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

  • 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.
LightBearer316 said:
The early church valued baptism deeply, but the Bible — and the earliest fathers — never taught that water itself saves.
Click to expand...

Shepherd of Hermas (bet. c. 90-140) and Epistle of Barnabas (bet. 70-132) on Baptismal Regeneration
++++++++++++++++++++++
And I said, I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins. He said to me, That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. (Book II, Commandment 4, ch. 3)

Epistle of Barnabas (bet. 70-132) taught that baptism “leads to the remission of sins” and that we “descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart.”

Theophilus of Antioch (fl. 185-191) on Baptismal Regeneration
+++++++++++++++++++++
"The things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration — as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God." (To Autolycus, Book II, 16)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) thought that baptism is a work of “grace” that brings about “illumination, and perfection, and washing”, by it “we cleanse away our sins,” “transgressions are remitted,” “remission of sins” occurs, we are “purified,” and we behold the “holy light of salvation.” Baptism “wiped off the sins” and makes us “full of light,” with “the Holy Spirit flowing down to us.”
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Shepherd of Hermas (bet. c. 90-140) and Epistle of Barnabas (bet. 70-132) on Baptismal Regeneration
++++++++++++++++++++++
And I said, I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins. He said to me, That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. (Book II, Commandment 4, ch. 3)

Epistle of Barnabas (bet. 70-132) taught that baptism “leads to the remission of sins” and that we “descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but come up, bearing fruit in our heart.”

Theophilus of Antioch (fl. 185-191) on Baptismal Regeneration
+++++++++++++++++++++
"The things proceeding from the waters were blessed by God, that this also might be a sign of men's being destined to receive repentance and remission of sins, through the water and laver of regeneration — as many as come to the truth, and are born again, and receive blessing from God." (To Autolycus, Book II, 16)

St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215) thought that baptism is a work of “grace” that brings about “illumination, and perfection, and washing”, by it “we cleanse away our sins,” “transgressions are remitted,” “remission of sins” occurs, we are “purified,” and we behold the “holy light of salvation.” Baptism “wiped off the sins” and makes us “full of light,” with “the Holy Spirit flowing down to us.”
Click to expand...

That’s a good example of ChristRoseFromTheDead trying to proof-text the early fathers to make it look as if baptismal regeneration was universally taught — but those quotations are partial, de-contextualized, and often allegorical in the original writings.

Those citations don’t prove that baptism itself regenerates; they simply show that some early writers used symbolic language about baptism’s connection to repentance and new life.

The Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas aren’t Scripture — they’re uninspired, non-canonical garbage writings from the second century, composed during a time when theology was still developing. Even within them, the emphasis is on repentance and moral renewal, not on water as a literal cleansing agent.

The early church often spoke of “washing” and “illumination” metaphorically, just as Scripture does (Titus 3:5; Hebrews 10:22). They linked baptism with forgiveness as a sign of it, not as the source of it.

By the time of Clement and later writers, baptismal language had already begun drifting toward ritualism — which is precisely why the Reformers called the church back to apostolic truth: salvation by grace through faith alone.

The canon of Scripture — not post-apostolic speculation — is the final standard of doctrine. And the inspired record is unambiguous: forgiveness comes through faith in Christ’s blood (Romans 3:25 KJV; Ephesians 1:7 KJV), not through the waters of a ritual.

In short, quoting later allegorical or liturgical language doesn’t overturn what the apostles themselves taught.
Grace saves, not ceremony; Christ’s blood cleanses, not baptismal water.

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.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
“Proof-texting” means:
Using isolated Bible verses or quotations — often taken out of their original context — to “prove” a point that the original writer never actually meant to make.

In other words, it’s when someone forces a source to say something it wasn’t saying, by pulling out a convenient line or phrase while ignoring the surrounding meaning, purpose, or context.

Example (Biblical):

Someone might quote James 2:24 — “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only” — and claim the Bible teaches salvation by works.
But when you read the context (James 2:14–26), you see James is talking about faith that produces works, not works that produce salvation.
That’s proof-texting — taking a snippet to prop up an argument the passage doesn’t actually teach.

In the forum’s context:

When I said “ChristRoseFromTheDead is trying to proof-text the early fathers,” I meant he’s:
  • Cherry-picking short quotes from early writers,
  • Ignoring the broader context, and
  • Using them to make it sound like all the early church universally taught baptismal regeneration,
    when in fact those same writings often speak symbolically or inconsistently, and none carry the authority of Scripture.
So it’s basically using selective evidence to create a misleading impression — whether from Scripture or historical sources.

Grace and Peace
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225) taught that in baptism, “washing away the sins of our early blindness” occurs, and that “we are set free and admitted into eternal life.” Baptism brings us “the peace of God.” Indeed, “without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” because Jesus said that “Unless one be born of water, he has not life.” Jesus, in so speaking, “tied faith to the necessity of baptism.” “Sins” and “uncleanness” are “washed away” and “we are taken up (as new-born children)” and “the soul” is “cleansed.” Baptism brings about “the regeneration of man,” “the remission of sins,” “deliverance from death,” and “the bestowal of the Holy Ghost.”

St. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315 to 368)

. . . we being buried with His Death in Baptism may return to the life of eternity (since regeneration to life is death to the former life), and dying to our sins be born again to immortality, . . . (On the Trinity, Bk. I, 13)

There is one Lord and one baptism of regeneration . . . they have put on one Christ through the nature of one baptism . . . born again in one baptism . . . one regenerating baptism . . .(On the Trinity, Bk. VIII, 7-9)

Ephraim (c. 306-373)

In Baptism are cleansed the secret misdeeds in the soul. (Hymn 5 for Epiphany, 6)

It is the water of baptism — that alone is able to atone. (Hymn 6 for Epiphany, 3)

St. Athanasius (c. 297-373) referred to “the Holy Spirit who is given to those who believe and are being born again ‘through the laver of regeneration’ ” and to “the divine grace” received in baptism and to being “regenerated from above of water and Spirit” and “quickened.”
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225) taught that in baptism, “washing away the sins of our early blindness” occurs, and that “we are set free and admitted into eternal life.” Baptism brings us “the peace of God.” Indeed, “without baptism, salvation is attainable by none” because Jesus said that “Unless one be born of water, he has not life.” Jesus, in so speaking, “tied faith to the necessity of baptism.” “Sins” and “uncleanness” are “washed away” and “we are taken up (as new-born children)” and “the soul” is “cleansed.” Baptism brings about “the regeneration of man,” “the remission of sins,” “deliverance from death,” and “the bestowal of the Holy Ghost.”

St. Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315 to 368)

. . . we being buried with His Death in Baptism may return to the life of eternity (since regeneration to life is death to the former life), and dying to our sins be born again to immortality, . . . (On the Trinity, Bk. I, 13)

There is one Lord and one baptism of regeneration . . . they have put on one Christ through the nature of one baptism . . . born again in one baptism . . . one regenerating baptism . . .(On the Trinity, Bk. VIII, 7-9)

Ephraim (c. 306-373)

In Baptism are cleansed the secret misdeeds in the soul. (Hymn 5 for Epiphany, 6)

It is the water of baptism — that alone is able to atone. (Hymn 6 for Epiphany, 3)

St. Athanasius (c. 297-373) referred to “the Holy Spirit who is given to those who believe and are being born again ‘through the laver of regeneration’ ” and to “the divine grace” received in baptism and to being “regenerated from above of water and Spirit” and “quickened.”
Click to expand...

This new post from ChristRoseFromTheDead is another list of hand-picked quotations — this time from later patristic sources (2nd–4th centuries) — to imply that baptismal regeneration was a continuous, orthodox teaching, but those quotes reflect how fast the early church drifted once it began blending symbolism with sacrament. By the 2nd and 3rd centuries, you can already see theology moving away from the apostolic pattern of salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8–9 KJV) toward ritual language that treated baptism as an instrument of grace.

The issue isn’t whether certain fathers used “washing” language — they did — but what they meant by it. Much of their language was metaphorical or liturgical, shaped by the culture of public confession and initiation, not by apostolic doctrine. Even Tertullian himself later rejected infant baptism, proving he didn’t see the act as a mechanical means of salvation.

The real test isn’t post-apostolic writers but inspired Scripture, and Scripture makes it plain: the blood of Christ — not the water — removes sin (Romans 3:25 KJV; 1 John 1:7 KJV).

The canon, not later commentary, defines truth. The early church fathers were valuable witnesses of history, but not arbiters of salvation.

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.”

As an aside:
In fact, Tertullian’s theology shifted over time. :cautious:
  • In On Baptism, he treats baptism seriously but not as the cause of salvation; faith and repentance are the prerequisites.
  • Later, in On Repentance and On Modesty, he stresses moral renewal and repentance more than the rite itself.
  • He even opposed infant baptism, arguing that baptism should follow conscious faith (see On Baptism, ch. 18).
    So he clearly didn’t teach that the act of baptism itself guaranteed regeneration.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
I was just posting that stuff because he said the earliest church fathers condemned baptismal regeneration as heresy, which obviously is not true.
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s not quite accurate. The earliest apostolic and sub-apostolic fathers (1st–2nd century) didn’t teach that the physical act of baptism caused regeneration — they spoke of it as the sign of repentance and new life already received by faith.

The idea that baptism itself imparts salvation gradually developed later, as ritual language from Jewish and Greco-Roman culture began influencing church liturgy. That’s why even early on, we find strong voices against treating baptism as a magical act — for example, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and later Tertullian, who explicitly opposed infant baptism and warned against confusing the symbol with the substance.

By the 4th–5th centuries, the church had begun to drift into sacramentalism — but that doesn’t mean the apostles or earliest fathers endorsed it. When the Reformers called baptismal regeneration a heresy, they were returning to the apostolic position: salvation by grace through faith alone (Ephesians 2:8–9 KJV).

So yes — history records that the later church embraced baptismal regeneration, but the apostolic church and the first generation of Christian writers did not.

Grace and peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
NightTwister said:
Yeah you really didn't understand.
Click to expand...

You don't understand being baptized in JESUS name is a part of being reborn.

I am very patient with those who don't and share scripture, do I insult you?

Nope I share scripture.

If I don't understand you comment, explain it!!

I don't know everything and never will, we are suppose to love one and the other and learn from each other.
 
Blue155 said:
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.
Click to expand...

AMEN, it's sad to think only one church follows JESUS and HIS rule book.

It's not hard to read and understand.
 
Blue155 said:
What exactly is baptismal regeneration?
Click to expand...

How are you making out, you don't have to tell me I can see.

Plant those seeds my brother.

No idea how many roads you go down and bring up what men did in history or what they say today, GOD'S WORD IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY.

One of the matrix movies I watched, I remember Morpheus training Neo, they were in a room fighting each other. I remember Morpheus telling Neo "stop trying to hit me and hit me"

People need to stop trying to discredit JESUS and HIS word and just OBEY what it says.

I fell that way when someone can't just look at Acts 2:38, read it what it says and let JESUS be JESUS.

That's why I say, Satan's plan keep them out of the water, if they get in the water keep JESUS name out of it.

As we can see, it's working and out of our control.

Satans knows what happen in the water when we obey JESUS, he don't like it.

I'm sure you noticed being baptized in JESUS name in the most debated topic EVERYWHERE.

To me, Matthew 7:21-23 is the scariest verse in HIS word.

Now make sense, foundation is the key.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
@studier is this what you had in mind?

View attachment 281548
Click to expand...

Yes. Nicely done.

State or Sphere is what I think this is all about much of the time with eis.

It's also what I think John is conveying to us with eis as it shows a transition from one state into another state or from one sphere of existence into another sphere of existence and the circle label changes to "Christ" where we have Paul's "in-en Christ" terminology. Then, ultimately we have all these things like remission/forgiveness, righteousness, etc., are bullet points in the circle in Christ who in essence IS the sphere of our existence where some of the "en" Him terminology conveys our being [en] union with Him and wherein is the only place these things are to be found.

As I recall, we can use this and find with other prepositions like dia the flow of righteousness from God through His Son to us and Jesus saying things like no man come to the Father if not/except through Him.

When I said the prepositions chart can be a very powerful graphic, there was a reason for doing so. It becomes quite a visual of the message of the Text that the mind can work with to see some of the things that are in truth taking place.

Thank you for doing this.
 
LightBearer316 said:
True faith produces obedience
Click to expand...

Genuine Faith is equivalent to Obedience.

You've also ignored Scripture I posted that prove this. You'll need to reject strict "faith alone" theology before you'll begin accepting what Scripture says.
 
Ouch said:
You don't understand being baptized in JESUS name is a part of being reborn.

I am very patient with those who don't and share scripture, do I insult you?

Nope I share scripture.

If I don't understand you comment, explain it!!

I don't know everything and never will, we are suppose to love one and the other and learn from each other.
Click to expand...
So here's your chance to learn. I replied to one of your comments that it was a "poisoning the well" logical fallacy. Go look it up.
 
studier said:
Genuine Faith is equivalent to Obedience.

You've also ignored Scripture I posted that prove this. You'll need to reject strict "faith alone" theology before you'll begin accepting what Scripture says.
Click to expand...
That’s a very common tactic — equating faith itself with obedience to blur the line between belief and works. If faith and obedience were the same thing, Scripture wouldn’t speak of them separately. Romans 4:5 KJV clearly distinguishes them:

“To him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”​

Faith produces obedience as its fruit — but they’re not identical.
Obedience flows out of faith; it doesn’t become faith.
That’s why Abraham was “justified by faith” before he ever acted (Romans 4:9–10 KJV).

Rejecting “faith alone” isn’t returning to Scripture — it’s returning to the same confusion Paul corrected in Galatians 3:3 KJV:

“Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?”​

Grace and peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OLDBUTNEW
Why, do people like you @LightBearer316, tell others that water baptism for the remission of sins isn’t necessary, when the Lord says it is!!! Why, do people like you, don’t want to be baptized for the remission of sins? I was 12 years old when I repented and was baptized for the remission of sins. Not one time did I think I deserved, earned, merited or worked for it. How does allowing one to be immersed earn eternal life? An Old Testament application is was Naaman earning his physical healing of dipping 7x in the river Jordan? No! Likewise, when one is water baptized for the remission of sins, that doesn’t earn spiritual healing by the blood of Christ no more than Naaman earned his physical healing when he dipped in the river Jordan. I can explain it for you but I can’t understand it for you. The truth seekers will understand. The seeker of loopholes will not!!!! Not because it’s not understandable, but because their pride gets in their way!!
 
lrs68 said:
But I personally believe God is triune in Nature and works in the Titles of Father, Son, Holy Ghost.

I just don't believe God is a person. He manifested Himself into the flesh but the WORD was always Spirit before becoming flesh.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit late to this party. However, I wonder how you can say that God is not a person. Are you a person? You are made in God's image. God has all the attributes of being a person. God is called Father. Are fathers not persons?
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
View attachment 281554
Click to expand...
I'd add repentance to the portal. I'd also add obedience since repentance and baptism are commanded. I'd also add "accepted His Word" (Peter's message on behalf of Jesus Christ) Acts2:41. I'd also bracket all of it and label it as "believed" Acts2:44 as IMO Luke does which shows the by Grace through Faith [portal] provided for them.

One of the things the errant concept of faith alone ("f-a") (IMO there is a concept of it that's not errant) does is to isolate faith from everything (= errant faith alone). The Text simply does not speak this way.

The Scripture very freely talks like Luke did in Acts2 and encompasses and summarizes all the above as believing, which IMO the people are opened to when they were stabbed in the heart by what Peter said to them about what they had done to their Messiah.

Though this is argument from silence I'm going to use it to make a point; If that hit to their heart had been sufficient then there was no need for Peter to command them or he could have commanded them to just believe (as Luke has Paul & Silas commanding in Acts16:31) or even have told them their response was belief and they had thus repented when they were stabbed in the heart and all was good. But in this case he did not do this. And God did not give them the Spirit when His message through Peter stabbed them in the heart.

Belief in Jesus Christ is commanded by God. Men believe the Gospel & men obey the Gospel because faith in God and obedience to God are functionally equivalent in Scripture. Maybe when they were stabbed in the heart believing began. But this all becomes a matter of obedience to Apostolic command and IMO that believing has not taken place apart from them obeying Peter's command to repent & be baptized. This is where that portal you're portraying is opened into the state/sphere of release/cancellation (BDAG) of sins and wherein they will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Please don't hesitate to comment (not that I think you would hesitate). We should be working together to refine things like this. But we began in agreement re: eis and I think you're showing graphically from a solid base how this language is working. We both seem to appreciate the value of that spatial graphic.

One other comment; this needs to be done in every case at every point of similar Scripture - if not on paper or screen, then at least in the mind per Scripture. We often tend to make one piece of Scripture normative and transfer it to other sections or writers, but we always need to do this with caution or the "harmonizing" which seems to be becoming a favored concept in this forum, can just become error.

Thank you for your work!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back