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

[mailmandan]

Then what happened to me in 1984 trumps what happened to you in 1998.

What happened to you in 1984?

 

[Lamar]

What happened to you in 1984?

The same thing that you believe happened to you in 1998.

 

[LightBearer316]

You're confusing the moment with the means of the new birth.

Mark 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Believing and baptism is the moment and time of the remission of sins not the sign of the remission of sins.

Just as the blind man at the Pool of Siloam was healed at the moment of his washing so too are we healed at the moment of water baptism.

Labeling water baptism for the remission of sins as a work of merit is blasphemy.

Lamar, the “moment” language you’re using isn’t in the passage — it’s being read into it. Mark 16:16 simply states the sequence: belief and baptism. But notice that condemnation only follows unbelief, not the absence of baptism. That alone shows the focus is on faith as the means, not baptism as the cause.


The man at Siloam wasn’t healed because of the water itself, but because of faith and obedience to the word spoken. The water was the setting, not the source. That’s the same distinction between sign and means — baptism testifies to what’s already true for the one who believes.


If the water itself were what remitted sin, then the thief on the cross couldn’t have been saved. But Jesus told him plainly, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43 KJV)


Grace alone saves — water just marks what grace has already done.

 

[Ouch]

You’re confusing the means of new birth with the signs that accompany it.

Jesus wasn’t teaching two separate requirements (water + Spirit) but describing one spiritual birth — the cleansing and renewal the Spirit gives. That’s exactly what He explained later: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit” (John 3:6 KJV).

The “water” points to cleansing (Ezekiel 36:25-27), not ritual baptism. Otherwise, Jesus would be preaching works-salvation before the cross — contradicting His own words that whoever believes has eternal life (John 3:16 KJV).

The only “shading” of His Word happens when people replace faith in Christ with human ceremonies.

Grace and peace.

Yea, HE was referring to two different things, it's not a good idea to correct JESUS.

WATER AND SPIRIT.

Like Acts 2;38-39 does also which you don't like the way it's worded.

You have to go to OT to prove baptism wrong in John 3:5? YEP.

IS THERE ANY CHANCE YOU CAN TELL ME WHY YOU USE THE WORD "RITUAL"????

Story time again trying to water down HIS word to suit you and who your working for.

Why do you just share parts of HIS word?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Another verse to back it up.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So question believe in HIM and not what HE says or HIM AND WHAT HE says?

I will also add, notice the word SHOULD NOT PARRISH???

Why, because if you obeyed HIM YOU SHOULD NOT PARRISH??

As we can tell, you don't.

Did you know John 3:16 comes right after what JESUS says in John 3:16?

So YOU'RE IMPLYING it's JESUS who speaks with a forked tongue like you do, since HE says we need to be born of water AND of spirit then he says just believe.

Do you think JESUS speaks with a forked tongue?

I don't use the word shading, it's either bible or not.

Like what you call being baptized a ritual or a ceremony, NOT A GOOD IDEA since it's NOT TRUE.

 

[studier]

So now we have confirmation that the one loudly accusing everyone else of using AI has been doing it himself all along. The quoted text above was AI-generated

My friend, who works in IT, analyzed it with AI and confirmed exactly that. I sent some of your post.

Of course this was coming. You're just a bit slow in some of these things. Like waiting 300 posts to answer questions about your use of tech.

Why ask a friend?

Have you never used AI?

Are you going to answer this now?

I thought we were discussing John7:24.

Are you growing uncomfortable with that discussion as you seem to re: discussions on Scripture like Acts2:38 nd wording like eis?

Conclusion
While it’s possible a human composed it with deliberate formality, the tone, rhythm, and lexical patterning make it very likely AI-generated or AI-assisted (e.g., drafted LLM or similar, then slightly edited before posting).

So, first we have confirmation - then we have "possible". So, which is it?

My IT friend just sent back his analysis of studier’s latest response — and it appears studier is still using AI. See below:

That response from studier shows very strong indicators of being AI-generated or at least AI-polished. Here’s why:

Now we have "very likely" - "AI-generated or AI-assisted or AI-polished" - "appears" - "very strong indicators"

Are these "confirmation"?

A little history on the matter since you want to digress from John7 for whatever reason:

Firstly, I read what I think was your first post on this forum in mid October this year and jumped into the discussion the next day.

After interacting with you a bit and reading several of your posts over the next few weeks, I posted a response to you inferring your work looked to be AI driven. In a post shortly thereafter I posted an AI response to a post of yours clearly titled "AI Response to AI' which IMO did a very nice job identifying the interpretive issues you were putting forth and where "LB's AI Misses".

First, you answered me well and then kept posting reverting to nonsense. We could easily have put all this to rest over a week and several hundred posts ago, when I and others were questioning your methodology.

Isn't that 3rd link above to a post to you sufficient evidence that I do use AI for certain things at certain times? I also used it in a post to you and declared where and why when I did the homework for you that you would not do to confirm whether your were or were not misrepresenting scholarly resources re: the meaning of eis in Acts2:38 which you were misinterpreting.

If you or anyone would like to discuss AI I'm happy to do so. Several months ago someone was openly posting AI-based theological interpretations in threads on this forum and being very open about it. It was interesting and it's part of we're going to be dealing with in theology and already are. Some of those posts IMO were very well done and I've had a few brief discussions about AI in theology on these threads.

I've also been discussing AI in brief for about the past 6 months on the News forums on this site and have been watching what's taking place with it in the world including the business world. I've also had fairly in-depth discussions in person among friends mainly about the financial & military aspects of it. My first career was in computers. Tech is still of interest and this is tech at it's current peak in my lifetime. It's been discussed in theory for quite some time.

Have you ever asked me if I use AI at all? Were the above mentioned posts to you not enough to show you that I do at times?

So, if you have anything to ask, don't waste your IT friend's time or your time if you might be plugging it into AI yourself. Just ask. (Note the 2 word succinct closing - all me).

Are you done with John7:24 since you're diverting again?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Lamar, the “moment” language you’re using isn’t in the passage — it’s being read into it. Mark 16:16 simply states the sequence: belief and baptism. But notice that condemnation only follows unbelief, not the absence of baptism. That alone shows the focus is on faith as the means, not baptism as the cause.

If the water itself were what remitted sin, then the thief on the cross couldn’t have been saved. But Jesus told him plainly, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43 KJV)

Unbelief precludes baptism, so there was no need to include it in the last part of Mark 16:16

The thief was on the cross during the old covenant, so your reasoning fails.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The man at Siloam wasn’t healed because of the water itself, but because of faith and obedience to the word spoken. The water was the setting, not the source. That’s the same distinction between sign and means — baptism testifies to what’s already true for the one who believes.

Only you are conceiving of the idea that water has power to do anything of itself. Obedience to the command is what saves and heals, and washing in water proves the faith is real; so God sees the obedience and acts. Without that obedience there would be no healing/salvation. Same with baptism.

 

[LightBearer316]

Unbelief precludes baptism, so there was no need to include it in the last part of Mark 16:16

The thief was on the cross during the old covenant, so your reasoning fails.

If unbelief precludes baptism, then belief precedes it — and that’s exactly the point. Faith is what saves; baptism follows as the outward sign of what’s already true inwardly. That’s the consistent pattern through Acts — faith first, then baptism.

As for the thief on the cross, calling it “old covenant” doesn’t hold up. The new covenant was ratified by Christ’s own blood (Hebrews 9:15-17 KJV), and that blood was being shed right then. The thief was saved by faith in the same Savior we trust in — not by a ritual, but by believing in the One hanging next to him.

The Gospel has always centered on belief. Baptism testifies to salvation; it doesn’t create 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.”

 

[LightBearer316]

Only you are conceiving of the idea that water has power to do anything of itself. Obedience to the command is what saves and heals, and washing in water proves the faith is real; so God sees the obedience and acts. Without that obedience there would be no healing/salvation. Same with baptism.

No one’s denying obedience — the question is what that obedience flows from. The man wasn’t healed because the water held any power, but because he trusted the word spoken. The same’s true with baptism — the act doesn’t cause the salvation; it shows that faith is genuine.

God acts in response to faith, not the ritual. If the water itself had saving power, it would make the cross unnecessary. The command to be baptized is an expression of faith, not a substitute for it.

Salvation begins at belief — the obedience follows as the fruit of that faith, not the foundation of 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.”

 

[LightBearer316]

Of course this was coming. You're just a bit slow in some of these things. Like waiting 300 posts to answer questions about your use of tech.

Why ask a friend?

Have you never used AI?

Are you going to answer this now?

I thought we were discussing John7:24.

Are you growing uncomfortable with that discussion as you seem to re: discussions on Scripture like Acts2:38 nd wording like eis?



So, first we have confirmation - then we have "possible". So, which is it?



Now we have "very likely" - "AI-generated or AI-assisted or AI-polished" - "appears" - "very strong indicators"

Are these "confirmation"?

A little history on the matter since you want to digress from John7 for whatever reason:

Firstly, I read what I think was your first post on this forum in mid October this year and jumped into the discussion the next day.

After interacting with you a bit and reading several of your posts over the next few weeks, I posted a response to you inferring your work looked to be AI driven. In a post shortly thereafter I posted an AI response to a post of yours clearly titled "AI Response to AI' which IMO did a very nice job identifying the interpretive issues you were putting forth and where "LB's AI Misses".

First, you answered me well and then kept posting reverting to nonsense. We could easily have put all this to rest over a week and several hundred posts ago, when I and others were questioning your methodology.

Isn't that 3rd link above to a post to you sufficient evidence that I do use AI for certain things at certain times? I also used it in a post to you and declared where and why when I did the homework for you that you would not do to confirm whether your were or were not misrepresenting scholarly resources re: the meaning of eis in Acts2:38 which you were misinterpreting.

If you or anyone would like to discuss AI I'm happy to do so. Several months ago someone was openly posting AI-based theological interpretations in threads on this forum and being very open about it. It was interesting and it's part of we're going to be dealing with in theology and already are. Some of those posts IMO were very well done and I've had a few brief discussions about AI in theology on these threads.

I've also been discussing AI in brief for about the past 6 months on the News forums on this site and have been watching what's taking place with it in the world including the business world. I've also had fairly in-depth discussions in person among friends mainly about the financial & military aspects of it. My first career was in computers. Tech is still of interest and this is tech at it's current peak in my lifetime. It's been discussed in theory for quite some time.

Have you ever asked me if I use AI at all? Were the above mentioned posts to you not enough to show you that I do at times?

So, if you have anything to ask, don't waste your IT friend's time or your time if you might be plugging it into AI yourself. Just ask. (Note the 2 word succinct closing - all me).

Are you done with John7:24 since you're diverting again?

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

 

[LightBearer316]

Yea, HE was referring to two different things, it's not a good idea to correct JESUS.

WATER AND SPIRIT.

Like Acts 2;38-39 does also which you don't like the way it's worded.

You have to go to OT to prove baptism wrong in John 3:5? YEP.

IS THERE ANY CHANCE YOU CAN TELL ME WHY YOU USE THE WORD "RITUAL"????

Story time again trying to water down HIS word to suit you and who your working for.

Why do you just share parts of HIS word?

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Another verse to back it up.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

So question believe in HIM and not what HE says or HIM AND WHAT HE says?

I will also add, notice the word SHOULD NOT PARRISH???

Why, because if you obeyed HIM YOU SHOULD NOT PARRISH??

As we can tell, you don't.

Did you know John 3:16 comes right after what JESUS says in John 3:16?

So YOU'RE IMPLYING it's JESUS who speaks with a forked tongue like you do, since HE says we need to be born of water AND of spirit then he says just believe.

Do you think JESUS speaks with a forked tongue?

I don't use the word shading, it's either bible or not.

Like what you call being baptized a ritual or a ceremony, NOT A GOOD IDEA since it's NOT TRUE.

No one here is “correcting Jesus.” The issue is how His words are understood in the full light of Scripture. When Jesus spoke of being “born of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5), He wasn’t introducing baptismal regeneration — He was explaining spiritual rebirth, something the Old Testament already pictured in passages like Ezekiel 36:25-27 KJV, where God promises to sprinkle clean water and give a new heart and spirit.

The “water” points to cleansing, not ceremony. Nicodemus, being a teacher of Israel, should’ve recognized that. That’s why Jesus asked, “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” (John 3:10 KJV).

Calling baptism a “ritual” isn’t meant to diminish it — it’s simply acknowledging that it’s an outward act that symbolizes an inward reality. Paul makes that clear in Romans 6 and Colossians 2:12 KJV: we’re buried with Christ by baptism, but raised by faith in the power of God.

Mark 16:16 fits perfectly: belief saves; baptism follows as the public testimony of that faith. The condemnation falls not on those who aren’t baptized, but on those who don’t believe.

Jesus doesn’t speak with a forked tongue — His message is consistent: faith in Him brings life, and obedience flows from that life.

Grace and peace.

 

[studier]

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

Agreed again.

 

[LightBearer316]

Agreed again.

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

 

[LightBearer316]

Of course this was coming. You're just a bit slow in some of these things. Like waiting 300 posts to answer questions about your use of tech.

Why ask a friend?

Have you never used AI?

Are you going to answer this now?

I thought we were discussing John7:24.

Are you growing uncomfortable with that discussion as you seem to re: discussions on Scripture like Acts2:38 nd wording like eis?



So, first we have confirmation - then we have "possible". So, which is it?



Now we have "very likely" - "AI-generated or AI-assisted or AI-polished" - "appears" - "very strong indicators"

Are these "confirmation"?

A little history on the matter since you want to digress from John7 for whatever reason:

Firstly, I read what I think was your first post on this forum in mid October this year and jumped into the discussion the next day.

After interacting with you a bit and reading several of your posts over the next few weeks, I posted a response to you inferring your work looked to be AI driven. In a post shortly thereafter I posted an AI response to a post of yours clearly titled "AI Response to AI' which IMO did a very nice job identifying the interpretive issues you were putting forth and where "LB's AI Misses".

First, you answered me well and then kept posting reverting to nonsense. We could easily have put all this to rest over a week and several hundred posts ago, when I and others were questioning your methodology.

Isn't that 3rd link above to a post to you sufficient evidence that I do use AI for certain things at certain times? I also used it in a post to you and declared where and why when I did the homework for you that you would not do to confirm whether your were or were not misrepresenting scholarly resources re: the meaning of eis in Acts2:38 which you were misinterpreting.

If you or anyone would like to discuss AI I'm happy to do so. Several months ago someone was openly posting AI-based theological interpretations in threads on this forum and being very open about it. It was interesting and it's part of we're going to be dealing with in theology and already are. Some of those posts IMO were very well done and I've had a few brief discussions about AI in theology on these threads.

I've also been discussing AI in brief for about the past 6 months on the News forums on this site and have been watching what's taking place with it in the world including the business world. I've also had fairly in-depth discussions in person among friends mainly about the financial & military aspects of it. My first career was in computers. Tech is still of interest and this is tech at it's current peak in my lifetime. It's been discussed in theory for quite some time.

Have you ever asked me if I use AI at all? Were the above mentioned posts to you not enough to show you that I do at times?

So, if you have anything to ask, don't waste your IT friend's time or your time if you might be plugging it into AI yourself. Just ask. (Note the 2 word succinct closing - all me).

Are you done with John7:24 since you're diverting again?

The very thread you point too shows more use of AI by you!
https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/saved-by-faith-alone.211849/page-121#post-5597274

 

[LightBearer316]

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

 

[LightBearer316]

I posted an AI response to a post of yours clearly titled "AI Response to AI'

The sample posts that were analyzed weren’t from the obvious one you titled “AI Response to AI.” They were from the others — and every one of those showed clear indicators of AI use.

Now that you’ve admitted to using it before, that only confirms what’s been evident all along — you’ve been using AI behind the scenes this entire time while accusing others of doing exactly that.

That’s not transparency; that’s projection.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

 

[studier]

The man at Siloam wasn’t healed because of the water itself, but because of faith and obedience to the word spoken. The man wasn’t healed because the water held any power, but because he trusted the word spoken. The same’s true with baptism — the act doesn’t cause the salvation; it shows that faith is genuine.

Obedience to the command is what saves and heals, and washing in water proves the faith is real; so God sees the obedience and acts.

No one’s denying obedience — the question is what that obedience flows from.

God acts in response to faith

Salvation begins at belief — the obedience follows as the fruit of that faith, not the foundation of it

Difference here:

• LB: "healed because of faith & obedience"
  • healed because he trusted the word spoken
  • God acts in response to faith
  • Salvation begins at belief
  • Obedience follows as the fruit of faith
  • Questions:
    • So trust = faith or obedience or both?
    • So the man would not be healed if no fruit of obedience?
      • But God acts in response to faith - then why does he heal at obedience?
    • Are salvation and healing different in this instance at Siloam?
• CRFTD: "Obedience to the command is what saves and heals"
  • God sees the obedience and acts
  • Washing in water proves the faith is real
  • Questions:
    • Is the obedience the faith?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

No one’s denying obedience — the question is what that obedience flows from. The man wasn’t healed because the water held any power, but because he trusted the word spoken. The same’s true with baptism — the act doesn’t cause the salvation; it shows that faith is genuine.

Such a dishonest communicator you are. I just commented that none of us claims the water has any power, and then you respond framing your response as if I did.

 

[Ouch]

No one here is “correcting Jesus.” The issue is how His words are understood in the full light of Scripture. When Jesus spoke of being “born of water and of the Spirit” (John 3:5), He wasn’t introducing baptismal regeneration — He was explaining spiritual rebirth, something the Old Testament already pictured in passages like Ezekiel 36:25-27 KJV, where God promises to sprinkle clean water and give a new heart and spirit.

The “water” points to cleansing, not ceremony. Nicodemus, being a teacher of Israel, should’ve recognized that. That’s why Jesus asked, “Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” (John 3:10 KJV).

Calling baptism a “ritual” isn’t meant to diminish it — it’s simply acknowledging that it’s an outward act that symbolizes an inward reality. Paul makes that clear in Romans 6 and Colossians 2:12 KJV: we’re buried with Christ by baptism, but raised by faith in the power of God.

Mark 16:16 fits perfectly: belief saves; baptism follows as the public testimony of that faith. The condemnation falls not on those who aren’t baptized, but on those who don’t believe.

Jesus doesn’t speak with a forked tongue — His message is consistent: faith in Him brings life, and obedience flows from that life.

Grace and peace.

Yea, like Eze superseeds JESUS NT rebirth.

Why do you use words like regeneration?

re·gen·er·a·tion
/rēˌjenəˈrāSHən/
noun
the action or process of regenerating or being regenerated, in particular the formation of new animal or plant tissue.
"the regeneration of inner cities"
Electronics
positive feedback.
Chemistry
the action or process of regenerating polymer fibers.

Your trying to prove HIS word wrong.

Yea I know some people will follow people who are convincing like Jim Jones who was a preacher who led people to Hell with him.

Or other man-made preacher who also refuse to accept HIS word, think how many of them there are.

No. water baptism points to being emisered in the water calling upon the name of JESUS to remove our sins.

YOU WILL NEVER GET ME TO BELIEVE WHAT IS NOT IN HIS WORD, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU TRY.

YOU SURE ARE TRYING!!! That is why I asked you WHO DO YOU WORK FOR?

Yep, that is what a ritual is, an outward act and so many people believe it and will never get their sins removed.

So go do it for that reason, if you ever want your sins removed follow what JESUS says to do.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Let me help you with reading Mark 16:16.

He that believes (that's you) AND (did you notice the word AND?) is BAPTIZED SHALL BE SAVED.

That means you believe AND get baptized you will be saved.................................................

You have the second part right, if you don't believe YOU WILL NOT GET BAPTIZED AND YOU WILL BE DAMNED.

MEANING WITHOUT BAPTISM YOU ARE DAMNED.

Since you believe JESUS doesn't speak with a forked tongue STOP putting out information like HE does.