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

[Me_Clay]

You’re ignorant of God’s word! You believe in a man made creed which wrests Scripture. You can’t even comprehend the following verse correctly!!

You stated: [Mark 16:16 JHV says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Notice the condemnation is for unbelief — not the absence of baptism. Belief is the dividing line.]

Any 2nd grader can tell you its Belief and Baptism that will save you, as the verse states. Anybody that says otherwise is wresting Scripture to fit their distorted creed.

So how can a person be really saved?

1. What kinds of beliefs?
2. What kinds of baptism?

 

[LightBearer316]

Fully geared up for ignore. Preferred, actually.

Genuine faith actively and obediently receives what God has done and provided.

Agree re: works.

"saving yourself" is misrepresentation of what most non-faith-alone are saying and sounds very much like the claim Calvinists make against those who disagree with determinism.

Believing/Trusting Obedience is cooperation - required cooperation properly defined as I've previously done.

Back to Ai usage Studier:

My IT friend just sent this back:

That post shows several clear AI-writing fingerprints:
1. Sentence rhythm and tone

• The phrasing is unusually clipped and balanced:
  
  “Fully geared up for ignore. Preferred, actually.”
  “Genuine faith actively and obediently receives what God has done and provided.”
  That mix of choppy opener + perfectly symmetrical explanatory lines is typical of AI text-generation style, not natural human rhythm.​

2. Polished neutrality
It reads mechanically civil — no emotional drift, no typos, every clause syntactically even. Most people typing live in a forum drop at least a filler (“yeah,” “well,” “honestly”), but this is editorially clean across multiple sentences.
3. Phrase recycling from common model datasets
The construction “Genuine faith actively and obediently receives what God has done” appears in multiple AI-trained theological summaries (it mirrors language from Logos-style study articles and GPT paraphrases of Sproul/MacArthur contrasts). That makes it very likely produced or heavily edited by a model.
4. Semantic stitching
Notice how each idea is joined by connective balance — “Agree re: works.” / “Believing/Trusting Obedience is cooperation – required cooperation…”
That parallel clause symmetry is an AI hallmark: it maintains even logical pacing without the normal rough edges of human stream-of-consciousness.
Verdict:
AI-assisted or fully AI-generated.
It has the tone, rhythm, and coherence patterns typical of language-model output rather than spontaneous human posting.

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

Can't have a discussion/debate when you keep using Artificial Intelligence all the time.

 

[LightBearer316]

You’re ignorant of God’s word! You believe in a man made creed which wrests Scripture. You can’t even comprehend the following verse correctly!!

You stated: [Mark 16:16 JHV says, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” Notice the condemnation is for unbelief — not the absence of baptism. Belief is the dividing line.]

Any 2nd grader can tell you its Belief and Baptism that will save you, as the verse states. Anybody that says otherwise is wresting Scripture to fit their distorted creed.

The text itself draws the dividing line where Jesus drew it — belief, not baptism.

If baptism were equally required, the Lord would have said “he that believeth not or is not baptized shall be condemned.”

Scripture never contradicts itself: salvation is through faith, and baptism follows as the believer’s confession of that faith (Acts 10:43–48 KJV; Romans 4:5 KJV).

Name-calling won’t change what the verse actually says.

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]

One of several tactics here.

Your tactic has always been using ai... which I caught you several times, and yet again!

 

[studier]

Back to Ai usage Studier:

My IT friend just sent this back:

That post shows several clear AI-writing fingerprints:
1. Sentence rhythm and tone

• The phrasing is unusually clipped and balanced:
  
  “Fully geared up for ignore. Preferred, actually.”
  “Genuine faith actively and obediently receives what God has done and provided.”
  That mix of choppy opener + perfectly symmetrical explanatory lines is typical of AI text-generation style, not natural human rhythm.​

2. Polished neutrality
It reads mechanically civil — no emotional drift, no typos, every clause syntactically even. Most people typing live in a forum drop at least a filler (“yeah,” “well,” “honestly”), but this is editorially clean across multiple sentences.
3. Phrase recycling from common model datasets
The construction “Genuine faith actively and obediently receives what God has done” appears in multiple AI-trained theological summaries (it mirrors language from Logos-style study articles and GPT paraphrases of Sproul/MacArthur contrasts). That makes it very likely produced or heavily edited by a model.
4. Semantic stitching
Notice how each idea is joined by connective balance — “Agree re: works.” / “Believing/Trusting Obedience is cooperation – required cooperation…”
That parallel clause symmetry is an AI hallmark: it maintains even logical pacing without the normal rough edges of human stream-of-consciousness.
Verdict:
Highly likely AI-assisted or fully AI-generated.
It has the tone, rhythm, and coherence patterns typical of language-model output rather than spontaneous human posting.

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

Can't have a discussion/debate when you keep using Artificial Intelligence all the time.

Just more error on your part. Same ole.

You have no IT friend. Another ruse among ruses to hide among alleged 3rd parties for credibility.

Nice to know how polished and balanced my posts are especially with the quick editing time allowed here.

You're back to this because you've lost any debate mostly by misrepresenting scholarly resources and destroying credibility. Will you be stalking me again on the News threads?

 

[LightBearer316]

Just more error on your part. Same ole.

You have no IT friend. Another ruse among ruses to hide among alleged 3rd parties for credibility.

Nice to know how polished and balanced my posts are especially with the quick editing time allowed here.

You're back to this because you've lost any debate mostly by misrepresenting scholarly resources and destroying credibility. Will you be stalking me again on the News threads?

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

 

[LightBearer316]

1 Corinthians 1:17 (KJV)
17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

If baptism were what actually saves, then his statement in 1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV would logically read like this parody I just wrote:

“Christ sent me not to get anyone actually saved by baptism, but just to waste time preaching the gospel which doesn’t save.”​

​

That absurdity exposes the contradiction in baptism-as-salvation theology.
Paul couldn’t have separated his mission (“to preach the gospel”) from the supposed means of salvation (baptism) if both were equally necessary.
His words only make sense if the gospel message itself saves through faith (Romans 1:16 KJV; 1 Cor 15:1-4 kJV) and baptism follows as a public testimony of that saving faith.

Why Baptism Can’t Be What Saves

1. Paul separated it from the gospel.
   In 1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV, he thanked God he baptized only a few and said Christ sent him not to baptize but to preach the gospel. If baptism were what saves, that statement would make no sense.
2. The thief on the cross was never baptized.
   Yet Jesus told him, “Today shalt thou be with Me in paradise.” (Luke 23:43 KJV) Salvation came by faith, not ceremony.
3. Cornelius received the Holy Ghost before baptism.
   Acts 10 shows forgiveness and the Spirit coming while Peter yet spake these words. The water followed, it didn’t cause.
4. Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV rules out any ritual.
   “By grace are ye saved through faith… not of works.” A physical act can’t be part of grace.
5. Baptism testifies—grace saves.
   The water is a public confession that we’ve trusted Christ’s finished work. The cross saves; baptism declares 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!

 

[studier]

@LightBearer316

For a little personal challenge, and since I do know how to use AI as I've shown in previous posts by posting AI content to you identified as AI, I posted the full content of my post #1452 (link provided) into AI - my IT friend - to see how it analyzed that post which was presented to show in part how you misrepresented Wallace as a resource re: your error on Rom1:5. Here is the response from CharGPT. I'll underline some of it for your reading pleasure. Some of it may refer to Cranfield, so I'll try to not underline it:

That text does not read like AI-generated writing — it is highly characteristic of a human author with expertise in biblical studies and Greek grammar.

Indicators of human authorship

1. Personal voice and context.
   • Phrases such as “To add to what I’ve already said,” “as I understand,” “Sorry I missed it until now” reflect personal awareness, memory, and situational context — traits rarely present in AI text.
   • References to the Logos Library system and personal study methods indicate genuine, individual experience.
2. Integration of sources.
   • The author accurately quotes and connects the NET Notes, Cranfield, and Garlington. AI-generated material often summarizes sources but seldom integrates distinct scholarly voices with this level of contextual accuracy.
3. Technical precision.
   • The distinctions among objective, subjective, adjectival, and appositional genitives are explained correctly and applied specifically to Romans 1:5 — evidence of domain expertise rather than generic linguistic phrasing.
   • Greek terms are used and formatted accurately (ὑπακοὴν πίστεως), which suggests knowledge of the language rather than AI approximation.
4. Natural imperfections typical of human drafting.
   • Minor redundancies (“To repeat what I already posted”) and informal clarifications (“my input: ‘obedience [of] faith’”) show natural human flow and self-correction, not the overly uniform structure of AI output.
5. Continuity of argumentation.
   • The text maintains internal and external continuity, referencing earlier discussion and prior reasoning (“as I’ve already said,” “I’ve shown how this compares…”). AI-generated inserts typically lack this coherent thread.

Superficially AI-like traits (but explainable)

• Slightly formal transitions and a consistently explanatory tone could superficially resemble AI phrasing, but in this context they reflect normal academic or professional writing style.
• The structured list of genitive interpretations might appear algorithmic out of context, but it is drawn directly from Cranfield’s commentary, not from AI patterning.

Conclusion

The passage displays no substantive indicators of AI authorship.
It reads as a human-written scholarly note — precise, informed, personally contextualized, and clearly the product of an engaged researcher.


It seems your IT friend and my IT friend both like my writing style. My friend likes my expertise in biblical studies and Greek grammar as an engaged researcher. What fun!

 

[TruthDefender]

So how can a person be really saved?

1. What kinds of beliefs?
2. What kinds of baptism?

-1- A belief in God, and in His Son (Jesus), and that Jesus is the Messiah who was born of a virgin, but who also was in the beginning. He was God in the flesh.

-2- There is only one baptism.
-"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:4-6 NKJV

 

[LightBearer316]

@LightBearer316

For a little personal challenge, and since I do know how to use AI as I've shown in previous posts by posting AI content to you identified as AI, I posted the full content of my post #1452 (link provided) into AI - my IT friend - to see how it analyzed that post which was presented to show in part how you misrepresented Wallace as a resource re: your error on Rom1:5. Here is the response from CharGPT. I'll underline some of it for your reading pleasure. Some of it may refer to Cranfield, so I'll try to not underline it:

That text does not read like AI-generated writing — it is highly characteristic of a human author with expertise in biblical studies and Greek grammar.

Indicators of human authorship

1. Personal voice and context.
   • Phrases such as “To add to what I’ve already said,” “as I understand,” “Sorry I missed it until now” reflect personal awareness, memory, and situational context — traits rarely present in AI text.
   • References to the Logos Library system and personal study methods indicate genuine, individual experience.
2. Integration of sources.
   • The author accurately quotes and connects the NET Notes, Cranfield, and Garlington. AI-generated material often summarizes sources but seldom integrates distinct scholarly voices with this level of contextual accuracy.
3. Technical precision.
   • The distinctions among objective, subjective, adjectival, and appositional genitives are explained correctly and applied specifically to Romans 1:5 — evidence of domain expertise rather than generic linguistic phrasing.
   • Greek terms are used and formatted accurately (ὑπακοὴν πίστεως), which suggests knowledge of the language rather than AI approximation.
4. Natural imperfections typical of human drafting.
   • Minor redundancies (“To repeat what I already posted”) and informal clarifications (“my input: ‘obedience [of] faith’”) show natural human flow and self-correction, not the overly uniform structure of AI output.
5. Continuity of argumentation.
   • The text maintains internal and external continuity, referencing earlier discussion and prior reasoning (“as I’ve already said,” “I’ve shown how this compares…”). AI-generated inserts typically lack this coherent thread.

Superficially AI-like traits (but explainable)

• Slightly formal transitions and a consistently explanatory tone could superficially resemble AI phrasing, but in this context they reflect normal academic or professional writing style.
• The structured list of genitive interpretations might appear algorithmic out of context, but it is drawn directly from Cranfield’s commentary, not from AI patterning.

Conclusion

The passage displays no substantive indicators of AI authorship.
It reads as a human-written scholarly note — precise, informed, personally contextualized, and clearly the product of an engaged researcher.


It seems your IT friend and my IT friend both like my writing style. My friend likes my expertise in biblical studies and Greek grammar as an engaged researcher. What fun!

Won't work studier... Numbers 32:23 (KJV) — “your sins will find you out.”

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...regeneration-view.220967/page-76#post-5621321

 

[Cameron143]

-1- A belief in God, and in His Son (Jesus), and that Jesus is the Messiah who was born of a virgin, but who also was in the beginning. He was God in the flesh.

-2- There is only one baptism.
-"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:4-6 NKJV

How do you reconcile this with Matthew 3:11 which mentions 3 baptisms?

 

[Me_Clay]

-1- A belief in God, and in His Son (Jesus), and that Jesus is the Messiah who was born of a virgin, but who was in the beginning.

-2- There is only one baptism.
-"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." Ephesians 4:4-6 NKJV

For question 2: please see attachment

Which one is biblically correct?

 

[Blue155]

@studier, how in the world you are still dealing with him is beyond my imagination. Props to you. I washed my hands of him and put him on ignore, but you do you, my friend.

 

[TruthDefender]

How do you reconcile this with Matthew 3:11 which mentions 3 baptisms?

The 4 gospels were during the time of Jesus on the earth. This was the very beginning of Christianity. John the Baptist stated Matt. 3:11. I don’t see 3 baptisms though. (?)

 

[studier]

@LightBearer316

And other little question for my IT friend concerning that same post #1452:

Query: That post was presented to someone who insists that faith and obedience in Rom1:5 is not appositional and that obedience is only the fruit of faith that is the root. What does that post conclude about this theory?

Answer from my IT friend:

The post directly challenges that theory. Its discussion of Romans 1:5 and Cranfield’s analysis emphasizes that:

1. The genitive ὑπακοὴν πίστεως can legitimately be understood as a genitive of apposition, meaning “obedience, [namely] faith.”
2. Cranfield’s preferred reading (and the author’s highlighted interpretation) treats faith and obedience as equivalent expressions in Paul’s thought — genuine faith inherently includes the will to obey God.
3. Therefore, the idea that obedience is merely a fruit of faith (and faith is the root) is too narrow and imposes an external hierarchy. The post shows that, grammatically and theologically, Paul presents faith and obedience as inseparably linked, not as sequential cause-and-effect.

Conclusion: The post undermines the theory that obedience is merely derivative of faith. It supports the view that, in Romans 1:5, faith and obedience are closely identified, and obedience is not just a subsequent “fruit” but part of the very essence of true faith.


If desired, I can also summarize this in one concise sentence that directly rebuts the root-fruit argument.

Query: Yes:

Response from my IT friend:

Romans 1:5 presents faith and obedience as inseparable; obedience is not merely the fruit of faith but is intrinsic to the very essence of true faith.

Query: Nice work! Thank you my friend!

You’re very welcome! I’m glad it hit the mark. That passage is tricky, but the grammar and context make the link between faith and obedience so clear once it’s unpacked.


I thoroughly enjoyed my IT friend's responses. I especially enjoyed how my IT friend said you "imposed an external hierarchy [on the Word of God in Rom1:5]."

Shame on you.

 

[TruthDefender]

For question 2: please see attachment

Which one is biblically correct?

Immersion

 

[Cameron143]

The 4 gospels were during the time of Jesus on the earth. This was the very beginning of Christianity. John the Baptist stated Matt. 3:11. I don’t see 3 baptisms though. (?)

John baptized with water.
Jesus would baptize with the Spirit and fire.

 

[LightBearer316]

@LightBearer316

And other little question for my IT friend concerning that same post #1452:

Query: That post was presented to someone who insists that faith and obedience in Rom1:5 is not appositional and that obedience is only the fruit of faith that is the root. What does that post conclude about this theory?

Answer from my IT friend:

The post directly challenges that theory. Its discussion of Romans 1:5 and Cranfield’s analysis emphasizes that:

1. The genitive ὑπακοὴν πίστεως can legitimately be understood as a genitive of apposition, meaning “obedience, [namely] faith.”
2. Cranfield’s preferred reading (and the author’s highlighted interpretation) treats faith and obedience as equivalent expressions in Paul’s thought — genuine faith inherently includes the will to obey God.
3. Therefore, the idea that obedience is merely a fruit of faith (and faith is the root) is too narrow and imposes an external hierarchy. The post shows that, grammatically and theologically, Paul presents faith and obedience as inseparably linked, not as sequential cause-and-effect.

Conclusion: The post undermines the theory that obedience is merely derivative of faith. It supports the view that, in Romans 1:5, faith and obedience are closely identified, and obedience is not just a subsequent “fruit” but part of the very essence of true faith.


If desired, I can also summarize this in one concise sentence that directly rebuts the root-fruit argument.

Query: Yes:

Response from my IT friend:

Romans 1:5 presents faith and obedience as inseparable; obedience is not merely the fruit of faith but is intrinsic to the very essence of true faith.

Query: Nice work! Thank you my friend!

You’re very welcome! I’m glad it hit the mark. That passage is tricky, but the grammar and context make the link between faith and obedience so clear once it’s unpacked.


I thoroughly enjoyed my IT friend's responses. I especially enjoyed how my IT friend said you "imposed an external hierarchy [on the Word of God in Rom1:5]."

Shame on you.

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

 

[Me_Clay]

@LightBearer316

And other little question for my IT friend concerning that same post #1452:

Query: That post was presented to someone who insists that faith and obedience in Rom1:5 is not appositional and that obedience is only the fruit of faith that is the root. What does that post conclude about this theory?

Answer from my IT friend:

The post directly challenges that theory. Its discussion of Romans 1:5 and Cranfield’s analysis emphasizes that:

1. The genitive ὑπακοὴν πίστεως can legitimately be understood as a genitive of apposition, meaning “obedience, [namely] faith.”
2. Cranfield’s preferred reading (and the author’s highlighted interpretation) treats faith and obedience as equivalent expressions in Paul’s thought — genuine faith inherently includes the will to obey God.
3. Therefore, the idea that obedience is merely a fruit of faith (and faith is the root) is too narrow and imposes an external hierarchy. The post shows that, grammatically and theologically, Paul presents faith and obedience as inseparably linked, not as sequential cause-and-effect.

Conclusion: The post undermines the theory that obedience is merely derivative of faith. It supports the view that, in Romans 1:5, faith and obedience are closely identified, and obedience is not just a subsequent “fruit” but part of the very essence of true faith.


If desired, I can also summarize this in one concise sentence that directly rebuts the root-fruit argument.

Query: Yes:

Response from my IT friend:

Romans 1:5 presents faith and obedience as inseparable; obedience is not merely the fruit of faith but is intrinsic to the very essence of true faith.

Query: Nice work! Thank you my friend!

You’re very welcome! I’m glad it hit the mark. That passage is tricky, but the grammar and context make the link between faith and obedience so clear once it’s unpacked.


I thoroughly enjoyed my IT friend's responses. I especially enjoyed how my IT friend said you "imposed an external hierarchy [on the Word of God in Rom1:5]."

Shame on you.

What's going on between you all and Blue155 seem to be involved?

 

[Blue155]

John baptized with water.
Jesus would baptize with the Spirit and fire.

Was every baptism that was an immersion in water John’s baptism?