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.
B
Blue155
Guest
Genuine salvation by grace through faith has never been about doing “as little as possible.”
True faith produces obedience and transformation because it’s the work of the Spirit within — not human effort trying to earn favor. Paul said, “The love of Christ constraineth us” (2 Corinthians 5:14 KJV); those who are truly born again don’t want to do less, they desire to please Him more.
Grace doesn’t make obedience optional — it makes it possible.
Grace and Peace
Eternity?
Since I believe everything you do, PLUS what HIS word says about the need to be baptized in JESUS name and for JESUS to fill us with the Holy Ghost I'm good to go.
Since you don't are you?
That image is basically promoting the baptismal-regeneration view — the claim that water baptism is what “puts you in contact with the blood of Christ.” It quotes Romans 6:3 and John 19:33-34, implying that one must be physically baptized to receive the saving benefits of Christ’s death.
Romans 6:3 KJV reveals the doctrinal error since it isn’t describing water baptism as the means of salvation — it’s referring to our spiritual union with Christ through faith.
When Paul says we were “baptized into His death,” he’s speaking of the believer’s identification with Christ’s death and resurrection — the same truth he teaches in Galatians 3:27 KJV and Colossians 2:12 KJV.
Physical baptism symbolizes that union; it doesn’t create it. The blood of Christ cleanses through faith (Romans 3:25 KJV; Ephesians 1:7 KJV), not through water.
The outward act points to an inward reality already accomplished by grace.
Grace and Peace
B
Blue155
Guest
B
Blue155
Guest
The problem with the OP’s post is he’s implying that everyone who believes what the Bible says concerning Acts 2:38 is a member of the Oneness Pentecostal Faith. That cannot be any further from the truth. I’m a member of the church of Christ—the body of Christ that was established on Pentecost day in Jerusalem, as is @Beckworth, and we fully believe in Acts 2:38, just as the 3,000 souls on Pentecost did, and everyone else who converted that you read in the book of Acts.
Amen! Well said.
Now in regard to water baptism putting us in contact with the blood of Christ, "through His blood" (as in Colossians 1:14) is a reference not limited to the fluid as if we literally contact the blood of Christ in the waters of baptism, but is an expression pointing to the totality of Christ's atoning work as a sacrifice for sin. The word "cross" is used similarly to refer to the whole atoning work of Christ on the cross (1 Corinthians 1:18; Galatians 6:12,14; Ephesians 2:16).
I should have said, I follow ALL of HIS word gladly.
You follow the parts you like.
That’s a fair distinction, but let’s be clear — when someone teaches that baptism itself produces forgiveness, they’ve stepped into the very core of Oneness and sacramental regeneration theology.
Whether or not they carry the name “Oneness Pentecostal,” the doctrine is identical — it shifts the saving power from Christ’s finished work to a human ritual. That’s not a minor difference; it undermines the very foundation of the gospel itself.
The historic Christian Church — from the apostles to the Reformers — has consistently condemned baptismal regeneration as heresy, because it replaces grace through faith with salvation by ceremony.
The issue isn’t denominational membership but doctrinal alignment. The moment baptism is made the instrument of forgiveness rather than the evidence of faith, grace ceases to be grace — and the cross ceases to be sufficient.
Grace and Peace
That diagram from ChristRoseFromTheDead is teaching that water baptism is the portal through which a person moves from “sin guiltiness” into the “remission of sins” — essentially claiming baptism itself is the moment salvation occurs.
That diagram assumes what Scripture never says — that the water is the means of crossing from guilt into forgiveness.
That diagram makes water the doorway to forgiveness, but Scripture makes Christ the doorway.
Peter later showed in Acts 10 that people received the Holy Spirit before baptism — proving salvation comes by faith, not by water.
The blood cleanses; baptism simply declares it.
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.”
Excellent clarification, brother — that’s exactly right.Amen! Well said.
The phrase “through His blood” points to the finished atoning work of Christ, not a physical ritual. The cross alone reconciles; baptism simply testifies to that reality.
Appreciate your solid references and clear insight.
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.”
The link you posted, written by Dave Armstrong, who is a Catholic apologist on Patheos argues for baptismal regeneration, citing early church fathers as proof that the earliest Christians believed baptism was necessary for salvation. That Patheos link is not strong proof for baptismal regeneration at all. It’s selective quoting, presented through a Catholic lens.
I’m very familiar with Dave Armstrong’s article — he’s a Roman Catholic apologist, so his interpretation naturally reflects a sacramental view of salvation. The problem isn’t that early writers spoke highly of baptism — they all did — it’s that some later began confusing the symbol with the source. The apostles made the distinction clear: baptism follows faith as a testimony of grace already received (Acts 10:43–47 KJV, Ephesians 2:8–9 KJV). When the act replaces the faith it represents, the gospel itself is distorted.
Scriptural Foundation (the ultimate authority)
The New Testament consistently separates the means of salvation (faith) from the sign of salvation (baptism):
- Acts 10:43–47 KJV – Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before baptism.
- Ephesians 2:8–9 KJV– “By grace are ye saved through faith… not of works.”
- Romans 4:10–11 KJV – Abraham was justified before circumcision, which Paul explicitly calls a “sign” — baptism functions the same way under the New Covenant.
- 1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV – “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” Paul wouldn’t have said this if baptism were the gospel.
Early Church Fathers in Context
Catholic apologists like Armstrong cite certain statements out of context. But the earliest Christian writings (1st–2nd century) overwhelmingly treat baptism as symbolic obedience following faith, not as the instrument of salvation.
- Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD) – Emphasized justification “by faith,” not ritual:
“We are not justified by ourselves… or by any works we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith.” (1 Clement 32:4) - Justin Martyr (c. 150 AD) – Described baptism as the outward confession of repentance and faith in Christ.
- Chrysostom (4th century) – Clarified baptism’s meaning:
“If the water does not receive the grace of the Spirit, it does not cleanse the one baptized.” (Homily on John 25)
He affirmed that grace saves, not the water itself.
So while later writers began using sacramental language, the early testimony remained clear: baptism signifies cleansing — it doesn’t cause it.
Historic Church Verdict
Even within Church history, baptismal regeneration was never a universally affirmed doctrine — and when it became tied to sacramentalism, it was explicitly condemned by later councils and Reformers:
- The Reformation reaffirmed what Paul taught: justification by faith alone (sola fide).
- Martin Luther (who still valued baptism highly) condemned the notion that baptism itself regenerates apart from faith.
- John Calvin wrote,
“Baptism does not confer grace by its own power… it is the seal of the grace already given.” (Institutes 4.15.14)
The moment baptism becomes the cause of grace instead of the confession of faith, it ceases to be apostolic Christianity and becomes sacramental error.
Grace and Peace
