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:
That accusation is just a distraction tactic — meant to shift the discussion from Scripture to labels.

When someone can’t refute your biblical points, they’ll often attach a historical or theological tag (like “Gnostic,” “Calvinist,” or “heretic”) to make you defend something you never claimed. It’s a rhetorical trap — the moment you start defending the label, the real issue (faith, grace, justification, etc.) gets buried.
Click to expand...

This post is just a rhetorical tactic — meant to shift the discussion from answering a simple question to meaningless gibberish.

When someone can’t answer a simple question that any Christian should be able to answer, they’ll often post pre-built Typinator copypasta to avoid having to answer the question. It’s rhetorical swill— the moment you start honestly answering questions, the real issue of holding beliefs contrary to the gospel gets exposed.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
This post is just a rhetorical tactic — meant to shift the discussion from answering a simple question to meaningless gibberish.

When someone can’t answer a simple question that any Christian should be able to answer, they’ll often post pre-built Typinator copypasta to avoid having to answer the question. It’s rhetorical swill— the moment you start honestly answering questions, the real issue of holding beliefs contrary to the gospel gets exposed.
Click to expand...
You can call it “copypasta” if it helps you avoid dealing with the content, but the irony is that nothing in your response touches the Scriptures I cited.

When truth is uncomfortable, some resort to sarcasm instead of substance. The issue here isn’t whether a paragraph was typed quickly or slowly — it’s whether the verses themselves mean what they plainly say.

I’ve already answered from Scripture; you’ve replied with accusation. That contrast speaks for itself.

Grace and peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
1762720808521.png

The pattern in Scripture is always the Word → faith → obedience. The act itself never carries saving power; it’s the response of a heart that already believes. When Peter preached in Acts 10, the Holy Ghost fell on those who heard and believed before they were baptized—showing that the inward reality precedes the outward act.

If the water itself had saving power, then it would contradict passages like Ephesians 2:8–9 (KJV) — “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Baptism is an act of obedience flowing from faith, not the means by which faith becomes valid.

That’s why Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:17 (KJV), “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.” If baptism were part of the gospel that saves, that statement would make no sense. Paul’s emphasis was on the message that produces faith — the gospel itself — not on the symbolic act that follows it.

So yes, obedience matters deeply, but the order matters more. True obedience springs from grace, not the other way around.

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.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
1762721200718.png
@ChristRoseFromTheDead said: "Obedience to the command is what saves and heals, and washing in water proves the faith is real"
Click to expand...

You post this with absoultyl no scripture to back it up because it is found no where in scripture.
Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that obedience to the command itself saves or heals, or that washing in water proves faith is real. That’s a theological addition, not a biblical doctrine. A theological addition is a belief or claim that people have added onto Scripture, rather than something Scripture itself actually teaches.

@ChristRoseFromTheDead said: "Obedience to the command is what saves and heals, and washing in water proves the faith is real."
Click to expand...
It is a bogus statement which is completely unbiblical and reverses the gospel order. You are just making stuff up!

Here’s what Scripture actually says:
  • Ephesians 2:8–9 (KJV) — “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
    → Salvation is the result of faith in God’s grace, not an outward act of obedience.
  • Romans 10:17 (KJV) — “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
    → Faith originates from the Word, not from ritual acts that follow it.
  • Luke 17:14–19 (KJV) — Jesus told the lepers to show themselves to the priests, but the one who was truly healed was the one who returned to give glory to God, and Jesus said, “Thy faith hath made thee whole.”
    → It was faith, not the act of walking or washing, that brought healing.
  • John 9:7 (KJV) — The blind man at Siloam received sight because he believed and obeyed Jesus’ word — the healing came from the Word spoken, not from the physical water itself.
  • 1 Peter 3:21 (KJV) — “The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us… not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God.”
    → Peter explicitly says it’s not the washing of water, but the inward faith response to God that saves.

So, Scripture consistently shows obedience is the fruit of faith, not the source of salvation or healing.
The power is never in the water — it’s in the Word, believed.

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.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
Acts 2:38 (KJV)
38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The line of reasoning mentioned in (“Acts 2:38 says be baptized for the remission of sins”) is a hallmark argument of oneness or baptismal-regeneration groups.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s behind that “tactic” and why it often shows up in debates:

1. What They Teach
  • Oneness Pentecostals (United Pentecostal Church International, Apostolic churches, etc.) and baptismal-regeneration advocates (like the Church of Christ, Christian Church, or some Apostolic groups) insist that water baptism is a necessary condition for salvation.
  • They usually quote Acts 2:38 as their cornerstone:
    “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...”
    They interpret “for” (eis in Greek) as meaning “in order to obtain” forgiveness, not “because of.”
2. Why It’s a “Tactic”

In discussion, these groups tend to:
  • Anchor every salvation argument in Acts 2:38, ignoring the broader New-Testament pattern of salvation by faith apart from works (e.g., Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).
  • Equate water with spiritual regeneration, even when passages clearly distinguish them (John 3:5; Acts 10:44-48; 1 Peter 3:21).
  • Frame the conversation as obedience vs. disobedience, implying that anyone who disagrees is rejecting God’s command rather than discussing interpretation.
  • Selectively quote early-Acts passages, before Paul’s revelation of salvation by grace through faith, as though those transitional moments define normative doctrine for the entire Church Age.
Essentially, it’s a rhetorical move: they start with Acts 2:38 as the hermeneutical “lens,” then reinterpret every other passage through it.

3. What’s Often Overlooked
  • Context of Acts 2 — Peter was preaching to Jews under the Law who had just crucified their Messiah. The command to repent and be baptized was part of a national call to faith and public identification with Christ, not a mechanical formula for personal regeneration.
  • Comparative Passages — In Acts 10, Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before baptism; in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer was told, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” with no mention of baptism first.
  • Greek nuance — The word eis (“for”) in Acts 2:38 can also mean “because of” or “on account of,” as in Matthew 12:41 (“They repented at [Greek eis] the preaching of Jonah”).
  • Paul’s clarification — “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17). That’s hard to square with baptism being essential for salvation.
4. The Broader Pattern
The New Testament consistently teaches:
So when groups use Acts 2:38 as their proof-text, they’re reversing the biblical order—putting the symbol ahead of the substance.

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

1761225421434-png.281106


Key Takeaways
  1. Acts 2:38 was situational — Peter addressing Jews at Pentecost during a covenant transition, not defining a permanent formula for all salvation.
  2. Scripture interprets Scripture — later revelation through Paul clarifies salvation is by faith apart from works or rituals (Romans 3–5; Galatians 2).
  3. Water vs. Spirit — the New Testament distinguishes symbolic baptism in water from the real regenerating baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; Titus 3:5).
  4. Faith precedes baptism — everywhere else in Acts, people believe first (Acts 8:36–37; 10:44–48; 16:30–33).

Grace and Peace
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
TruthDefender said:
Not just Jesus’ name:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28‬:‭19‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
Click to expand...
What's the name? (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)
 
LightBearer316 said:
That’s right — Jesus Himself gave the baptismal command in Matthew 28:19 KJV, saying to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” The singular word “name” unites the three persons in one divine authority. When the apostles baptized “in Jesus’ name” (Acts 2:38; 10:48 KJV), they weren’t changing the formula — they were identifying whose authority they acted under: the same triune God Jesus revealed. The Father planned redemption, the Son accomplished it, and the Spirit applies it. To isolate one name against the others isn’t more biblical — it actually contradicts the fullness of Christ’s own command. Scripture harmonizes when we let every passage speak together, not when we pit one verse against another. Any other interpretation does great violence to Scripture and the unity of God’s revealed Word.


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.”
Click to expand...
Jesus gave the command. The apostles obeyed the command. They consistently baptized people in the name of Jesus.
 
Wansvic said:
Jesus gave the command. The apostles obeyed the command. They consistently baptized people in the name of Jesus.
Click to expand...
That’s a classic “Acts 2:38 vs Matthew 28:19” argument — you are implying the apostles “corrected” or “obeyed” Jesus by using only the phrase “in Jesus’ name,” as if the Trinitarian formula was later invention.

You’re right that the apostles baptized “in the name of Jesus,” but that phrase in Acts identifies whose authority they were acting under — not a change in the formula Jesus commanded.

If we pit Acts 2:38 KJV against Matthew 28:19 KJV, we’re implying the apostles disobeyed Jesus’ explicit instruction. But Scripture doesn’t contradict itself. The “name” (singular) Jesus mentioned already encompassed the full revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

So when the apostles baptized converts “in Jesus’ name,” they weren’t rejecting the triune command — they were affirming that the authority of the Father, Son, and Spirit rests fully in Christ. Harmony, not contradiction, is the biblical pattern.

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.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
Wansvic said:
What's the name? (Acts 2:4-41, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)
Click to expand...
That question — “What’s the name?” — is a common Oneness tactic meant to collapse Matthew 28:19 into “Jesus only,” ignoring that “name” (ὄνομα) in Greek often denotes authority or power, not just a single spoken word.

The “name” in Matthew 28:19 KJV isn’t a single syllable to recite — it’s the shared divine authority of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

When Acts records baptism “in the name of Jesus,” it’s identifying whose authority they baptized under — the very authority Jesus spoke of when He said “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

If “the name” were meant to replace those titles, the apostles would have disobeyed Christ’s direct command. Instead, they fulfilled it by baptizing in the full revelation of the Godhead manifested through Jesus. Scripture harmonizes; it doesn’t contradict itself.

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.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
TruthDefender said:
Not just Jesus’ name:

“Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28‬:‭19‬ ‭NKJV‬‬
Click to expand...
Amen! To be baptized in the name of Jesus is not a reference to a rigid, salvic baptismal formula but is a reference to authority.

Must baptism be “in Jesus’ name”? - CARM
 
Me_Clay said:
I was thinking 🤔 too, usually 3 names mentioned in the baptism.
Click to expand...

Right — and that’s exactly how Acts 2:38 and Matthew 28:19 connect.
Jesus gave the command to baptize in the name (singular) of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit — one divine authority. When the apostles baptized in Jesus’ name, they were acting under that same authority, not changing the formula. The “three names” reflect one Name, one God revealed in three persons.

Rightly dividing the Word means harmonizing Scripture, not tearing it apart like some of the heretics on this forum do. Truth never contradicts itself — it fits together perfectly when you actually let the Bible interpret itself.

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” — 2 Timothy 2:15 (KJV)​

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.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
 
  • Like
Reactions: mailmandan
LightBearer316 said:
...
If we pit Acts 2:38 KJV against Matthew 28:19 KJV, we’re implying the apostles disobeyed Jesus’ explicit instruction. ...
Click to expand...
There is no pitting one scripture against the other. There is no contradiction. The apostles obeyed Jesus command. And baptized everyone in the name of Jesus. There is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved.

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
 
Wansvic said:
There is no pitting one scripture against the other. There is no contradiction. The apostles obeyed Jesus command. And baptized everyone in the name of Jesus. There is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved.

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12
Click to expand...

So is baptism the same as salvation?
 
LightBearer316 said:
Yep, that’s exactly what it is. The Oneness/“Jesus Only”/UPCI - United Pentecostal Church International movement really does operate with a hive-mind mentality — same talking points, same circular reasoning. Once you’ve seen the pattern, it’s hard to miss.
Click to expand...

True for all systematic theologies which is why we have so many different hives, including the faith-alone hive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back