around 1913–1916).
• Mainstream Pentecostals (like the Assemblies of God) rejected their theology as heretical and expelled Oneness ministers from their ranks.
• The key issue was their denial of the Trinity and the introduction of “Jesus’ Name” baptismal formula — both departures from historic Christian doctrine.

Core Doctrinal Differences


How Protestants View Oneness Pentecostalism

Mainline Protestant and Evangelical denominations (Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Reformed, etc.) consider Oneness theology to be non-Trinitarian and heretical — closer to ancient modalism (Sabellianism) than to biblical Christianity.

• The Assemblies of God (AG) officially condemned Oneness doctrine in 1916.
• Scholars and theologians across Protestantism classify the UPCI as a sect or pseudo-Christian movement, not within the bounds of orthodoxy.

Basically:

• Oneness Pentecostalism = non-Trinitarian + baptismal regeneration + tongues as required evidence.
• It uses biblical terms but redefines them in ways that contradict historic Christian teaching.
• That’s why most Protestants (and Catholics, for that matter) view it as outside orthodox Christianity, despite its use of Christian vocabulary.

I appreciate the clarification — but that’s still two steps Scripture never separates. You’ve placed remission of sins in baptism and the Spirit after baptism, yet the apostles consistently taught that both forgiveness and the Spirit are received the moment of faith.

Paul’s “word of truth” in Ephesians 1:13 KJV isn’t Acts 19 KJV — it’s the gospel itself:

“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.”​

That’s a single, unified event — belief → sealing. No ritual in between.

Acts 19 describes twelve men who had only known John’s baptism — an outdated, pre-cross message of repentance. Paul explained Christ’s finished work, they believed, and then the Spirit came. It’s not a “formula”; it’s a correction.

If remission only occurs after baptism, grace is no longer grace — it becomes a transaction. Scripture never presents God’s mercy as something earned through compliance, but as a gift received by faith (Romans 3:28 KJV; 4:5; 11:6 KJV).

Yes, baptism is commanded — but as testimony, not as the trigger of forgiveness. The Spirit is not “at God’s discretion in accordance with His purposes” after our obedience; He’s given immediately to all who believe (Galatians 3:2 KJV).

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[Wansvic]

This is one of the most common proof-texts used to defend baptismal regeneration, but it actually proves the opposite when read carefully and in context.

Brother, you’re right that those in Acts 2 KJV believed Peter’s message — but that belief itself was the turning point. Verse 37 says they were “pricked in their heart” — conviction and faith had already taken root before Peter even mentioned baptism.

Peter then called them to repent (change of heart toward God) and be baptized as the public confession of that repentance. Verse 41 makes the order unmistakable:

“Then they that gladly received his word were baptized.”​

They received the word first — that’s faith — then were baptized.​

When Peter later preached the same gospel to Gentiles, he clarified what brings remission:

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

That’s Peter interpreting Peter. Faith in Christ’s name brings forgiveness; baptism follows as obedience and testimony.​

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

The connection between water baptism and remission of sin is well established in scripture. Upon study of the relevant scriptures it becomes obvious that Peter is not telling people to make a public confession.
Nor is he saying believing in the name of Jesus is what brings about remission of sin.

In Acts 10:43, Peter states those who believe in Jesus can receive remission of sin through His name. He then commands believers to be water baptized in the name of Jesus.

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

And he commanded us to preach unto the people, (this occurred first at Pentecost) and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him (those who already believer in Him) shall receive remission of sins.

Note Peter speaks of what Jesus prophesied in Luke 24:47. Repentance and remission of sin was to be preached in His name in all nations beginning in Jerusalem. It was in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost that repentance, and water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin was introduced. And since has been carried into all nations.

 

[Wansvic]

This is one of the more sophisticated Oneness arguments: Wansvic’s tying “the name of Jesus” to the act of baptism and then claiming that’s where forgiveness occurs.

Brother, “through His name” doesn’t mean “through the act of baptism in His name” — it means “through the authority and power of who He is.”
Throughout Acts, people are healed, forgiven, and saved in His name, but not every instance involves baptism. For example:

“And his name through faith in his name hath made this man strong.” — Acts 3:16 KJV​

The man was healed by faith in His name, not by water.​

When Peter said in Acts 10:43 KJV, “Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” he was explaining that forgiveness comes through believing in Christ Himself — not through repeating His name during baptism.

Yes, every baptism was done in the name of Jesus, because He is the only Savior (Acts 4:12 KJV). But the remission is through His blood (Ephesians 1:7 KJV), applied by faith, not through the water that bears His name.

“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.” — Titus 3:5 KJV​

So, baptism identifies us with His name publicly; faith unites us with Him spiritually. One confesses what the other has already accomplished.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

I don't tie the name of Jesus to water baptism; however, scripture does:

Jews, Acts 2 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

Samaritans, (half Jew-half Gentile) Acts 8 - (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Gentiles, Acts 10 - 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.

12 Men of Ephesus, Acts 19 -Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Apostle Paul, Acts 22 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

That’s a familiar move — when the text doesn’t fit his doctrine, he falls back on “they just didn’t include every detail.”

Brother, I understand your point — but when the same apostle explicitly says “whosoever believeth in Him shall receive remission of sins,” that’s not leaving out details; that’s defining the foundation.

If baptism were an essential condition for remission, Peter’s words in Acts 10:43 KJV would be incomplete and misleading — yet the Holy Spirit inspired them exactly as they stand. The passage doesn’t say “whosoever believeth and is baptized,” but “whosoever believeth.”

Peter was consistent: in Acts 10 he watched Gentiles believe and receive the Spirit before baptism (v. 44–47), proving that remission and the Spirit come by faith, not ritual. That’s not unrealistic reasoning — that’s letting Scripture interpret itself.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

Your boilerplate responses are way beyond boring

 

[LightBearer316]

I don't tie the name of Jesus to water baptism; however, scripture does:

Jews, Acts 2 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins

Samaritans, (half Jew-half Gentile) Acts 8 - (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Gentiles, Acts 10 - 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.

12 Men of Ephesus, Acts 19 -Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Apostle Paul, Acts 22 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

This is another classic Oneness pivot from Wansvic: he’s insisting that because baptism is performed “in the name of Jesus,” the power of salvation must therefore occur in the act of baptism. But that’s a category error. If only you could get past your Oneness indoctrination, you could see the truth.

Brother, I don’t disagree that every baptism in Acts was performed in the name of Jesus — but that doesn’t mean the act itself caused forgiveness. Scripture connects salvation to the authority of His name, not to the ceremony that bears it.

When Peter said,

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

he made faith in Christ the channel of remission — not the moment of water baptism.​

Even the examples you listed show that baptism followed belief. In Acts 10 KJV, for instance, the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit first while Peter was still preaching (v. 44–47). Peter then commanded baptism — not to get forgiveness, but because forgiveness had already been received.

The name of Jesus signifies His authority — the same authority that healed the lame man in Acts 3:16 KJV without water and forgave the thief on the cross without baptism. The remission of sins is through His blood (Ephesians 1:7 KJV), not through the water.

Baptism proclaims His name publicly; faith unites us with Him personally. The first is our confession — the second is God’s work of grace.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[LightBearer316]

The connection between water baptism and remission of sin is well established in scripture. Upon study of the relevant scriptures it becomes obvious that Peter is not telling people to make a public confession.
Nor is he saying believing in the name of Jesus is what brings about remission of sin.

In Acts 10:43, Peter states those who believe in Jesus can receive remission of sin through His name. He then commands believers to be water baptized in the name of Jesus.

37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.

And he commanded us to preach unto the people, (this occurred first at Pentecost) and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him (those who already believer in Him) shall receive remission of sins.

Note Peter speaks of what Jesus prophesied in Luke 24:47. Repentance and remission of sin was to be preached in His name in all nations beginning in Jerusalem. It was in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost that repentance, and water baptism in the name of Jesus for remission of sin was introduced. And since has been carried into all nations.

Yet another refined Oneness argument from Wansvic now he’s trying to frame Acts 10:43 as referring to believers who still need baptism to actually receive remission, merging Luke 24:47, Acts 2:38, and Acts 10 into one “formula.”
But what he’s really doing is conflating proclamation (“preached in His name”) with application (“through faith in His name”). The difference is huge — Peter’s message isn’t “believe + baptize to receive forgiveness,” it’s “believe in Christ whose name is proclaimed.”

Brother, I appreciate your careful reading, but nothing in Acts 10 or Luke 24 suggests that baptism itself grants remission. Both passages describe the message of salvation being preached in Christ’s name, not a ritual that transmits it.

In Luke 24:47, Jesus said “repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name.” The emphasis is on the proclamation of His authority — not on a ceremonial channel.
Peter fulfilled that at Pentecost (Acts 2:38 KJV) and later among the Gentiles (Acts 10:43-48). The consistent thread is that forgiveness comes through His name — that is, through faith in who He is and what He accomplished.

Notice the order in Acts 10: while Peter was still speaking, “the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word” (v. 44). That’s divine confirmation that they were already accepted before baptism. Peter then commanded baptism as an act of obedience — not a prerequisite for remission.

The name of Jesus isn’t a baptismal formula that causes salvation; it’s the authority of the risen Christ by which salvation is proclaimed and received through faith (Acts 4:12 KJV; Ephesians 1:7 KJV).

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[LightBearer316]

@Wansvic, the reason your interpretations stay tangled is because you’re still filtering everything through that Oneness cult lens. It’s why you have to keep forcing verses to fit a man-made formula instead of letting Scripture speak for itself. That system turns grace into ritual and faith into performance. Step outside that cage for a moment, and you’ll see how clearly the Word teaches salvation through Christ alone — not through ceremony.

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

@Wansvic, the reason your interpretations stay tangled is because you’re still filtering everything through that Oneness cult lens. It’s why you have to keep forcing verses to fit a man-made formula instead of letting Scripture speak for itself. That system turns grace into ritual and faith into performance. Step outside that cage for a moment, and you’ll see how clearly the Word teaches salvation through Christ alone — not through ceremony.

Grace and Peace

Christ alone means doing what he says, even if it's ceremony

 

[lrs68]

I have never heard Oneness believers claim the act of water baptism itself being the congruent connection to receive the Holy Ghost until reading this thread. A lot of misconception within this thread. And Wansvic might be Oneness but his beliefs don't align to the majority of those I am familiar with that proclaim Oneness or Manifestations of the One True Triune God.