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

[SomeDisciple]

That’s a classic Oneness / Modalist argument heresy,

Just so you know, John MacArthur IS misrepresenting the view of Oneness Pentecostals in that video. By his description; I'd bet he never even talked to a oneness pentecostal in his life, or any oneness believer for that matter; he probably read that out of a book or something.

 

[Me_Clay]

Just so you know, John MacArthur IS misrepresenting the view of Oneness Pentecostals in that video. By his description; I'd bet he never even talked to a oneness pentecostal in his life, or any oneness believer for that matter; he probably read that out of a book or something.

Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

 

[studier]

Yeah, "for that is why i came out" (ESV), most translations have "for", which the context demonstrates means "because". "in order to receive" or "into" don't fit the context.

Thanks for confirming.

I don't know what your abilities are with the language, so I'm proceeding from scratch and just doing some basics.

YLT Mark 1:38 and he saith to them, 'We may go to the next towns, that there also I may preach, for for this I came forth.'

DBY Mark 1:38 And he says to them, Let us go elsewhere into the neighbouring country towns, that I may preach there also, for for this purpose am I come forth.

We can see these 2 translations dealing with the language more literally.

Here's the phrase: εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον (eis touto gar exēlthon)

• eis touto = into this, for this, toward this
  • looking forward, not backward
  • Can speak of purpose, reason
• gar = marks cause or reason, clarification, inference = for, because, for you see
  • If we're seeing cause in translation, it's coming from gar, not eis touto
• exēlthon = to go out, come out

Translations:

• for (gar) for this (eis touto)
• For/Because (gar) for this [purpose] (eis touto)
• ---- (gar) for this [purpose] (eis touto)

I know some of the translations can seem causal, but eis touto is looking forward.

 

[studier]

Greek lexicons like BDAG, Thayer, and grammarians such as A.T. Robertson and Nigel Turner document this causal usage of eis.
It’s not speculation; it’s recognized scholarship.

So far, unsubstantiated statements.

 

[SomeDisciple]

I know some of the translations can seem causal, but eis touto is looking forward.

Toward/or forward to a purpose, though- that's still to a purpose and not talking about chronology.

 

[studier]

Toward/or forward to a purpose, though- that's still to a purpose and not talking about chronology.

Clarify? We might be talking past one another, so to speak. Your concern is?

 

[LightBearer316]

Thanks for confirming.

I don't know what your abilities are with the language, so I'm proceeding from scratch and just doing some basics.

YLT Mark 1:38 and he saith to them, 'We may go to the next towns, that there also I may preach, for for this I came forth.'

DBY Mark 1:38 And he says to them, Let us go elsewhere into the neighbouring country towns, that I may preach there also, for for this purpose am I come forth.

We can see these 2 translations dealing with the language more literally.

Here's the phrase: εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον (eis touto gar exēlthon)

• eis touto = into this, for this, toward this
  • looking forward, not backward
  • Can speak of purpose, reason
• gar = marks cause or reason, clarification, inference = for, because, for you see
  • If we're seeing cause in translation, it's coming from gar, not eis touto
• exēlthon = to go out, come out

Translations:

• for (gar) for this (eis touto)
• For/Because (gar) for this [purpose] (eis touto)
• ---- (gar) for this [purpose] (eis touto)

I know some of the translations can seem causal, but eis touto is looking forward.

I get where you’re coming from, but in this case the Greek grammar doesn’t actually support εἰς (eis) being causal. The phrase εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ ἐξῆλθον in Mark 1:38 is straightforward once you break it down — the word γάρ (gar) is what carries the “because/for” idea, not εἰς itself.

Here’s what’s going on:

• εἰς τοῦτο literally means “into this” or “for this purpose.”
  It’s a forward-looking preposition that points toward a goal or end result.
• γάρ (gar) is a separate conjunction that means “for” or “because.”
  That’s where the explanation or cause comes from.
• ἐξῆλθον (exēlthon) = “I came out” or “I went forth.”

So if you put that together, the sense is:

“For (gar) this [purpose] (eis touto) I came forth.”​

Jesus isn’t saying He came because of preaching, but for the purpose of preaching. The direction of εἰς always points forward — toward what He came to do — while gar explains the reasoning for why He’s moving on to the next towns.

That’s why more literal translations like YLT and Darby both say “for this purpose I came forth,” not “because of this.” Even in English, “for this purpose” points ahead to a goal, not backward to a cause.

So yeah, the causal idea in that sentence comes from gar, not from eis. The two work together — one shows purpose, the other explanation — but εἰς still keeps its usual forward, goal-oriented sense.

He didn’t come out because of preaching that was already done; He came out for the purpose of preaching.

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Unlike English, Greek is a precise language. eis can always be translated as into, with some possible tweaking to make it clearer in English, because that's what it means

 

[studier]

Unlike English, Greek is a precise language. eis can always be translated as into because that's what it means

Such a good graphic. It remains in my head decades after Greek classes.

 

[LightBearer316]

Such a good graphic. It remains in my head decades after Greek classes.

It’s a grammar-school chart, not a theological key.
It helps visualize motion, not doctrine.
Citing it as proof for a doctrinal reading (like baptismal regeneration) confuses grammar pedagogy with lexical exegesis.

That chart is a solid memory aid for the basic spatial sense of Greek prepositions, but it doesn’t settle how those words function in context. Prepositions like εἰς often carry causal or figurative meanings, which is why lexicons and contextual parallels—not diagrams—determine the proper interpretation in passages like Acts 2:38.

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.”

 

[studier]

It’s a grammar-school chart, not a theological key.
It helps visualize motion, not doctrine.
Citing it as proof for a doctrinal reading (like baptismal regeneration) confuses grammar pedagogy with lexical exegesis.

That chart is a solid memory aid for the basic spatial sense of Greek prepositions, but it doesn’t settle how those words function in context. Prepositions like εἰς often carry causal or figurative meanings, which is why lexicons and contextual parallels—not diagrams—determine the proper interpretation in passages like Acts 2:38.

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.”

When you provide the links to the language related references I've requested twice, maybe we can discuss grammar and we can discuss Greek prepositions. Did you happen to note when you posted your basically redundant response to my post re: Mark1:38 that "eis touto" literally means "into this" and that this literal meaning in line with how eis is used spatially sets the tone for the phrase to be forward looking and not backwards/causal. I think @ChristRoseFromTheDead gets this and sees the benefit of that chart.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Greek lexicons like BDAG, Thayer, and grammarians such as A.T. Robertson and Nigel Turner document this causal usage of eis.
It’s not speculation; it’s recognized scholarship. The fact that eis is flexible doesn’t make Scripture uncertain — it means we must read it carefully, just as translators do with other polysemous words.

I used to have BDAG but returned it because, if I recall correctly, it was more of a compilation of theologians' opinions about words (which I wasn't intersted in at all), rather than being a lexicon. I have numerous lexicons, including Thayer's, so if you want to put this matter to rest we can go over every word in them if you want. I'm very sure your position won't stand

 

[Wansvic]

That’s a classic Oneness / Modalist argument heresy, blending truth (Christ’s divinity and unity with the Father) with a denial of the distinct Persons within the Godhead. Scripture shows that Christ contains the fullness of the Godhead because He shares the divine essence — not because He is the entire Trinity by Himself.

I appreciate the Scriptures you quoted — all true, but we must handle them in harmony, not isolation. The fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Christ doesn’t mean Jesus is the Father and the Spirit; it means the one divine nature of God is fully present in Him.

Colossians 2:9 (KJV) says,

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”​

That verse speaks of essence, not identity collapse. The same divine fullness also belongs to the Father and the Spirit because they share one essence — not because they are one Person.​

If Colossians 2:9 KJV meant Jesus is all three Persons, then His prayers to the Father (John 17:1 KJV) and His promise to send “another Comforter” (John 14:16 KJV) would make no sense.
Jesus wasn’t pretending to talk to Himself; the Son was communing with the Father through the Spirit — three distinct Persons acting in perfect unity.

When Scripture says, “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV), it’s affirming oneness of being, not singleness of Person. The Hebrew word ’echad for “one” often denotes a compound unity — like “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24 KJV) referring to two individuals joined as one.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, yet all are the same one God — co-equal, co-eternal, and inseparable in will and essence.
That’s why 1 John 5:7 KJV says, “These three are one,” not “these three are the same Person.”

God’s Word presents unity without confusion and distinction without division.
The mystery is profound — but not contradictory.

Grace and peace

Jesus said He is the root AND the offspring of David. This reveals His dual nature of being both divine and human. As the root, He created David and as the offspring He was a human descendant of David. (Rev. 22:16)

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13)

 

[LightBearer316]

Jesus said He is the root AND the offspring of David. This reveals His dual nature of being both divine and human. As the root, He created David and as the offspring He was a human descendant of David. (Rev. 22:16)

"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven." (John 3:13)

Good verses, and they fit perfectly within Trinitarian truth, not against it. Trinitarian truth is the biblical teaching that the one true God eternally exists as three co-equal, co-eternal Persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
Each Person is fully and truly God — not parts or modes — yet there is only one God in essence and nature, not three gods.

When Jesus says He is “the root and the offspring of David” (Rev 22:16 KJV), He’s declaring two complementary realities:

• Root — His divine origin: He pre-existed David, as the eternal Word through whom all things were made (John 1:1-3 KJV).
• Offspring — His human incarnation: He entered history through David’s line (Rom 1:3 KJV).
  That reveals His two natures in one Person, not that He is the Father.

John 3:13 KJV — “the Son of man which is in heaven” — likewise shows His omnipresence as God even while on earth as man. It highlights the mystery of the Incarnation: the same divine Person operates in both realms simultaneously. It doesn’t erase the Father or the Spirit; it magnifies the Son’s deity.

So these passages affirm:

• Jesus is fully God (divine nature).
• Jesus is fully man (human nature).
• Yet He is not the Father nor the Spirit — distinct Persons within the one Godhead.

The beauty of Revelation 22:16 is that it harmonizes with John 1:1-14:

“The Word was with God, and the Word was God… and the Word was made flesh.”​

The Word who was with God (distinction) and was God (unity) became the offspring of David (incarnation) — no confusion of Persons, just perfect union of natures.​

Grace and peace in Christ Jesus.

 

[LightBearer316]

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.”

 

[SomeDisciple]

eis touto = into this, for this, toward this

• looking forward, not backward

I disagree with you guys that it is only looking forward; because purpose is an "intended outcome" which exists in the form of intent before it exists as an actual outcome; so when we are talking about taking action "for" or "toward" a purpose, it is with reference to the actions' ability to move the actual situation "toward" the intent that we had before we ever took any action; which is also why we are acting on account of/because of that intent- rather than "foreword" to a specific point in time and space where our intentions are actualized.

 

[Blue155]

There is no way “for” in Acts 2:38 means “because of”. If they had already received the remission of sins before baptism, then they also received it before repenting, as “and” links repentance and baptism together.

 

[SomeDisciple]

There is no way “for” in Acts 2:38 means “because of”. If they had already received the remission of sins before baptism, then they also received it before repenting, as “and” links repentance and baptism together.

"And" links them together in terms of "what must we do?"; I certainly agree we must do both; as the Lord said.

Even if it does mean "because of" that does not mean "because you have already received remission of sins"; it would only mean that remission of sins is the reason why you must repent and be baptized; whether you have received it; or have not received it and it is only promised to you.

 

[Blue155]

"And" links them together in terms of "what must we do?"; I certainly agree we must do both; as the Lord said.

Even if it does mean "because of" that does not mean "because you have already received remission of sins"; it would only mean that remission of sins is the reason why you must repent and be baptized; whether you have received it; or have not received it and it is only promised to you.

"And" links them together in terms of "what must we do?

Yes, because they asked “what shall we do” (v37). Peter said Repent…and be baptized…for the remission of sins…

It doesn’t mean “because of”.

Here’s why: “Because of” looks backward—explaining something already done (“He went to jail because of his crime”).

If it meant “because of,” Peter told them to repent and be baptized because they were already forgiven—which makes no sense.

Another reason it doesn’t mean because ot is because Jesus said “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for (eis) many for the remission of sins.” (Mt. 26:28)

Same phrase as Acts 2:38.

If eis meant “because of”: Jesus died because sins were already forgiven.

 

[SomeDisciple]

"And" links them together in terms of "what must we do?

That wasn't a question; that was my assertion. it links them together in what we must do; but not necessarily in other ways.

Here’s why: “Because of” looks backward—explaining something already done

No it does not imply something has already happened; we need to repent because God is going to destroy his enemies in the future- not because he already destroyed them.

Another reason it doesn’t mean because ot is because Jesus said “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for (eis) many for the remission of sins.” (Mt. 26:28)

Same phrase as Acts 2:38.

Similar phrase, yes; but that doesn't mean it means the same thing. His blood was poured out for the purpose of remission; but, not so he could receive remission.