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

[CS1]

That's not how the logic works. You're inserting sequence.

Yes, "faith is obedience to the command to believe" which is what I've been saying and what the logic says.

You're inserting "earning" into the logic & grammar:

• Faith/Obedience is the required & structured response to the Gospel

The syllogism:

Premise 1: Faith is Obedience (1John3:23)
Premise 2: Faith is not works (Eph2:8-9)
Conclusion: Therefore, Obedience is not works

question is grace given before water Baptism or after?

 

[LightBearer316]

I appreciate the detailed response, but this isn’t about forcing a theology — it’s about following Paul’s consistent usage. The genitive debate (whether Source, Production, or Apposition) doesn’t change Paul’s own pattern:

• Romans 10:16–17 (KJV) — “They have not all obeyed the gospel... So then faith cometh by hearing.”
• Romans 6:17 (KJV) — “Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine.”
• Galatians 5:6 (KJV) — “Faith which worketh by love.”

In every case, obedience is the fruit of faith, not a co-equal act with it. Whether one classifies Romans 1:5 as “Source,” “Production,” or “Descriptive,” the semantic force remains: faith gives rise to obedience.

Paul never merges faith and obedience as identical causes — he maintains their relationship as root and fruit (Romans 4:5 KJV). That’s not theology imposed on the text; that’s theology derived from 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]

That's not how the logic works. You're inserting sequence.

Yes, "faith is obedience to the command to believe" which is what I've been saying and what the logic says.

You're inserting "earning" into the logic & grammar:

• Faith/Obedience is the required & structured response to the Gospel

The syllogism:

Premise 1: Faith is Obedience (1John3:23)
Premise 2: Faith is not works (Eph2:8-9)
Conclusion: Therefore, Obedience is not works

The issue isn’t whether faith obeys — genuine faith always does. The question is how Scripture defines that relationship.

In 1 John 3:23 (KJV), John isn’t redefining faith as obedience; he’s describing obedience to the command to believe. That’s categorical, not equivalential — faith fulfills the command, but it isn’t identical to obedience itself.

Paul makes the same distinction in Romans 4:5 (KJV) — “To him that worketh not, but believeth…” Faith and works (including any act of obedience) are mutually exclusive as the basis of justification.

So yes, faith responds obediently to God’s command, but salvation comes through believing, not through the act of obedience itself. Faith obeys because it trusts — not because it earns.

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]

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.

My point isn’t that Wallace formally labels Romans 1:5 KJV as “Source,” but that his description fits that semantic range: obedience that arises out of faith. That’s the same relationship Paul develops repeatedly — faith producing obedience (Rom 10:16-17 KJV; Rom 6:17 KJV; Gal 5:6 KJV).

This may be your point now, but you're moving the goalposts as is clear between your above 2 posts.

When you decide what your point is and will remain, let me know.

 

[studier]

If salvation were a “cooperative cause,” grace would no longer be grace. Scripture makes it clear that God alone is the efficient cause of salvation, and faith is the means by which we receive it—not a co-agent in producing it.

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.”

Faith and obedience follow salvation’s cause, not share in it. God is the sole Author (Heb 12:2), and faith is the instrument through which His saving grace operates—“to him that worketh not, but believeth” (Rom 4:5). Any view that makes man a “co-cause” turns grace into merit.

If we're deterministic in our theology, then cooperation is denied. I don't agree with determinism.

I realize "cause" can be sticky, but salvation by grace (Cause) through faith (means / instrumental / cooperative cause).

Cooperation does not have to mean co-agency:

• Co-agency: Two or more agents jointly producing an effect as co-causes. Each has efficient causal power.
• Instrumental cooperation: One agent responds to or participates in the working of another, without sharing equal causal initiative. It’s receptive and responsive, not co-creative.

This is why I personally do not use "synergy" vs. "monergy" and prefer cooperation in the above explained sense.

• Synergy: the combined action of two or more agents producing an effect greater than what either could achieve alone.

Re: "Co-Cause": A co-cause is an efficient cause working alongside another, each exercising independent causal power that contributes to the effect (taken from Web search).

• Again, this is different than Instrumental cooperation.

Believe and receive are active verbs. We are involved in the process via instrumental cooperation - faith/obedience, neither of which are meritorious works.

 

[studier]

That’s fair — Wallace doesn’t explicitly “endorse” any one category for Romans 1:5 KJV. But he does describe the Genitive of Production as “similar to a Genitive of Source,” which captures the same underlying relationship of origin or dependence.

My statement simply reflects that nuance — not an appeal to authority, but a recognition that Paul’s syntax fits that semantic range. The broader Pauline pattern (Romans 6:17KJV; 10:16–17; Galatians 5:6 KJV) consistently shows obedience proceeding from faith, not equated with it.

But you did appeal to authority using Wallace as one of those authorities for supporting your opinion that Rom1:5 contains a Genitive of Source that Wallace doe not support or endorse.

 

[studier]

I appreciate the detailed response, but this isn’t about forcing a theology — it’s about following Paul’s consistent usage. The genitive debate (whether Source, Production, or Apposition) doesn’t change Paul’s own pattern:

• Romans 10:16–17 (KJV) — “They have not all obeyed the gospel... So then faith cometh by hearing.”
• Romans 6:17 (KJV) — “Ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine.”
• Galatians 5:6 (KJV) — “Faith which worketh by love.”

In every case, obedience is the fruit of faith, not a co-equal act with it. Whether one classifies Romans 1:5 as “Source,” “Production,” or “Descriptive,” the semantic force remains: faith gives rise to obedience.

Paul never merges faith and obedience as identical causes — he maintains their relationship as root and fruit (Romans 4:5 KJV). That’s not theology imposed on the text; that’s theology derived from it.

Pleasantries are fine but patronizing when you don't actually respond to the content and simply repeat your original content.

And I'll have to disagree: this entire discussion pertains to your forcing a theology onto Scripture. Faith-Alone theology needs Rom1:5 "obedience of faith" and every other instance of their obvious parallelism in Scripture to be your repeated root and fruit and not parallelism.

You used Wallace to support you. I provided explanation that Wallace does not support you. I provided excerpts from Wallace's referenced scholarly articles that show extensive parallelism between faith and obedience in Romans and beyond.

What you accept is obviously up to you, but IMO you are clearly pushing a faith-alone theology, ignoring scholarly input which began with and stems from a reference you provided, and simply repeating a mostly unsubstantiated opinion of how certain Scriptures support and confirm you chose theological system.

 

[studier]

The issue isn’t whether faith obeys — genuine faith always does. The question is how Scripture defines that relationship.

In 1 John 3:23 (KJV), John isn’t redefining faith as obedience; he’s describing obedience to the command to believe. That’s categorical, not equivalential — faith fulfills the command, but it isn’t identical to obedience itself.

Paul makes the same distinction in Romans 4:5 (KJV) — “To him that worketh not, but believeth…” Faith and works (including any act of obedience) are mutually exclusive as the basis of justification.

So yes, faith responds obediently to God’s command, but salvation comes through believing, not through the act of obedience itself. Faith obeys because it trusts — not because it earns.

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!

I've shown you the very simple logic in 1John, the grammar in Romans that compares with it, and the simple logic of how obedience is not works.

Using Rom4:5 to equate obedience to works is not an answer and stands against all I've shown you. Using your thinking we have:

NKJ Rom4:5 But to him who does not work/obey but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

If I use the appositional grammar of Paul in Romans and elsewhere and the logic of 1John3:23 (and elsewhere) and apply it to Rom4:5 I end up with:

NKJ Rom4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on/obeys Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith/obedience is accounted for righteousness,​

​

IMO the latter fits Paul.

If I really were to expand this since obedience is in the heart and then works outwardly, I would say (as I've essentially said before at times):

NKJ Rom4:5 But to him who does not work/obey but believes on/obeys Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith/obedience is accounted for righteousness,​

In line with this, which IMO is the more complete harmonization of the Text, there is more to discuss, but I'm not going to do even more of your work for you as long as you are steadfast in your current course. I've suggested you obtain Garlington's article since you referenced Wallace who references Garlington.

 

[studier]

question is grace given before water Baptism or after?

I'd prefer not to be involved in the overall baptism discussion right now. I discussed Acts2:38 earlier in this thread strictly in regard to the language used in the verse. If it's meaningful, I was baptized and have baptized others.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Did @studier use the word "earns" always with the subtle change in words.

It's all about maintaining the right framing in order to gain a rhetorical advantage

 

[Lamar]

No they marched because God told them to.

That is too simple for him to understand.

 

[studier]

Re: "Obedience [of] Faith" Rom1:5 - C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans Commentary series referenced by Wallace

To add to what I've already said, Daniel B. Wallace in addition to his Greek Grammar - Greek Beyond the Basics - as I understand provided the Notes for the NET Bible. To repeat what I already posted, here is the NET Bible Note for Rom1:5 with my highlight pertaining to the Genitive phrase "obedience [of] faith" (note #15):

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.​

I've discussed to some degree the referenced article by Garlington and did not realize I have the referenced C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans Commentary series in my Logos Library system. I don't normally use commentaries and Logos is not my primary system I study and translate the Text from. Sorry I missed it until now:

Here's Cranfield's work Wallace references from Volume 1, P.66 re: "obedience [of] faith" in Rom1:5. I'm going to highlight part of it to show Cranfield's preference:

ὑπακοὴν πίστεως (my input: "obedience [of] faith") has been variously understood as meaning: (i) ‘obedience to the faith’ (i.e., to faith in the sense of fides quae creditor, the body of doctrine accepted); (ii) ‘obedience to faith’ (i.e., to the authority of faith); (iii) ‘obedience to God’s faithfulness attested in the gospel’; (iv) ‘the obedience which faith works’; (v) ‘the obedience required by faith’; (vi) ‘believing obedience’; (vii) ‘the obedience which consists in faith’. The first three of these interpretations assume that the genitive is objective, the fourth and fifth that it is subjective, the sixth that it is adjectival, the last that it is a genitive of apposition or definition (cf. σημεῖου … περιτομῆς in 4:11). Of these the one which seems to us to suit best the structure of Paul’s thought in Romans is (vii). The equivalence for Paul of faith in God and obedience to Him may be illustrated again and again from this epistle. Paul’s preaching is aimed at obtaining from his hearers true obedience to God, the essence of which is a responding to His message of good news with faith. It is also true to say that to make the decision of faith is an act of obedience toward God and also that true faith by its very nature includes in itself the sincere desire and will to obey God in all things. On πίστις see further on vv. 8, 16 and 17.​

I've shown how this compares to other Scriptures grammatically and how it matches the simple logic of 1John3:23(a).

In Paul's writings genuine faith is primarily faith/obedience. Other NC writers agree.

 

[Lamar]

question is grace given before water Baptism or after?

Classic false dichotomy.

If grace bestows the remission of sins and water baptism is for the the remission of sins, it should be clear.

EASY
Peter said to them, ‘Each of you must stop doing wrong things. You must change how you live. If you believe in Jesus Christ, then we will baptize you. God will forgive you for the wrong things that you have done. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit, who is God's gift to you.
Acts 2:38

Notice the future tense.

Grace does not come before or after water baptism. It comes at water baptism.

 

[mailmandan]

Grace does not come before or after water baptism. It comes at water baptism.

Romans 5:1 - Therefore, having been justified by faith, (and baptism? NO, simply faith) we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace (and baptism? NO, simply faith) in which we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, (and baptism? NO, simply faith) and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Try again.

 

[studier]

Classic false dichotomy.

Good call.

We should helping one another to learn good reasoning skills.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Romans 5:1 - Therefore, having been justified by faith, (and baptism? NO, simply faith) we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom also we have access by faith into this grace (and baptism? NO, simply faith) in which we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith, (and baptism? NO, simply faith) and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

Try again.

Your reasoning fails because Paul didn't mention acknowledging the lord with one's mouth in those verses you quoted, but he did say elsewhere that is a requirement for salvation . It's not the nature of human communication to mention every little detail every single time. Some things are assumed to be understood and included that are not mentioned.

For example, if i someone tells you to change the oil in your car, do they say change the oil and filter? No, of course not because filter change is inherently understood to be part of the process.

 

[mailmandan]

Your reasoning fails because Paul didn't mention acknowledging the lord with one's mouth in those verses you quoted, but he did say elsewhere that is a requirement for salvation . It's not the nature of human communication to mention every little detail every single time. Some things are assumed to be understood and included that are not mentioned.

For example, if i someone tells you to change the oil in your car, do they say change the oil and filter? No, of course not because filter change is inherently understood to be part of the process.

The word a faith is in our mouth and in our heart together. (Romans 10:8) Confession is a confirmation of faith (which is why we will be saved if we confess) and is not a work for salvation after one believes unto righteousness. Confessing with our mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in our heart that God has raised him from the dead are not two separate steps to salvation but are chronologically together. (Romans 10:9,10)

 

[LightBearer316]

I've shown you the very simple logic in 1John, the grammar in Romans that compares with it, and the simple logic of how obedience is not works.

Using Rom4:5 to equate obedience to works is not an answer and stands against all I've shown you. Using your thinking we have:

NKJ Rom4:5 But to him who does not work/obey but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,​

If I use the appositional grammar of Paul in Romans and elsewhere and the logic of 1John3:23 (and elsewhere) and apply it to Rom4:5 I end up with:

NKJ Rom4:5 But to him who does not work but believes on/obeys Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith/obedience is accounted for righteousness,​

​

IMO the latter fits Paul.

If I really were to expand this since obedience is in the heart and then works outwardly, I would say (as I've essentially said before at times):

NKJ Rom4:5 But to him who does not work/obey but believes on/obeys Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith/obedience is accounted for righteousness,​

In line with this, which IMO is the more complete harmonization of the Text, there is more to discuss, but I'm not going to do even more of your work for you as long as you are steadfast in your current course. I've suggested you obtain Garlington's article since you referenced Wallace who references Garlington.

Here we go again — you keep trying to reintroduce faith = obedience!
Since you clearly refuse to listen or acknowledge what’s already been shown from Scripture, I’ll speak to the forum directly.

What is Studier up to?

He’s trying to blur the clear line between faith and obedience.

By appealing to 1 John 3:23 and what he calls “Pauline logic,” he’s quietly turning believing into obeying. Then he carries that idea into Romans 4:5 KJV—a verse that plainly contrasts belief and works—to cancel Paul’s distinction. His phrase “believes on/obeys” merges the two ideas so he can later argue that justification involves both.

He says “faith/obedience is accounted for righteousness,” but that’s not harmonizing the text—it’s blending categories that Paul keeps separate.
Romans 4:5 teaches that the one who believes, apart from works, is justified; not the one who performs anything, obedience included. By inserting “obeys,” he’s sneaking works back into a passage that excludes them.

To make it sound scholarly, he leans on grammar terms like “appositional genitive,” “logic of 1 John 3:23,” and “Garlington.” It gives the impression of deep exegesis while masking a theological bias—treating faith and obedience as a single saving act instead of cause and result.
That’s why he concludes: “Faith/obedience is accounted for righteousness.” It’s classic baptismal-regeneration reasoning dressed up in Pauline language.

His goal is simple: to reframe my position as overly basic and his as “the more complete” view. That last line—“In line with this, which IMO is the more complete harmonization of the Text…”—is a rhetorical way to claim authority while downplaying everyone else’s view.

Basically, Studier is:

• Repackaging faith + obedience as one co-causal act.
• Undermining the clear contrast of Romans 4:5 KJV.
• Using grammar talk and “harmonization” to smuggle works into justification.
• Trying to appear the calm exegete while painting others as simplistic.

Just put him on ignore.

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]

Your reasoning fails because Paul didn't mention acknowledging the lord with one's mouth in those verses you quoted, but he did say elsewhere that is a requirement for salvation . It's not the nature of human communication to mention every little detail every single time. Some things are assumed to be understood and included that are not mentioned.

For example, if i someone tells you to change the oil in your car, do they say change the oil and filter? No, of course not because filter change is inherently understood to be part of the process.

ChristRoseFromTheDead is using a “silent inclusion” argument — a common Oneness or baptismal-regeneration move. An argument from silence is one of the weakest forms of argumentation, especially in theology.

Paul didn’t “forget” to mention baptism — he deliberately excluded works from the means of justification (Rom 4:5 KJV; Eph 2:8-9 KJV).
The gospel’s power rests in Christ’s finished work, not in a ritual that symbolizes it.
When you claim something unstated is “understood,” you’ve left revelation and entered speculation.

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]

Classic false dichotomy.

If grace bestows the remission of sins and water baptism is for the the remission of sins, it should be clear.

EASY
Peter said to them, ‘Each of you must stop doing wrong things. You must change how you live. If you believe in Jesus Christ, then we will baptize you. God will forgive you for the wrong things that you have done. Then you will receive the Holy Spirit, who is God's gift to you.
Acts 2:38

Notice the future tense.

Grace does not come before or after water baptism. It comes at water baptism.

Grace doesn’t come at baptism — it comes through faith in Christ.
Peter’s listeners in Acts 2 had already believed (v. 37), and baptism was the outward confession of that faith.
Scripture never puts grace inside the water — it puts it in the finished work of Christ (Eph. 2:8–9; Rom. 5:1 KJV).
The “future tense” in Acts 2:38 doesn’t teach a time delay — it marks the sequence of expression, not the moment of forgiveness.

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!