A person is a soul, a body and a spirit; and these 3 are one. That's not 3 persons, nor one person with 3 faces - but one being existing as 3 unique realities perfectly united in essence and purpose.
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.
A person is a soul, a body and a spirit; and these 3 are one. That's not 3 persons, nor one person with 3 faces - but one being existing as 3 unique realities perfectly united in essence and purpose.
That’s a clever rhetorical mirror you are using —you’re trying to parallel your Trinitarian statement while redefining Person to mean part of a single being (body, soul, spirit). That’s actually a restatement of modalistic or composite-monist thinking, not biblical Trinitarianism.
I see what you’re doing with that analogy — but there’s an important distinction that Scripture itself maintains.
When we talk about the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, we’re not describing parts of one divine body or different “realities” of one person — we’re describing three distinct Persons who each fully share the same divine nature.
Your body, soul, and spirit make up one human person. But the Father, Son, and Spirit are not components that make up God — each is fully God, yet distinct in personal relation:
- The Father sends the Son (John 3:16 KJV).
- The Son prays to the Father (John 17:1 KJV).
- The Spirit proceeds from the Father and is sent by the Son (John 15:26 KJV).
If we reduce the Trinity to “body, soul, and spirit,” we end up describing one person with three attributes — which denies the personal distinction that Scripture explicitly affirms.
So yes — “these three are one,” not because they’re three parts of one being, but because they share the same eternal essence while remaining three co-equal, co-eternal Persons.
Grace and Peace.
I didn't say anything about God. I described the nature and characteristics of a human person. Do you think it's inaccurate? If so please explain
I understand, in one sense, your description of a human being having body, soul, and spirit is accurate ( 1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV). But that analogy applies only to created beings, not to the Creator Himself.
A man is a finite creature made up of parts that together form one person. God, however, is not composed of parts or divisions. He is simple (undivided) in essence and tri-personal in being.
“God is a Spirit” — John 4:24 KJV — not a composite of body, soul, and spirit.
So while the human structure can help us grasp certain truths about unity, it breaks down when applied to the infinite God.
The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not components or faculties within one divine person — they are distinct Persons, eternally existing in perfect unity and fellowship (John 17:24 KJV; Matthew 28:19 KJV).
Using human composition as a model for the Godhead inevitably reduces God to the level of His creation, which Scripture never does.
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Grace and Peace.
“Jesus Only” (often called the Oneness or “Apostolic” movement) is a modern form of Modalism — a doctrine that denies the Trinity and teaches that God is one Person who reveals Himself in different modes or manifestations rather than existing as three distinct, co-eternal Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
Baptism in Jesus’ Name only.
They reject baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19 KJV) and insist that the true formula is baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38 KJV).
Baptism is essential for salvation.
They teach that water baptism is part of the new birth (John 3:5) and is necessary for forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38).
To them, an unbaptized believer has not yet been “born again.”
Faith, repentance, and baptism form a single, inseparable process of salvation.
So, salvation = Repentance --> Baptism in Jesus’ name--> Receiving the Holy Spirit (with tongues)
If you skip baptism, they say your sins are not yet remitted.
The “Jesus Only” (Oneness Pentecostal) doctrine is historically and theologically considered heresy by the mainstream Christian Church (Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox alike).
Grace and peace
I can't speak for any particular denomination. What I will say is this:
The New Covenant
Matt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mk 14:24 And he said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many.
Lk 22:20 Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.
Rom 5:9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
1 Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
"""Recap: justified by his blood, redemption through his blood & the forgiveness of sins, redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins, without shedding of blood is no remission, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin & Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood""".
Repentance doesn't remove sin, H2O doesn't remove sin, Going to Church doesn't remove sin, Tithing doesn't remove sin, A wish & a promise doesn't remove sin.
The only thing that can remove sins stain from the soul is:
God's Grace & Faith in the sacrificial sin atoning BLOOD of Jesus the Christ. AMEN & Amen
Actually this is just 3 quick immediate differences out of too many to address. But for you to claim no difference is alarming for presenting yourself as the viewpoint of absolute truth. The biggest alarm is the alignment modern definition is with Catholic definition.You are trying to sound affirming (“I’m not denying the triune nature”) of God while undermining the orthodox definition of triune nature of God by claiming the “modern definition” differs from the 325 AD Nicene one.
I appreciate that you affirm God’s triune nature— that’s essential. But the idea that the modern definition of the Trinity differs from the 325 AD version isn’t really accurate. The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) affirmed what Scripture already revealed — not a new concept, but a clear defense against confusion.
From Genesis to Revelation, God reveals Himself as one Being (Deut 6:4 KJV) who eternally exists as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19 KJV).
The Nicene Creed simply expressed what the apostles already believed — that the Son is “of one substance with the Father.” That truth hasn’t changed. What has changed are the redefinitions by men who want to soften or reword it.
- The Father is not the Son.
- The Son is not the Spirit.
- Yet each is fully and equally God.
Jesus didn’t say, “The Father inside Me is Me.” He said, “The Father that dwelleth in Me, He doeth the works” (John 14:10 KJV) — showing personal distinction, not separation.
The Word became flesh — not the Father, not the Spirit — but the Son, sent by the Father and anointed by the Spirit. That’s still just Bible.
Grace and Peace.
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”
Status of the Holy Spirit
325 AD Formulation (Nicene Creed)
Simply stated belief "in the Holy Spirit".
Modern Definition
Explicitly described as "the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified".
The "Filioque" Clause
325 AD Formulation (Nicene Creed)
The original creed stated the Spirit proceeds "from the Father".
Modern Definition
Western (Catholic and Protestant) traditions added the Filioque ("and the Son") clause, which the Eastern Orthodox churches reject as an unauthorized addition and a theological error.
Interpretation of "Person"
325 AD Formulation (Nicene Creed)
The ancient concept of persona or hypostasis (a subsisting reality/subject) differed from the modern psychological understanding of a "self" or center of consciousness.
Modern Definition
Modern theologians clarify that "person" means a distinct subsistence within the Godhead, while safeguarding against the interpretation of three separate "selves" or gods.
Brother, I appreciate the time you took to outline those distinctions — but none of them show a different doctrine, only a more precise articulation of the same faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3 KJV).
The Nicene Creed of 325 AD didn’t invent new theology — it answered a specific heresy (Arianism) that denied Christ’s full divinity. Later councils (Constantinople 381 AD and beyond) expanded on the same truths to clarify misunderstandings, not to rewrite them.
The Holy Spirit’s Status
You’re right that the 325 creed simply said, “And in the Holy Spirit.”
But that brevity wasn’t a lesser belief — it reflected the fact that the Arian controversy centered on the Son, not the Spirit.
When later heresies arose denying the Spirit’s deity (the Pneumatomachi), the Church simply spoke more precisely: “the Lord and Giver of Life.” It’s the same Spirit referred to in Genesis 1:2 and Acts 5:3-4 — fully God from the beginning.
The Filioque Clause
Yes — the Western addition “and the Son” (filioque) came later. But even without that phrase, the East and West both confess the same truth Scripture teaches:
“The Comforter… whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father” — John 15:26 KJV
“He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” — John 20:22 KJV
“He breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” — John 20:22 KJV
The Spirit proceeds from the Father, through the Son — there’s no contradiction there, only a linguistic difference between East and West in describing the same relationship.
The Meaning of ‘Person’
The Greek word hypostasis and the Latin persona were the ancient Church’s best ways to express what Scripture reveals — three distinct “Whos” sharing one divine “What.”
The modern explanation simply guards against misunderstanding “person” in the psychological sense of three independent beings. The essence of the doctrine — one God, three co-eternal, co-equal Persons — remains unchanged.
In other words, the definitions have been refined, not rewritten. Just as Scripture was written in Hebrew and Greek yet carries the same truth when translated into English, so the Church’s language about the Trinity has been clarified, not altered.
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” — Hebrews 13:8 KJV
Grace and Peace.
Most of that came from my theological electronic library...I was too lazy to source it.
That's like saying:
So what do you do if you are a bachelor and realize you are still married?
This is bogus.
There are no translations of the Bible that uses eis to mean "because of". None, not one. Regardless of the time of publication, old or new.
There are no translations of the Bible in any language that uses eis to mean "because of". None, not one. Regardless of the language.
The notion of eis meaning "because of" is a long discredited attempt to prop up Faith Alone Regeneration Theology.
Compare Acts 2:38 to Luke 5:4
Both are written by the same person and use the same verbiage pattern.
Do you really believe that Peter cast his net "because of" the large catch of fish he already had?
There is no reason to believe that either of these verses means "because of", unless your theology demands it.
Jesus says
Correct, even a human body, spirit and soul have different distinct behavioural. The old man always want to takeover the new man inside him.
Appreciate your passion, brother, but the lexical range of εἰς (eis) is broader than you’re acknowledging.
While its primary sense is “into” or “unto,” Greek lexicons (including BDAG, Thayer, and Robertson’s Word Pictures) all note that context can shift its meaning to “because of,” “with reference to,” or “in view of.”
For instance, Matthew 12:41 — “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah” — clearly uses eis in a causal or resultant sense. They didn’t repent in order to get Jonah’s preaching; they repented because of it. The same construction appears in Matthew 3:11, where John baptized eis metanoian (“unto repentance”), which doesn’t mean people were baptized to obtain repentance, but because they had repented.
So in Acts 2:38, “be baptized eis the remission of sins” can naturally mean “on account of” or “in view of” forgiveness — consistent with the many passages that make faith, not baptism, the instrument of justification (cf. Acts 10:43; Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8–9).
Even Greek grammarians like A.T. Robertson (in Word Pictures in the New Testament) and Nigel Turner (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament) acknowledge this permissible causal nuance. It’s not theology forcing the text — it’s recognizing that prepositions flex according to usage.
Context is key: Peter’s audience had already been “pricked in their heart” (Acts 2:37). Their repentance preceded baptism. Thus, the baptism was the outward response to an inward reality, not the means of obtaining it.
Grace and peace
To clarify, faith alone isn’t a modern invention — it’s the apostolic pattern seen throughout Scripture.
Romans 4:3-5 (KJV) says,
“Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness… to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Abraham was declared righteous before any ritual act — before circumcision (Romans 4:10-11). In the same way, believers today are justified before baptism. Baptism then follows as the outward testimony of an inward faith — the seal, not the source, of salvation.
Ephesians 2:8-9 (KJV) reinforces this:
“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.”
And Titus 3:5 (KJV) adds,
“Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us.”
Faith is the hand that receives the gift; baptism is the public confession of the gift received.
That’s why Peter could later preach to Cornelius’ household that “through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins” (Acts 10:43 KJV) — before they were ever baptized (Acts 10:47-48).
Grace and peace
Even several early church fathers made clear distinctions between the symbolic act of baptism and the saving reality it represents.
John Chrysostom (4th century) wrote,
“It is not the water that makes one pure, but the change of life that purifies the soul.”
(Homilies on John, 25:2)
Likewise, Clement of Alexandria taught that believers “are washed from sins not by the physical water, but by the spiritual Word.” (Paedagogus 1.6)
Even where they held baptism in high esteem, these men consistently pointed back to faith and repentance as the true means by which one receives grace. The outward washing simply testified to the inner cleansing already wrought by the Holy Spirit (cf. Titus 3:5).
So from Scripture to early Christian testimony, the pattern is consistent:
Faith first — baptism follows.
Grace and peace
It’s also worth noting that the formal doctrine of baptismal regeneration — the idea that the act itself imparts saving grace — emerged gradually, not apostolically.
In the 2nd century, writers like Tertullian began emphasizing baptism as necessary for remission of sins, partly in response to Gnostic sects that rejected water baptism altogether. Later, Cyprian of Carthage (3rd century) tied baptism more directly to church membership and sacramental grace, shaping what became the Roman view.
But even then, these were developments, not the original gospel. The New Testament pattern — repentance and faith preceding baptism — remained the norm in Acts and the epistles. The earliest Christians saw baptism as a sacred testimony, not a saving mechanism.
As history moved forward, sacramental theology expanded; but the apostolic teaching stayed clear:
“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 KJV
So what began as a symbol of identification with Christ later became institutionalized as a rite of regeneration — a shift from Scripture’s simplicity to ritual emphasis.
Grace and peace
At the end of the day, the issue isn’t grammar, ritual, or tradition — it’s the gospel itself.
Scripture is unmistakably consistent: salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8–9 KJV). Baptism, while deeply important and commanded, is the public confession of that inward faith — not the cause of forgiveness but the confirmation of it.
The Greek εἰς (eis) in Acts 2:38 can naturally carry a causal sense — “because of” or “in view of” — just as in Matthew 12:41. The crowd in Acts 2 had already been “pricked in their heart” (v.37), showing repentance before baptism. Their obedience was faith in action, not faith in water.
Throughout the New Testament we see the same pattern repeated:
- Belief first, then baptism (Acts 10:43–48; Acts 16:31–33; Galatians 3:26–27).
- Faith justifies, works testify (Romans 4:3–5; James 2:24).
- The Spirit regenerates, not ritual (Titus 3:5).
The harmony of Scripture stands:
“The just shall live by faith.” — Romans 1:17 KJV
“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 KJV
So yes — baptism is precious, but Christ alone saves.
Faith is the root; obedience is the fruit.
The water testifies, but the blood redeems.
Grace and peace in Him who is the Author and Finisher of our faith.
Breaking it up into short, titled sections makes it far easier to read and quote in a forum thread. Don't thank me I couldn't sleep tonight.
That’s a witty analogy, but it breaks down completely when compared to Scripture.
Marriage and salvation are not parallel covenants. Marriage is a human contract confirmed by a ceremony; salvation is a divine gift received by faith.
A person can be legally married and not realize it — but no one is accidentally saved. Salvation begins when a sinner consciously believes the gospel and is born again by the Spirit (John 3:3–7 KJV; Ephesians 1:13 KJV).
If a believer later realizes they haven’t been baptized, Scripture gives a simple answer — obey.
Baptism doesn’t create salvation; it confirms it. That’s exactly what happened in Acts 10:43–48 KJV: Cornelius and his household believed, received the Holy Spirit, and then were baptized.
So the proper question isn’t, “Can you be saved without baptism?” but “Will you obey the Lord after being saved?”
The first deals with justification; the second deals with discipleship.
Baptism is the wedding ring, not the wedding itself. The ceremony follows the covenant — it doesn’t make the covenant real.
Grace and peace
That’s a witty analogy, but it breaks down completely when compared to Scripture.
Marriage and salvation are not parallel covenants. Marriage is a human contract confirmed by a ceremony; salvation is a divine gift received by faith.
A person can be legally married and not realize it — but no one is accidentally saved. Salvation begins when a sinner consciously believes the gospel and is born again by the Spirit (John 3:3–7 KJV; Ephesians 1:13 KJV).
If a believer later realizes they haven’t been baptized, Scripture gives a simple answer — obey.
Baptism doesn’t create salvation; it confirms it. That’s exactly what happened in Acts 10:43–48 KJV: Cornelius and his household believed, received the Holy Spirit, and then were baptized.
So the proper question isn’t, “Can you be saved without baptism?” but “Will you obey the Lord after being saved?”
The first deals with justification; the second deals with discipleship.
Baptism is the wedding ring, not the wedding itself. The ceremony follows the covenant — it doesn’t make the covenant real.
Grace and peace