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

[Wansvic]

The core dynamic of baptismal-regeneration or Oneness teaching can be expressly pronounced below;

“Often, they build their entire 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.”

That’s exactly what happens. Their system is built on the assumption that baptism causes salvation — so every passage is reinterpreted to preserve that foundation. Even when faced with clear verses showing faith preceding baptism (Acts 10:43-47 KJV; Ephesians 1:13 KJV; Romans 10:9-10 KJV), they always “circle back” to make baptism the instrument of grace instead of the evidence of grace.


Labeling it a heretical view is also theologically sound, since it:

• Denies salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV).
• Adds a work (baptism) as a condition for justification.
• Reinterprets the gospel in Acts 2:38 KJV as a formula rather than a proclamation of faith.

Grace and Peace

Scripture attests that water baptism is not what saves. But water baptism is required in order to be saved.

 

[mailmandan]

You are debating against Oneness / United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) heretics... They are not here to learn the truth, just here to spread their heresy.

 

[LightBearer316]

View attachment 281263

AMEN!
This thread is a perfect example of why babes in Christ must diligently study their King James Bibles.

‘That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.’ — Ephesians 4:14 (KJV)​

Only by staying grounded in the pure Word of God can believers discern truth from the clever distortions of men. Protect yourselves from this Oneness Pentecostal theology heresy.

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

This thread is a perfect example of why babes in Christ must diligently study their King James Bibles.

So are you a KJ onlyist?

 

[LightBearer316]

Scripture attests that water baptism is not what saves. But water baptism is required in order to be saved.

That statement from Wansvic — “water baptism is not what saves, but water baptism is required in order to be saved” — is textbook double-speak and one of the clearest markers of baptismal regeneration in disguise. He’s trying to sound orthodox by saying “baptism doesn’t save,” but then immediately contradicts it by saying “you must do it to be saved.”
That’s like saying, “Faith alone saves, but not unless you add this work.”

That statement — “baptism doesn’t save, but it’s required to be saved” — cancels itself out. If something is required to be saved, then by definition it becomes part of what saves. That’s adding a work to grace, which Scripture never allows.

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” — Romans 11:6 (KJV)​

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

The moment salvation depends on a human act — even an obedient one — it ceases to be grace and becomes merit.
Baptism is commanded, yes — but as testimony of salvation already received, not as the condition for obtaining it.

“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 (KJV)​

Faith saves. Baptism follows. Confusing the two is exactly how ritual replaces redemption.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Scripture attests that water baptism is not what saves. But water baptism is required in order to be saved.

It appears to be the portal into sin forgiveness. or shall I say, the narrow gate

 

[Wansvic]

That response from Wansvic perfectly shows the pattern of Oneness reasoning: he’s quoting examples from Acts to build a formula out of transitional moments, while ignoring what the apostles later taught doctrinally about salvation by grace through faith.

He’s doing what Oneness and baptismal-regeneration teachers almost always do — turning Acts (a history book) into a doctrinal manual, instead of letting the epistles (letters of instruction) interpret those events.

I agree the book of Acts records believers receiving the Spirit at different moments — but that doesn’t mean God established multiple salvation formulas. Acts is a record of transition, not a rulebook for repetition.

The 120 in Acts 2 were already disciples of Jesus before Pentecost — that event marked the Spirit’s coming to indwell all believers for the first time (John 7:39 KJV). That was a once-for-all historical fulfillment, not a model of delay.

The Samaritans in Acts 8 and the twelve men in Acts 19 both highlight unique transitional moments as the gospel spread beyond Jerusalem. In each case, the apostles’ presence confirmed unity in the one body of Christ — not a two-step salvation.

By the time Paul wrote to the churches, he taught a consistent truth:

“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth… in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” — Ephesians 1:13 KJV​

That’s the settled order — belief, then sealing. The Spirit is received by faith, not by timing or ritual (Galatians 3:2 KJV).

When you turn descriptive events in Acts into prescriptive theology, you end up with contradictions that the epistles already resolve. The apostles didn’t preach multiple ways to receive the Spirit; they all preached the same gospel of grace through faith in Christ alone.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

You may want to study when Paul wrote his epistles in relation to the timeline of Acts. Maybe you could see the error of your understanding.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

That statement from Wansvic — “water baptism is not what saves, but water baptism is required in order to be saved” — is textbook double-speak and one of the clearest markers of baptismal regeneration in disguise. He’s trying to sound orthodox by saying “baptism doesn’t save,” but then immediately contradicts it by saying “you must do it to be saved.”

It makes perfect sense. You must walk through a doorway to enter a bomb shelter; the doorway itself doesn't save you from harm, but you don't enter the shelter any other way..

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

That’s like saying, “Faith alone saves, but not unless you add this work.”

Baptism is not a work. It's something done by another that someone submits to

 

[Wansvic]

When Wansvic says,

“I do not believe, nor have I ever stated that the Holy Ghost is received upon obedience to water baptism,”​

he’s trying to soften how his view appears — but it doesn’t change that he still teaches baptismal regeneration (forgiveness tied to water) and a separate “Spirit reception” experience (typically evidenced by tongues).​

That combination — even if he denies they’re simultaneous — is still Oneness Pentecostal theology.
The UPCI and other Oneness groups teach “new birth = water + Spirit.” Some phrase it like he does — claiming baptism doesn’t “cause” Spirit reception, but that both are “essential elements of salvation.”

Separating the Holy Spirit from salvation still doesn’t fit the pattern the apostles taught. The moment a believer trusts Christ, he is both forgiven and indwelt by the Spirit — not by stages or separate ceremonies.

“In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth… in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise.” — Ephesians 1:13 KJV​

That verse leaves no gap between belief and the Spirit’s indwelling. To teach remission through water baptism and Spirit reception later on — even if not simultaneous — still divides what Scripture unites.

Whether before or after baptism in Acts, the constant truth is this: the Spirit is given by faith, not by ritual or sequence (Galatians 3:2 KJV).

Wansic's theology is unsound...

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

No. Wansvic means exactly what was stated, “I do not believe, nor have I ever stated that the Holy Ghost is received upon obedience to water baptism,”

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

That statement — “baptism doesn’t save, but it’s required to be saved” — cancels itself out. If something is required to be saved, then by definition it becomes part of what saves. That’s adding a work to grace, which Scripture never allows.

Correction. Which Calvignosticism never allows

 

[TruthDefender]

You are debating against Oneness / United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) heretics... They are not here to learn the truth, just here to spread their heresy.

I seek to spread Truth by using Scripture against heresy. Let God speak, men tend to make up word salads… which is often confusing.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The moment salvation depends on a human act — even an obedient one — it ceases to be grace and becomes merit.

This is total BS and a doctrine of devils

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Baptism is commanded, yes — but as testimony of salvation already received, not as the condition for obtaining it.

More total BS. Scripture never describes baptism as a testimony

 

[Wansvic]

...
I didn’t misquote the verse — I quoted it exactly. What you’re doing is misinterpreting what “through His name” means.

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

...

From your post 245, "Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 (KJV)

When in actuality it reads: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. " Acts 10:43

 

[TruthDefender]

This is total BS and a doctrine of devils

Do you realize that you’re using profanity?

 

[Wansvic]

That statement from Wansvic — “water baptism is not what saves, but water baptism is required in order to be saved” — is textbook double-speak and one of the clearest markers of baptismal regeneration in disguise. He’s trying to sound orthodox by saying “baptism doesn’t save,” but then immediately contradicts it by saying “you must do it to be saved.”
That’s like saying, “Faith alone saves, but not unless you add this work.”

That statement — “baptism doesn’t save, but it’s required to be saved” — cancels itself out. If something is required to be saved, then by definition it becomes part of what saves. That’s adding a work to grace, which Scripture never allows.

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” — Romans 11:6 (KJV)​

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

The moment salvation depends on a human act — even an obedient one — it ceases to be grace and becomes merit.
Baptism is commanded, yes — but as testimony of salvation already received, not as the condition for obtaining it.

“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 (KJV)​

Faith saves. Baptism follows. Confusing the two is exactly how ritual replaces redemption.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

I'll make it easier for you to understand.

Water baptism in and of itself does not save. However, water baptism is an essential element of salvation.

 

[mailmandan]

Baptism is not a work. It's something done by another that someone submits to

So, by submitting to being water baptized, no work at all has been accomplished? Is that what you're saying? If baptism is not a work, then I guess it's just a nothing? If water baptism stood between Jesus Christ fulfilling all righteousness and not fulfilling all righteousness, (Matthew 3:13-15) then baptism is a work of righteousness.

 

[Wansvic]

That statement from Wansvic — “water baptism is not what saves, but water baptism is required in order to be saved” — is textbook double-speak and one of the clearest markers of baptismal regeneration in disguise. He’s trying to sound orthodox by saying “baptism doesn’t save,” but then immediately contradicts it by saying “you must do it to be saved.”
That’s like saying, “Faith alone saves, but not unless you add this work.”

That statement — “baptism doesn’t save, but it’s required to be saved” — cancels itself out. If something is required to be saved, then by definition it becomes part of what saves. That’s adding a work to grace, which Scripture never allows.

“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace.” — Romans 11:6 (KJV)​

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

The moment salvation depends on a human act — even an obedient one — it ceases to be grace and becomes merit.
Baptism is commanded, yes — but as testimony of salvation already received, not as the condition for obtaining it.

“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 (KJV)​

Faith saves. Baptism follows. Confusing the two is exactly how ritual replaces redemption.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.

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

 

[LightBearer316]

From your post 245, "Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 (KJV)

When in actuality it reads: "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. " Acts 10:43

So here’s the key breakdown of what’s happening between post #245 (my comment) and #255 (Wansvic’s reply):

The Core Misrepresentation:
He’s accusing me of “misquoting” Acts 10:43, even though I didn’t — I quoted the relevant clause verbatim:

“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 (KJV)​

That’s exactly how proper exegesis works: isolating the portion that delivers the doctrinal point. I didn’t misquote; I quoted selectively for focus, just as every preacher or commentator does when teaching from a clause.

The full verse reads:

“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (KJV)​

The only thing I omitted was the introductory phrase.
“Through His name” defines the basis of remission (Christ’s authority and redemptive work), while “whosoever believeth in Him” defines the condition. The remission still hinges on faith, not baptism.

Contextual Defense (Acts 10:43–47)
Immediately after Peter says this, the Holy Ghost falls on those who believe before baptism:

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” — Acts 10:44​

Then Peter says, “Can any man forbid water…?” (v. 47)​

That chronological order is devastating to baptismal-regeneration claims:

1. Faith and the Spirit ---> 2. Then baptism

So my quotation of the core saving clause was accurate and contextually faithful.

The full verse says exactly what I quoted — I simply focused on the saving clause.
“Through His name” points to Christ as the basis of forgiveness; “whosoever believeth in Him” states the condition.
The next verse shows they received the Holy Ghost before baptism, confirming that faith — not water — brings remission of sins (Acts 10:44-47 KJV).

To reiterate:
The verse was quoted accurately — I simply emphasized the saving clause.
“Through His name” shows the basis of forgiveness (Christ’s authority and finished work), and “whosoever believeth in Him” gives the condition (faith).

The context makes it unmistakable: “While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” (Acts 10:44) They received the Spirit before baptism — proving that remission comes by faith, not by water.

Grace and peace — always in His Word.