Acts 2:38 Comparison: Evangelical vs. Oneness / Baptismal-Regeneration View
- Thread starter LightBearer316
- Start date
-
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.
TrustandObey intentionally clipped my quote to remove the context that made my statement accurate and biblical. This reveals how deceptive he really is. Yet even with TrustandObey more like never trust, we can go back to the original post and expose his deceptions.
Nice try, but you clipped half the sentence to invent a point I never made. The PROVES you are deceptive and a liar!
What I actually said was:
“Faith that saves always acts — but it’s the faith that saves, not the action. The action just proves the faith was real.”
You conveniently dropped the first half — the part that affirms that saving faith always produces action. That’s exactly what James 2:18 KJV says:
“I will shew thee my faith by my works.”
So no, I’m not saying actions don’t matter. I’m saying what Ephesians 2:8–10 KJV says — that faith is the root, and works are the fruit.
Leaving out the context doesn’t make your case stronger; it just proves you had to trim the truth to argue against 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!
You can read it right in the post — TrustandObey cut my statement in half to change its meaning. That’s what I was addressing.
If you’re genuinely asking “why,” it’s simple: context matters. Misquoting someone’s words to flip their meaning isn’t honest discussion; it’s a distortion.
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!
Deflection as expected even beginning with Ad Hominem personal attack.
I've actually only asked you once (as I recall) about Greek training. I expected you to not answer and deflect.
Now you've added a 2nd classification of genitive which actually is the one you should have focused on from the beginning. If I keep sending you back to the resources you use, eventually you do seem to become a bit more aware. Glad to help.
You're quoting resources again. Care to provide links and/or excerpts to them as you should, or are we to supposed to accept them, especially after I provided the work necessary to show you were misrepresenting the last ones you used like this.
It looks to me like you're at best copying a statement made in some commentary you're relying on but heretofore unwilling to provide the name(s) of.
So, let's look at one of your references I was taught from for part of Greek training. At the bottom is where Wallace lists Rom1:5 and note the parenthesis "(perhaps)":
Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Daniel B. Wallace - P.105-106:
14. Genitive of Production/Producer [produced by]
a. Definition
The genitive substantive produces the noun to which it stands related. This usage of the genitive is not common.
105
b. Key to Identification
For the word of supply produced by.
c. Amplification
This usage is similar to a subjective genitive, but the genitive of production is either not related to a verbal noun or expresses a relation to a verbal noun that is better translated as “produced by” than by converting the genitive into the subject and converting the noun to which it stands related into a verbal form.89
It is also similar to a genitive of source, but tends to involve a more active role on the part of the genitive. Thus, “angel from heaven” (source) simply indicates the source or origin from which the angel came. But “peace of God” suggests both source and involvement on the part of God.
d. Illustrations (possible)
τη ἑνότητα τοῦ πνεύματος
the unity of the Spirit
Here, “the unity of the Spirit” probably = “the unity produced by the Spirit.” Although the gen. is related to a verbal noun, it would lose some of its force to say, “[by being diligent to maintain] what the Spirit unites.” Thus, to call τοῦ πνεύματος a subjective gen. does not seem to do full justice to the author’s thought here.
θανατοῦ δὲ σταυροῦ
even death of a cross
σταυροῦ may be a gen. of means; thus, “death by means of a cross.” Or it may possibly be a gen. of place; thus, “death on a cross.” However, to take it as a gen. of production brings out the force of the author’s thought a little better: “death produced by, brought about by a cross.” The δέ makes the statement emphatic (“even”),90 which fits well with a gen. of production.
ὁ γὰρ καρπὸς τοῦ φωτὸς ἐν πάσῃ ἀγαθωσύνῃ . . .
for the fruit of the light91 consists in all goodness . . .
Fruit produced by the light seems to fit well in this context where the light imagery seems to involve the status of salvation.
106
καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ ὑπερέχουσα πάντα νοῦν φρουρήσει τὰς καρδίας ὑμῶν92
and the peace of God which surpasses all understanding will guard your hearts
Although this could be an attributed gen. (thus, “peacemaking God”), in this context it is doubtful, for it is obvious that God surpasses all understanding (further, that point is later made in v 9 [ὁ θεὸς τῆς εἰρήνης]). Subjective will not do for it is the entity, peace, not the act of making it, which is in view. And a gen. of source, though certainly possible, typically does not imply the element of volition which is seen here. The thought of production is: “the peace produced by God.”
So, Wallace does not support this classification any more than saying "perhaps".
(cont'd)
(cont'd)
Wallace also played a major role in the NET Bible translation of the NC and in providing the verse Notes for it. Here is Rom1:5 with notes numbering and the Notes from the NET Bible. I'm highlighting in bold the applicable portion re: the genitive and underlining some of its statments:
So, we can see that Wallace does not fully support the Genitive of Production (which has similarity to Subjective and Source Genitives and he doesn't because there is significant scholarly discussion about this phrase. And when we get into Subjective Genitives they can be interpreted in senses that do not make Production or Source clear as being Subjective as can be seen in #2 in the above Note #15.
I don't recall whether or not I've read the Cranfield article Wallace references, but I have read and have a copy of Garlington's article. As I recall, I read this article after I first began interpreting apposition as probable in Rom1:5 and Rom16:26 and seeing how important these verses are to Paul's view of what genuine faith is and to the entire Romans letter, if not all of his writings.
If you really want to do some reading and research, I'd recommend reading Garlington's article - at least the first one as I think it consists of 3 or more parts/articles.
In closing: You're misrepresenting resources again. If you're copying parts of commentaries from Logos or elsewhere, I'd suggest you be more cautious and do more homework. I'd also suggest you do as I requested before and provide links to resources you post. You may be able to make some think you're providing credible information and explanations of Scripture, but there are some of us who can see what you're actually doing, and who know what systematic theology your work is based in and coming from.
Wallace also played a major role in the NET Bible translation of the NC and in providing the verse Notes for it. Here is Rom1:5 with notes numbering and the Notes from the NET Bible. I'm highlighting in bold the applicable portion re: the genitive and underlining some of its statments:
NET Romans 1:5 Through him12 we have received grace and our apostleship13 to bring about the obedience14 of faith15 among all the Gentiles on behalf of his name.
NET Notes (Rom 1:5)
12 tn Grk "through whom."
13 tn Some interpreters understand the phrase "grace and apostleship" as a hendiadys, translating "grace [i.e., gift] of apostleship." The pronoun "our" is supplied in the translation to clarify the sense of the statement.
14 tn Grk "and apostleship for obedience."
15 tn The phrase ὒπακοὴν πίστεως has been variously understood as (1) an objective genitive (a reference to the Christian faith, "obedience to [the] faith"); (2) a subjective genitive ("the obedience faith produces [or requires]"); (3) an attributive genitive ("believing obedience"); or (4) as a genitive of apposition ("obedience, [namely] faith") in which "faith" further defines "obedience." These options are discussed by C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans (ICC), 1:66. Others take the phrase as deliberately ambiguous; see D. B. Garlington, "The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans: Part I: The Meaning of ὒπακοὴ πίστεως (Rom 1:5; 16:26)," WTJ 52 (1990): 201-24.
So, we can see that Wallace does not fully support the Genitive of Production (which has similarity to Subjective and Source Genitives and he doesn't because there is significant scholarly discussion about this phrase. And when we get into Subjective Genitives they can be interpreted in senses that do not make Production or Source clear as being Subjective as can be seen in #2 in the above Note #15.
I don't recall whether or not I've read the Cranfield article Wallace references, but I have read and have a copy of Garlington's article. As I recall, I read this article after I first began interpreting apposition as probable in Rom1:5 and Rom16:26 and seeing how important these verses are to Paul's view of what genuine faith is and to the entire Romans letter, if not all of his writings.
If you really want to do some reading and research, I'd recommend reading Garlington's article - at least the first one as I think it consists of 3 or more parts/articles.
In closing: You're misrepresenting resources again. If you're copying parts of commentaries from Logos or elsewhere, I'd suggest you be more cautious and do more homework. I'd also suggest you do as I requested before and provide links to resources you post. You may be able to make some think you're providing credible information and explanations of Scripture, but there are some of us who can see what you're actually doing, and who know what systematic theology your work is based in and coming from.
You’re reaching again. The Wallace note you’re quoting (“perhaps”) doesn’t affirm your interpretation — it simply acknowledges a possible genitive-of-production reading. Wallace himself explicitly says it’s rare and not the natural default. That “perhaps” tells you everything — it’s a footnote of possibility, not endorsement.
If you actually read the paragraph you cited, Wallace describes the genitive of production as similar to a genitive of source but involving a more active sense. That reinforces exactly what I’ve said: faith as the source from which obedience arises. He even uses “produced by” language, which supports the descriptive/source reading, not an appositional one that equates faith and obedience.
The text of Romans 1:5 KJV and 16:26 KJV stands on its own — εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως — obedience that flows from faith. You can quote pages of grammar, but the syntax doesn’t change: faith remains the root, obedience 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!
You’re selectively reading Wallace again. Quoting the NET Bible notes doesn’t help your point—it actually shows how unsettled this issue is linguistically, not the certainty you’re claiming.
Wallace lists several possible genitive options precisely because, grammatically, none of them collapse faith and obedience into a single act. His point about ambiguity isn’t a license to redefine the phrase; it’s an acknowledgment that Paul’s wording is rich enough to imply faith producing obedience without equating the two.
That aligns with everything Paul says throughout Romans—faith as the source, obedience as the outcome. “Obedience of faith” isn’t “obedience which is faith,” and no amount of citations changes that basic grammatical reality.
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!
It is clearly you who needs to do some reading.
The only place Wallace lists Rom1:5 is under Production as I've shown. If you actually have Wallace's grammar you can verify this.
Wallace does not list it under Source or any other classification, nor does he list Rom16:26 with the same phrase under Source or any other heading. So, he's not identifying it as Source as you said he did, and he only lists it as "perhaps" falling under Production.
You're simply left with no substantiation for your posting Wallace as substantiating your supposed view as Source.
When its translated in the NET project, he chose the completely ambiguous "of" and provided the fairly extensive Note to explain why. In that Note Wallace doesn't even list Genitive of Source as a consideration.
He does list a Subjective Genitive under that Note which gives you an opening "2) a subjective genitive ("the obedience faith produces [or requires]")" but quickly takes strict "produces" away as the only meaning under the subjective heading by adding "or requires".
Honestly, such blatant disregard for truth almost sends me into tilt mode at times.
Wallace's Note clearly also says one of the potential Genitive classifications discussed by the scholars is; "(4) as a genitive of apposition ("obedience, [namely] faith") in which "faith" further defines "obedience."
This is saying and doing precisely what you're denying it does.
Simply stated once again - You've once again listed a resource that does not say what you say it does.
You're now even attempting to deny this.
In what may be one of Paul's most foundational statements explaining genuine faith, you went from: (1) no explanation of the Genitive phrase and forcing some inane root and fruit concept on us, to: (2) telling us it's a Descriptive Genitive, which Wallace does not state and which he describes as "This is the “catch-all” genitive, the “drip pan” genitive, the “black hole” of genitive categories that tries to suck many a genitive into its grasp!" (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics p.79), to: (3) a Genitive of Source, which you say Wallace substantiates when he does not.
Accept your error.
I'd advise you to see if you can get ahold of the Garlington article. It's well done. It'll also inject another consideration into this discussion from another angle. I'm not inclined to do any more work for you while you're posting error like this as fact and not admitting it.
You’re missing the key point, and your own quotation actually confirms it.
Wallace doesn’t “endorse” the genitive of production — he calls it rare and notes it’s similar to a genitive of source. That’s precisely the point: he’s describing relationship and origin, not identity or equivalence.
When he says the genitive “produces” the noun, that aligns with a source/descriptive idea — the obedience arises from faith. It’s not an appositional reading (“obedience = faith”), and it’s not the grammatical equivalence you’ve been trying to force.
Even your NET note citation undercuts your claim. The “ambiguous of” construction was deliberately chosen because the Greek doesn’t make obedience and faith identical — it shows dependence. Paul’s point isn’t that obedience is faith, but that obedience flows from faith.
So, you can keep quoting Wallace, but every line you cite keeps supporting exactly what I said: 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!
@studier,
You’re still conflating grammatical possibility with exegetical necessity. Wallace’s note lists several potential genitive readings precisely because the construction isn’t rigid — but none of them equate faith and obedience. That’s why he includes the appositional genitive as one scholarly proposal, not as his own conclusion.
If you’d read carefully, Wallace’s own language (“perhaps,” “rare,” “similar to source”) shows that he distinguishes production and apposition from the natural descriptive sense — faith as the source or sphere from which obedience arises. His summary on p.106 makes that explicit.
The NET Bible footnote reflects this ambiguity intentionally — translating “obedience of faith” rather than “obedience which is faith.” That’s because Paul’s syntax doesn’t collapse the two ideas into one act; it expresses dependence, not identity.
So, there’s no “error” to admit — only a refusal on your part to recognize that Wallace presents multiple scholarly options while personally favoring none. That’s the very definition of grammatical openness, not misrepresentation.
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!
The issue of what is "affirmed" is not being debated.
The issue is simply this, is there a need for action in order to receive the remission of sins?
I stand by my statement. The quote is accurate.
You are implying that action "just" proves salvation and does not play a role in its granting to us.
I am not being "deceptive and a liar".
Is this not was you believe? Is this not your theology?
The issue isn’t whether genuine faith acts — we agree it does. The question is what causes salvation.
Scripture draws a consistent line: faith is the root, works are the fruit (Eph 2:8-10 KJV; Titus 3:5-8 KJV).
When James says “faith without works is dead,” he’s not redefining salvation — he’s describing the evidence of living faith.
So yes, obedience matters — but it follows salvation’s gift; it doesn’t purchase it. Otherwise, grace is no more grace (Romans 11:6 KJV).
Grace and Peace
Though you don't normally answer questions, another question for you: Do you actually have Wallace's book?
The above is your statement that started this.
- You identify this Genitive in the phrase "obedience [of] faith" in Rom1:5 as a Source or Descriptive Genitive and identify Wallace as supporting this
- Wallace which I actually quoted from says it is "perhaps" a Genitive of Production, which is not common and which is "similar to a genitive of source, but tends to involve a more active role on the part of the genitive"
- Conclusion: Wallace doe not substantiate the "source...genitive" as you said.
- Wallace on p.79 has as his first category of Genitives under the main category of Genitives - Adjectival Genitives -the "Descriptive" Genitive.
- Wallace does not categorize Rom1:5 under this very broad category of which he has this to say, "This is the “catch-all” genitive, the “drip pan” genitive, the “black hole” of genitive categories that tries to suck many a genitive into its grasp! In some respects, all adjectival genitives are descriptive, yet no adjectival genitive is descriptive. That is to say, although all adjectival genitives are, by their nature, descriptive, very few, if any, belong only to this specific category of usage."
- Conclusion: Wallace doe not substantiate the "descriptive genitive" as you said
- Wallace does not categorize Rom1:5 under this very broad category of which he has this to say, "This is the “catch-all” genitive, the “drip pan” genitive, the “black hole” of genitive categories that tries to suck many a genitive into its grasp! In some respects, all adjectival genitives are descriptive, yet no adjectival genitive is descriptive. That is to say, although all adjectival genitives are, by their nature, descriptive, very few, if any, belong only to this specific category of usage."
- Wallace which I actually quoted from says it is "perhaps" a Genitive of Production, which is not common and which is "similar to a genitive of source, but tends to involve a more active role on the part of the genitive"
You're making my point - Wallace does not endorse the Genitive of Source as you claimed.
In fact, Wallace doesn't even "endorse" any classification for Rom1:5 in his Grammar and only says "perhaps" it is Production, which is similar to but not the same as Source.
- Conclusion: Wallace doe not substantiate the "source...genitive" as you said.
- Above you say "Wallace doesn’t “endorse” the genitive of production"
- We are agreed
- Then you say "When he [Wallace} says the genitive “produces” the noun"
- Wallace says in his Grammar what the Genitive of Production means - but Wallace only says "perhaps" the Rom1:5 phrase is Production
- Then you say "produces"...aligns with a source/descriptive idea"
- There is similarity between Production and Source but they are not the same
- All Adjectival Genitives (including Appositional Genitives) are descriptive but not "Descriptive"
- Wallace says "perhaps" Rom1:5 is Production but does not endorse Production - so he does not endorse Source
- Your statement is immaterial because Wallace does not endorse Production or Source
- Your statement is potentially overstated because "aligns" is ambiguous.
- You're blurring categories as "ideas".
- If Production was being endorsed - which it's not - then ideas would be pertinent discussion
- Since Wallace says "perhaps" it's Production to which Source is similar but different, you're simply working too hard to make Wallace supportive of your claim of "Source"
Again, I've read one of the articles Wallace cites and have suggested you try to get a copy and do the same. I thus know in part why the ambiguous "of" was chosen for translation. You're only speculating.
Not only are you speculating, but you are wrong in saying, "because the Greek doesn’t make obedience and faith identical — it shows dependence"
- In actuality, the ambiguous "of" was chosen due to the outstanding scholarly debates about categorizing the Genitive as Wallace notes. So the NET translation chose the ambiguity to allow for the debates.
- Within those debates Wallace's category of Source is not even included.
- The Subjective category is included which can have a source idea.
- Within those debates Apposition is specifically included.
- Within those debates Wallace's category of Source is not even included.
- In conclusion,
- You're telling us what the ambiguity means - but Wallace in his NET Notes informs us that it means much more than you're saying - and Wallace specifically includes Apposition in the ambiguity
- You're again asserting what Paul is saying in Rom1:5 & Rom16:26 when in fact the research does not support you in any sense of finality or consensus.
- You're welcome to your opinion but it's only opinion.
- You chose to provide Wallace as supporting evidence for your opinion and Wallace though he "perhaps" may support Production, did not support a Genitive of Source.
Misrepresents the scholarship to favor a chosen systematic theology. Simply an opinion among opinions, including mine.
I will tell you that the Garlington article Wallace cites concludes that in his view what he calls an Adjectival Genitive, which looks to me like what Wallace calls an Attributive Genitive, was his choice and the translation should be "believing obedience".
Wallace's definition and explanation of the Attributive Genitive on P.86 (highlights are mine):
5. Attributive Genitive (Hebrew Genitive, Genitive of Quality)42
a. Definition
The genitive substantive specifies an attribute or innate quality of the head substantive. It is similar to a simple adjective in its semantic force, though more emphatic: it “expresses quality like an adjective indeed, but with more sharpness and distinctness.”43 The category is very common in the NT, largely due to the Semitic mindset of most of its authors.44
After reading Garlington, my assumption from what he's said is that the above from Wallace is the category Wallace would match to Garlington.
As such what we end up with is essentially:
- The genitive substantive "faith" specifies an attribute or innate quality of the head substantive "obedience"
- It would be emphatic
- Faith would be sharply and distinctly expressing the quality of obedience.
- This would align with Garlington's "believing obedience"
- Assuming agreement with Garlington, I would prefer "faithful obedience" combining faithfulness (Heb3:1-2, et.al.) and obedience (Phil2:8; Rom5:19; Heb5:8).
- My position has been for some time that faith & obedience are appositional leaving us with faith/obedience not as equality but showing an equivalence.
- Having and equivalence and combined they simply end up speaking of faithfulness - being faithful to God as was His first-born Son.
Answer: Active faith/obedience is cooperative cause with God being the Cause.
1John3:23a - a simple syllogism:
Premise 1: God commands men to believe in the name of His Son.
Premise 2: Doing what God commands is obedience to God.
Conclusion: Therefore, believing in the name of the Son is obedience to God.
Faith/Obedience Rom1:5; Rom16:26
John & Paul.
Premise 1: God commands men to believe in the name of His Son.
Premise 2: Doing what God commands is obedience to God.
Conclusion: Therefore, believing in the name of the Son is obedience to God.
Faith/Obedience Rom1:5; Rom16:26
John & Paul.
Baptismal regeneration is the work of the Spirit through faith at the moment of water baptism (Acts 2:38) not the product of some unstated level of belief.
Water baptism is no more a "ritual" than the walking around the walls of Jericho was a ritual. The walls fell when the Hebrews obeyed not before. The Hebrews did not earn the victory they simply obeyed God and He did the rest.
Your belief that there is some merit in water baptism is clouding your theology.
Water baptism is a trusting submission to God. You are acting as if it is something that people do to earn salvation.
Faith alone regeneration theology is and always has been a theology without an example. A theology based on adding a definitive into the meaning of certain verses, twisting them into all-encompassing statements and then using their altered meanings to negate other verses.
Anyone can come up with a theology if they are willing to add a definitive into a passage.
Its some easy even a caveman can do it
.
I'm repeating an important phrase in the argument.
And again.
Nicely stated.
Appreciate your detailed reply. Yes — I actually do have Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, and I’m familiar with his treatment of the genitive constructions.
The point I made about εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως in Romans 1:5 KJV and 16:26 KJV isn’t based merely on Wallace’s categorization, but on the consistent semantic relationship Paul expresses between faith and obedience. The genitive πίστεως naturally functions as a source or descriptive genitive — that is, obedience that proceeds from or characterizes faith.
This is exactly how Paul treats faith elsewhere:
- Romans 10:16–17 KJV – “They have not all obeyed the gospel... So then faith cometh by hearing.” Faith leads to obedience.
- Romans 6:17 KJV – “Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.”
- Galatians 5:6 KJV – “Faith which worketh by love.”
Even if Wallace calls the “descriptive” category broad, that doesn’t negate the pattern Paul’s syntax establishes throughout Romans — faith as the source and animating power behind obedience. In other words, the genitive here reflects the same theological reality expressed elsewhere:
“By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name.” (Romans 1:5 KJV)
It’s obedience that flows from faith — faith that saves, and then acts (Ephesians 2:8–10; James 2:18 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!