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.
Cameron143 said:
This doesn't change the heart. It simply stops fellowship.
Click to expand...

The reason @ChristRoseFromTheDead keeps missing the mark is because he’s no longer reading Scripture as it is written, but reshaping it to fit his own system. When a person forces Scripture to say what their theology demands, clarity gives way to confusion.

That’s exactly what Paul warned about in 2 Timothy 3:7 (KJV) —

“Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”​

And 2 Peter 3:16 (KJV) describes what happens when people twist the Word:

“…in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”​

When you keep revising the plain meaning of God’s Word to sustain your theology, the Lord eventually gives you over to that confusion (Romans 1:21–22 KJV). This is truly a terrifying state.

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!
 
Cameron143 said:
Can you give an example?
Click to expand...

If you do something unrighteous the spirit will witness in your heart of your error. If you hearken to its voice and amend your behavior then your heart will remain soft to the voice of the spirit, and you will continue to grow and learn of Christ

However, if you don't listen and continue in unrighteousness your heart will grow hard and become unresponsive to the spirit's voice and learning and growth will stop..
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
If you do something unrighteous the spirit will witness in your heart of your error. If you hearken to its voice and amend your behavior then your heart will remain soft to the voice of the spirit, and you will continue to grow and learn of Christ

However, if you don't listen and continue in unrighteousness your heart will grow hard and become unresponsive to the spirit's voice and learning and growth will stop..
Click to expand...
You have the Spirit acting. That's God. You have Him witnessing to the heart. That's inward action of God. Hence...it is God working upon the heart. Your actions aren't changing your heart. God is.
 
Cameron143 said:
You have the Spirit acting. That's God. You have Him witnessing to the heart. That's inward action of God. Hence...it is God working upon the heart. Your actions aren't changing your heart. God is.
Click to expand...

Yes, and we help the work God is doing by hearkening to his voice and aligning our behavior with his will. But if we don't do those things then God can't conform our heart.
 
studier said:
We've discussed this.

Citing is not exegesis.

Repetition is not proof.

Strawman in use once again and is poor argument.

Rom1:5 and Rom16:26 do not say root and fruit. We've discussed a few of the potential genitive classifications beyond the one you're choosing.

I've already addressed the rest of your post and the fallacies in use.
Click to expand...

You’ve avoided the actual text again, and that’s becoming a pattern.

Calling it “systematic theology” or dismissing it with “citing isn’t exegesis” doesn’t change what Paul actually wrote. You haven’t refuted the Greek — you’ve just sidestepped it.

Romans 1:5 KJV and 16:26 KJV both use the exact phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως (“unto the obedience of faith”). That construction isn’t random or stylistic — Paul uses it deliberately as bookends to define his entire gospel argument. The obedience flows from faith; it doesn’t redefine it. The genitive is descriptive, not appositional — and no amount of hand-waving changes that.

If obedience were the same thing as faith, then Romans 4:5 KJV makes no sense:

“To him that worketh not, but believeth…”​
Paul would be contradicting himself in the same letter.​

And James 2 doesn’t save your point either — James exposes dead faith, not faith redefined as obedience.

When the grammar, syntax, and cross-references all line up against your interpretation, labeling it a “fallacy” doesn’t rescue it — it just exposes that you’re arguing around Scripture instead of through 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.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
 
LightBearer316 said:
You’ve avoided the actual text again, and that’s becoming a pattern.

Calling it “systematic theology” or dismissing it with “citing isn’t exegesis” doesn’t change what Paul actually wrote. You haven’t refuted the Greek — you’ve just sidestepped it.

Romans 1:5 KJV and 16:26 KJV both use the exact phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως (“unto the obedience of faith”). That construction isn’t random or stylistic — Paul uses it deliberately as bookends to define his entire gospel argument. The obedience flows from faith; it doesn’t redefine it. The genitive is descriptive, not appositional — and no amount of hand-waving changes that.

If obedience were the same thing as faith, then Romans 4:5 KJV makes no sense:

“To him that worketh not, but believeth…”​
Paul would be contradicting himself in the same letter.​

And James 2 doesn’t save your point either — James exposes dead faith, not faith redefined as obedience.

When the grammar, syntax, and cross-references all line up against your interpretation, labeling it a “fallacy” doesn’t rescue it — it just exposes that you’re arguing around Scripture instead of through 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.”
https://ergonis.com/typinator
Highly Recommended - great for often cited scripture verses!
Click to expand...
amen
 
LightBearer316 said:
Romans 1:5 KJV and 16:26 KJV both use the exact phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως (“unto the obedience of faith”). That construction isn’t random or stylistic — Paul uses it deliberately as bookends to define his entire gospel argument. The obedience flows from faith; it doesn’t redefine it. The genitive is descriptive, not appositional — and no amount of hand-waving changes that.
Click to expand...

Have you been trained in Greek?

Are you deriving the above from commentaries or other means, like AI, or articles written by others, or?

LightBearer316 said:
Paul’s phrase “obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5; 16:26 KJV) doesn’t make obedience and faith the same act — it shows their relationship. The genitive phrase (hypakoē pisteōs) is best understood as obedience that springs from faith, not obedience that equals faith. In other words, faith is the root, obedience is the fruit.
Click to expand...

This was your previous statement about Rom1:5 and Rom16:26.

It has no genitive classification, only an assertion of what you say the Greek phrase means, and is nothing more than an assertion to fit a favored systematic theology.

This unsubstantiated assertion was your answer to my post #443 which has more detail that you ignored and have never answered.

The newest version above has a genitive classification - "descriptive" - which does not translate as you say it does. Properly translated to remove some ambiguity, it actually would support my explanation over yours.

I'm trained in this arena, LightBearer316. I recognize a ruse when I see one.

I'll rest here for now and see if you'll answer my above questions.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
You're just speaking from the imagination of your own heart. Do what you always ask me and support it with scripture
Click to expand...
What you have postulated is that God is unable to make someone righteous without their approval. Yet, He can do so with consent. In doing so, you have established that God can do so, at least under certain conditions. Logically, you don't think He does this, but assent that He can.

Perhaps @studier can explain it to you.
 
studier said:
Have you been trained in Greek?

Are you deriving the above from commentaries or other means, like AI, or articles written by others, or?
This was your previous statement about Rom1:5 and Rom16:26.

It has no genitive classification, only an assertion of what you say the Greek phrase means, and is nothing more than an assertion to fit a favored systematic theology.

The newest version above has a genitive classification - "descriptive" - which does not translate as you say it does. Properly translated to remove some ambiguity, it actually would support my explanation over yours.

I'm trained in this arena, LightBearer316. I recognize a ruse when I see one.

I'll rest here for now and see if you'll answer my above questions.
Click to expand...

The only thing you seem trained in is deception, projection, and deflection — including your use of AI.
When it comes to AI, the one who’s been using it all along is you — not me.
And I’ve got proof of it right there from my IT friend. That’s the evidence — plain as day.
Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

You keep asking whether I’ve “been trained in Greek” — as if exegesis depends on credentials instead of accuracy. The question isn’t who’s trained; it’s what the text says.

Romans 1:5 KJV and 16:26 KJV both use the identical phrase εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως. That’s not a theological invention — it’s Paul’s own syntax. The genitive πίστεως naturally reads as a source or descriptive genitive (obedience that arises from faith), not an appositional one that collapses faith and obedience into the same act. That’s why most standard grammars (Wallace, Robertson, Blass–Debrunner–Funk) classify it as such.

If Paul meant “obedience which is faith,” he would have used the appositional construction he employs elsewhere — but he didn’t. And Romans 4:5 prevents that reading anyway:
“To him that worketh not, but believeth…”​

That single verse rules out equating faith with any act of obedience.

So the issue isn’t training, it’s textual honesty. The grammar stands where it always has — faith is the root, obedience is the fruit.

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
Cameron143 said:
What you have postulated is that God is unable to make someone righteous without their approval. Yet, He can do so with consent. In doing so, you have established that God can do so, at least under certain conditions. Logically, you don't think He does this, but assent that He can.

Perhaps @studier can explain it to you.
Click to expand...

Now you're trying to reason your way out of providing the scriptural support for your claim that I requested.

Righteouness is action, not an imagined state of being. God cannot force any man to act righteously because that comes from a man's heart, which God can speak to and influence, but cannot control. To say otherwise is to violate every example of God's dealings with man in scripture

I don't think that @studier will make the same claim you are making that God can make a person righteous against their will.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Now you're trying to reason your way out of providing the scriptural support for your claim that I requested.

Righteouness is action, not an imagined state of being. God cannot force any man to act righteously because that comes from a man's heart, which God can speak to and influence, but cannot control. To say otherwise is to violate every example of God's dealings with man in scripture

I don't think that @studier will make the same claim you are making that God can make a person righteous against their will.
Click to expand...

he actually will not be involved in the discussion and bowed out with @Cameron143 earlier, so don't think I'll be of any support one way or another unless I see something of interest & emoji it or jump in for some reason.
 
ChristRoseFromTheDead said:
Now you're trying to reason your way out of providing the scriptural support for your claim that I requested.

Righteouness is action, not an imagined state of being. God cannot force any man to act righteously because that comes from a man's heart, which God can speak to and influence, but cannot control. To say otherwise is to violate every example of God's dealings with man in scripture

I don't think that @studier will make the same claim you are making that God can make a person righteous against their will.
Click to expand...
Our righteousness isn't our action, but Christ's. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. Notwithstanding this, my argument wasn't from scripture, but logic. If God can make someone righteous who consents, we know that God has the ability to make make someone righteous. Since the ability resides inside God and not any individual, God's ability is only limited by God Himself. So again, you may not believe God acts in such a manner, but you have already acknowledged that He has the ability to do so.
 
studier said:
he actually will not be involved in the discussion and bowed out with @Cameron143 earlier, so don't think I'll be of any support one way or another unless I see something of interest & emoji it or jump in for some reason.
Click to expand...
That's unfortunate. You could have been very helpful. Your mind is quite logical.
 
Cameron143 said:
Our righteousness isn't our action, but Christ's. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. Notwithstanding this, my argument wasn't from scripture, but logic. If God can make someone righteous who consents, we know that God has the ability to make make someone righteous. Since the ability resides inside God and not any individual, God's ability is only limited by God Himself. So again, you may not believe God acts in such a manner, but you have already acknowledged that He has the ability to do so.
Click to expand...

Your logic is faltering. You go from saying God can make someone righteous with their consent to saying in the next sentence that the ability lies solely with God. That's contradictory
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back