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

[LightBearer316]

According to the way you reason since that verse doesn't say anything about faith, then faith doesn't produce forgiveness of sins; it's the fruit of forgiveness.

That’s a clever but flawed counter by you, and it’s based on a logical fallacy — you are attempting a category error by misrepresenting what Ephesians 1:7 is doing in the flow of Paul’s argument. Ephesians 1:7 is identifying what secures forgiveness — Christ’s blood — not how it’s received.

Paul elsewhere explains the receiving instrument plainly: ‘through faith in his blood’ (Rom 3:25 KJV).
Faith connects us to the finished work of Christ’s blood; baptism testifies to it after the fact.
Scripture never reverses that order or makes water the conduit of grace.

You seem to be approaching Scripture through a very narrow lens — likely shaped by the traditions or teachings of your group rather than by sound exegesis. It’s hard to see the fullness of biblical truth when interpretation is filtered through indoctrination instead of letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

Righteousness alone isn't salvation.

Righteousness here refers to justification—God crediting faith as righteousness (Romans 4:5 KJV).
Salvation flows from that justification, not the other way around.
Paul’s point is that we’re declared righteous by faith before any works or obedience.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

Nobody I know is denying that Christ’s blood is the basis for redemption. Nor is anybody here that I've seen saying that "baptism itself brings forgiveness or salvation," though I'm not reading every post.

Maybe your projecting faith alone onto baptism alone/itself. I think it was @Lamar who recently spoke of your adding definitives.

The issue isn’t whether Christ’s blood redeems—that’s agreed.
The point is how that redemption is applied.
Paul makes it clear it’s through faith, not through a ritual act.
When anyone says baptism is required “for” forgiveness, that’s no longer symbolic obedience—it’s turning the sign into the cause.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

When you said? Were those your notes from a study you heard? Or were they a study you taught? Or were they a study you copied and pasted?Whatever they were, my observation stands. One would think with your systematic beliefs that you'd be more careful in writing something that sounds like Abraham's works were involved in his credited righteousness, which would of course mean, no matter how you slice it, that so was his obedience.And BTW, the Text doesn't say that Abraham's faith produced his obedience. This is what you say.

Romans 4:5 KJV separates faith and works precisely to show that Abraham was justified before acting.
His obedience was the fruit of faith, not its cause.
Faith produced trust — obedience displayed it.

Grace and Peace

 

[studier]

The irony is, Romans 4:5 does explicitly state:

• “Worketh not” — obedience and deeds are excluded as causes.
• “Believeth” — faith alone is credited as righteousness.

That’s not silence — it’s Paul making the distinction clear by direct contrast.

The mistake you have digested is that obedience = works.

The other mistake you make is saying faith alone which is the insertion of a definitive to suit a system of theology.

I agree with Paul. Paul disagrees with you.

By saying I “misrepresent” obedience, you are redefining it away from any action that could be considered a work.
In your framework, “obedience” isn’t external effort but a conceptual “element” of faith itself — so that faith and obedience become linguistically welded together.

You're correct about my framework because it's the Scriptural framework as I've been pushing you to discuss while you constantly divert from doing so ignoring certain Scriptures and some basic grammar and logic.

Silly emoji.

Since Scripture makes faith and obedience appositional and treats them with equivalency, it's actually you who is redefining faith by making obedience a work, which makes faith a work.

When we believe we obey. The Scriptures I repeatedly proposed we discuss begin to set this framework. That initial faith-obedience is yet to do a work that we have been newly created for. With that faith-obedience foundation having been set, works result. Genuine Faith<->Obedience -> Works. Sorry to burst your bubble but that's the Scriptural framework. It burst my erroneous faith-alone bubble when I saw how clear this is in Scripture.

So I'm not generalizing from one verse; I'm harmonizing a consistent Pauline doctrine.

I know you think you are, but you have to reject some of Paul's writing, some of Hebrews, and others to claim your harmonization. And it's not really yours because there's a long established system that you're drawing from.

And, it's clear how you are taking this system and its framework back and rewriting Acts2:38 where you opened this thread. It's also clear that you've misused and misrepresented scholarly resources and have not admitted it. Seriously, who do you think you're kidding?

 

[LightBearer316]

The mistake you have digested is that obedience = works.

The other mistake you make is saying faith alone which is the insertion of a definitive to suit a system of theology.

I agree with Paul. Paul disagrees with you.



You're correct about my framework because it's the Scriptural framework as I've been pushing you to discuss while you constantly divert from doing so ignoring certain Scriptures and some basic grammar and logic.

Silly emoji.

Since Scripture makes faith and obedience appositional and treats them with equivalency, it's actually you who is redefining faith by making obedience a work, which makes faith a work.

When we believe we obey. The Scriptures I repeatedly proposed we discuss begin to set this framework. That initial faith-obedience is yet to do a work that we have been newly created for. With that faith-obedience foundation having been set, works result. Genuine Faith<->Obedience -> Works. Sorry to burst your bubble but that's the Scriptural framework. It burst my erroneous faith-alone bubble when I saw how clear this is in Scripture.



I know you think you are, but you have to reject some of Paul's writing, some of Hebrews, and others to claim your harmonization. And it's not really yours because there's a long established system that you're drawing from.

And, it's clear how you are taking this system and its framework back and rewriting Acts2:38 where you opened this thread. It's also clear that you've misused and misrepresented scholarly resources and have not admitted it. Seriously, who do you think you're kidding?

You’re confusing cause and effect.
Faith and obedience are connected, but not interchangeable — Paul separates them so the source of righteousness remains grace through faith, not the act that follows.
Works demonstrate faith; they don’t generate justification.

Grace and peace

 

[LightBearer316]

studier said:
I know you think you are, but you have to reject some of Paul's writing, some of Hebrews, and others to claim your harmonization. And it's not really yours because there's a long established system that you're drawing from.

And, it's clear how you are taking this system and its framework back and rewriting Acts2:38 where you opened this thread. It's also clear that you've misused and misrepresented scholarly resources and have not admitted it. Seriously, who do you think you're kidding?

I’m not rejecting Paul, Hebrews, or Acts—I’m reading them together.
• Acts 2:38 KJV is clarified by Acts 10:43–48 KJV and Eph 1:13 KJV: forgiveness/Spirit come through faith in Christ, with baptism following.
• Rom 4:5 KJV: God justifies the ungodly by faith, not by works.
• Heb 10:14; 11 KJV: Christ perfects by His offering; obedience is the fruit of faith, not its cause.
If you think I “rewrote” Acts 2:38 or misused a source, quote the line and the citation so we can examine it.

Assertions aren’t evidence—let’s deal in texts.

Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

LightBearer316 said:
By saying I “misrepresent” obedience, you are redefining it away from any action that could be considered a work.
In your framework, “obedience” isn’t external effort but a conceptual “element” of faith itself — so that faith and obedience become linguistically welded together.

That’s why you keep repeating the phrase “functionally equivalent.”
You are trying to merge categories — to say faith is obedience, obedience is faith, and therefore justification includes obedience.

studier said:
You're correct about my framework because it's the Scriptural framework as I've been pushing you to discuss while you constantly divert from doing so ignoring certain Scriptures and some basic grammar and logic.

Since Scripture makes faith and obedience appositional and treats them with equivalency, it's actually you who is redefining faith by making obedience a work, which makes faith a work.

When we believe we obey. The Scriptures I repeatedly proposed we discuss begin to set this framework. That initial faith-obedience is yet to do a work that we have been newly created for. With that faith-obedience foundation having been set, works result. Genuine Faith<->Obedience -> Works. Sorry to burst your bubble but that's the Scriptural framework. It burst my erroneous faith-alone bubble when I saw how clear this is in Scripture.

You’re trying to merge “faith” and “obedience” into a single act, but Scripture treats them as distinct in sequence and category.

Faith is the root, obedience is the fruit.
Paul’s entire argument in Romans 4 hinges on that distinction—Abraham was counted righteous while still uncircumcised (Rom 4:10–11 KJV). That means before any act of obedience, his faith alone was credited as righteousness.

To say faith and obedience are “equivalent” collapses Paul’s logic. He explicitly says:

“To him that worketh not, but believeth… his faith is counted for righteousness.” — Romans 4:5​

If faith and obedience were inseparable in the act of justification, Paul couldn’t contrast them so sharply. The New Testament order is always:
Faith → Justification → Obedience (as evidence, not cause).

James 2 agrees when read carefully: Abraham was justified by faith (Gen 15:6 KJV) and his faith was shown to be genuine by works decades later (Gen 22 KJV). James calls that “perfected” faith, not saving faith plus works.

So the framework you’re presenting actually reverses the order Scripture gives. Faith doesn’t become obedience; it produces obedience. Otherwise, “faith” becomes just another form of doing—precisely what Paul excludes.

Your theology studier are simply unsound, unscriptural, and your methods are questionable.

Grace and peace.

 

[Wansvic]

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.

We definitely differ in our understanding.

 

[LightBearer316]

We definitely differ in our understanding.

Romans 4:5 — “To him that worketh not, but believeth… his faith is counted for righteousness.”​

Ephesians 1:7 — “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.”​

These two verses are kryptonite to Oneness and UPCI theology — they leave no room for salvation by ritual or formula.​

Faith in Christ’s finished work, not water or words, is what God counts as righteousness.​

Grace and Peace

 

[studier]

The issue isn’t whether Christ’s blood redeems—that’s agreed.
The point is how that redemption is applied.
Paul makes it clear it’s through faith, not through a ritual act.
When anyone says baptism is required “for” forgiveness, that’s no longer symbolic obedience—it’s turning the sign into the cause.

Grace and Peace

Acts2:38 stands as written irrespective of your attempts to modify it to fit your system.

You speak of harmonizing which apparently means to change Scripture at will to fit your views.

 

[studier]

Romans 4:5 KJV separates faith and works precisely to show that Abraham was justified before acting.
His obedience was the fruit of faith, not its cause.
Faith produced trust — obedience displayed it.

Grace and Peace

Again forcing your views on the Text to fit the faith-alone system.

Now you're telling me/us that pistis produced pistis.

Read Rom10:16 honestly (if you can) to see how Paul views faith & obedience. Consider Hebrew parallelism by the Hebrew writer. Very common in Hebrew writings.

I'll explain it again to you: In Rom10:16, Paul places hupēkousan tō euangeliō (“obeyed the gospel”) in parallel with the Isaiah citation tis episteusen (“who has believed”). The grammar is semantic equivalence: the failure to obey the gospel is the failure to believe the proclaimed message. The verb hupakouō carries the sense of responsive hearing - hearing that yields submission - so faith is presented as the obedient response to the Gospel, not simply belief in the facts. Thus, to believe the Gospel is to obey it, and to refuse belief is to disobey.

You're going to have to accept that your foundation is wrong before you'll begin to understand genuine faith as God teaches it.

Just let the Text say what it says.

 

[studier]

You’re confusing cause and effect.
Faith and obedience are connected, but not interchangeable — Paul separates them so the source of righteousness remains grace through faith, not the act that follows.
Works demonstrate faith; they don’t generate justification.

Grace and peace

Just answered at a very basic level. There's more.

 

[Blue155]

@studier, no idea how you’re able to keep going back and forth with him. Your patience is incredible.

 

[studier]

I’m not rejecting Paul, Hebrews, or Acts—I’m reading them together.
• Acts 2:38 KJV is clarified by Acts 10:43–48 KJV and Eph 1:13 KJV: forgiveness/Spirit come through faith in Christ, with baptism following.
• Rom 4:5 KJV: God justifies the ungodly by faith, not by works.
• Heb 10:14; 11 KJV: Christ perfects by His offering; obedience is the fruit of faith, not its cause.
If you think I “rewrote” Acts 2:38 or misused a source, quote the line and the citation so we can examine it.

Assertions aren’t evidence—let’s deal in texts.

Grace and peace.

So you say. Self-deceit is something we all must get over if we're going to grow in the mind of Christ.

I've no interest in chasing you around in circles in Scripture when you ignore some in favor of others. Let Acts2:38 say what it says. It's the only way to truly harmonize Scripture. All the other Scriptures also say what they say. Arguments from silence is improper exegesis. I understand you like elementary root & fruit analogy, but it's you who doesn't understand how to use it and what is actually cause and effect per the Text.

You've got to be kidding about examining Acts2:38 further. Again, I'll ask you if you're ready to show some integrity and admit that you falsely and repeatedly referenced scholarly sources to teach an erroneous concept of a Greek preposition?

Let's begin at Rom10:16. It's very simple and very clear. It assists us in understanding Paul's view of faith which is the Hebrew view clarified for us in the NC. I've just explained the language to you in a just recent post. Accept it, or not, explain yourself, or continue to ignore, your choice.

 

[studier]

You’re trying to merge “faith” and “obedience” into a single act, but Scripture treats them as distinct in sequence and category.

Faith is the root, obedience is the fruit.
Paul’s entire argument in Romans 4 hinges on that distinction—Abraham was counted righteous while still uncircumcised (Rom 4:10–11 KJV). That means before any act of obedience, his faith alone was credited as righteousness.

To say faith and obedience are “equivalent” collapses Paul’s logic. He explicitly says:

“To him that worketh not, but believeth… his faith is counted for righteousness.” — Romans 4:5​

If faith and obedience were inseparable in the act of justification, Paul couldn’t contrast them so sharply. The New Testament order is always:
Faith → Justification → Obedience (as evidence, not cause).

James 2 agrees when read carefully: Abraham was justified by faith (Gen 15:6 KJV) and his faith was shown to be genuine by works decades later (Gen 22 KJV). James calls that “perfected” faith, not saving faith plus works.

So the framework you’re presenting actually reverses the order Scripture gives. Faith doesn’t become obedience; it produces obedience. Otherwise, “faith” becomes just another form of doing—precisely what Paul excludes.

Your theology studier are simply unsound, unscriptural, and your methods are questionable.

Grace and peace.

Just dumb repetition and ignoring (and even changing) Scriptures that don't fit the system. Very typical for systematic theology.

Honestly, son, you're not even good at it. Too bad because you do have some talents.

 

[studier]

@studier, no idea how you’re able to keep going back and forth with him. Your patience is incredible.

I'm old and retired and love the Word of God and hate to see it abused. Too bad this forum attracts those who are here to push systems and not just work together to have the mind of Christ advanced in all of us by letting His Word say what it says and structure our thinking as He desires. Thanks for your comment and for your input. It's refreshing at times to read your posts and other's who know how important it is to take from Him and not change His words.

 

[Wansvic]

Romans 4:5 — “To him that worketh not, but believeth… his faith is counted for righteousness.”​

Ephesians 1:7 — “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.”​

These two verses are kryptonite to Oneness and UPCI theology — they leave no room for salvation by ritual or formula.​

Faith in Christ’s finished work, not water or words, is what God counts as righteousness.​

Grace and Peace

When we allow “the Bible to explain the Bible,” we will not come to erroneous conclusions.

Consider Paul's own conversion:
He was on his way to Damascus to persecute Christians when Jesus supernaturally appeared to him... Paul asked Jesus, “What shall I do?” Jesus said, “Arise and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do” (Acts 9:4-6; 22:10). Paul (demonstrating his belief in Jesus) proceeded to Damascus where he fasted for three days and was “praying” (Acts 9:8-11), awaiting further instructions.
... God always uses people to teach people the Gospel. ...God used Ananias, who said to Paul: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord” (Acts 22:16). Notice Ananias, God’s specially chosen messenger to Paul, did not tell Paul that his sins were washed away when Paul spoke to Jesus on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:4-6), or when he fasted for three days (9:9), or when he prayed (9:11). Even though Paul had seen Jesus, talked to Jesus, and sincerely fasted and prayed, he had not yet “called upon the Lord.” Acts 22:16 indicates that he “called upon the Lord” and had his sins washed away by the blood of Jesus when he took the final step on his way to becoming a Christian—when he was “baptized into Christ Jesus” (Romans 6:3-4).

Paul’s “calling on the name of the Lord” harmonizes perfectly with Peter's instructions in Acts 2. Peter quoted from the prophecy of Joel and told those in Jerusalem on Pentecost that “whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:32). The people in Acts 2 did not understand Peter’s quotation of Joel to mean that a sinner must pray to God for salvation. ... Furthermore, when Peter responded to their question and told them what to do to be saved, he did not say, “I’ve already told you what to do. You can be saved by petitioning God for salvation through prayer. Just call on His name.” On the contrary, Peter had to explain to them what it meant to “call on the name of the Lord.” Instead of repeating this statement when the crowd sought further guidance from the apostles, Peter commanded them, saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” (Acts 2:38).

In Romans 10:13, Paul (like Peter in Acts 2) quoted from Joel 2:32: “[W]hoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” When we allow “the Bible to explain the Bible,” we will not come to the erroneous conclusion that Paul is commanding the unbelieving Jews in Romans 10 to merely “cry out to the Lord” (cf. Matthew 7:21) or to “pray the sinner’s prayer.” Rather, with Paul’s own conversion in mind (his “calling on the name of the Lord”—Acts 22:16), as well as those on Pentecost (Acts 2), we realize that in Romans 10 Paul is pleading with (especially) the Jews, who “have not all obeyed the gospel” (Romans 10:16) to “call on the name of the Lord”—that is, to “obey the gospel.” And to “obey the Gospel” is to hear and believe the Gospel (Romans 10:17), to repent of sins (Romans 6:2,6; Acts 2:38), to make the good confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God (Romans 10:9-10), and to be immersed in water for the remission of sins (Romans 6:3-4; Acts 2:38; 22:16)." (AP excerpt)

 

[LightBearer316]

Acts2:38 stands as written irrespective of your attempts to modify it to fit your system.

You speak of harmonizing which apparently means to change Scripture at will to fit your views.

I’m not modifying Scripture; I’m comparing Scripture with Scripture — which is exactly how we interpret any passage responsibly.
Acts 2:38 must be read alongside verses like Acts 10:43 KJV and Ephesians 1:7 KJV, where forgiveness is explicitly tied to faith in His name, not the ritual itself.
Peter’s audience heard “for the remission of sins” within the context of faith and repentance already preached — the water was the sign of that reality, not the source of it.
Harmonizing passages isn’t changing Scripture; it’s obeying it.
Grace and peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

Again forcing your views on the Text to fit the faith-alone system.

Now you're telling me/us that pistis produced pistis.

Read Rom10:16 honestly (if you can) to see how Paul views faith & obedience. Consider Hebrew parallelism by the Hebrew writer. Very common in Hebrew writings.

I'll explain it again to you: In Rom10:16, Paul places hupēkousan tō euangeliō (“obeyed the gospel”) in parallel with the Isaiah citation tis episteusen (“who has believed”). The grammar is semantic equivalence: the failure to obey the gospel is the failure to believe the proclaimed message. The verb hupakouō carries the sense of responsive hearing - hearing that yields submission - so faith is presented as the obedient response to the Gospel, not simply belief in the facts. Thus, to believe the Gospel is to obey it, and to refuse belief is to disobey.

You're going to have to accept that your foundation is wrong before you'll begin to understand genuine faith as God teaches it.

Just let the Text say what it says.

studier is arguing that Romans 10:16 shows “obeying the gospel” equals “believing,” accusing me of twisting Scripture for a “faith-alone system.

You’re conflating equivalence of result with equivalence of meaning.
Romans 10:16–17 shows Paul using Isaiah 53:1 to contrast belief and unbelief — not to redefine faith as obedience.

“But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing…” (KJV)​

Paul quotes Isaiah to explain that Israel’s refusal to believe is disobedience, just as their refusal to listen to God’s word was.
The verb hupakouō (“to heed, listen under”) carries the sense of responsive hearing, not ritual action.
That’s why verse 17 immediately grounds everything in hearing and faith, not performance.

Faith → Obedience is Paul’s consistent order (Rom 1:5; 16:26).
He never teaches Faith = Obedience, because then justification would rest on the act, not the trust.

Letting “the text say what it says” means letting all of Paul speak — not isolating one phrase to overturn his entire argument in Romans 4–5.

Grace and Peace.