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

[TruthDefender]

none of those scriptures say immersion.

I’m assuming you understand English pretty well. You don’t necessarily have to use the word “immerse” to make a comparison using similar language like, “coming up out of/ from the water” means the same thing! In other words, you know they were NOT sprinkled.

There is only one baptism, according to Eph 4:4-6. People who think there are more than one are wresting Scripture. Either you believe what God states, or you deny Him. He commanded us to believe and be baptized and wash away our sins.

2 Examples/ Making Inferences:
Matt. 3:16 is an example of Jesus coming up out of the water = Immersion
Acts 8:38 The Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water. = Immersion

 

[NightTwister]

I’m assuming you understand English pretty well.

I understand it very well. I have a minor in communication.

You don’t necessarily have to use the word “immerse” to make a comparison using similar language like, “coming up out of/ from the water” means the same thing! In other words, you know they were NOT sprinkled.

Only if you bring your bias to the text.

There is only one baptism, according to Eph 4:4-6. People who think there are more than one are wresting Scripture. Either you believe what God states, or you deny Him. He commanded us to believe and be baptized and wash away our sins.

I believe what God states, just not your interpretation of it.

2 Examples/ Making Inferences:
Matt. 3:16 is an example of Jesus coming up out of the water = Immersion

Only if you bring your bias to the text. It can also mean Jesus simply walked out of the water to dry land.

Acts 8:38 The Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water. = Immersion

So Philip was also immersed? He also went down into the water. Again, you are bringing your bias to the text instead of letting it speak for itself.

 

[TruthDefender]

I understand it very well. I have a minor in communication.

Only if you bring your bias to the text.

I believe what God states, just not your interpretation of it.

Only if you bring your bias to the text. It can also mean Jesus simply walked out of the water to dry land.

So Philip was also immersed? He also went down into the water. Again, you are bringing your bias to the text instead of letting it speak for itself.

It doesn’t take much to understand the obvious. Take care!

 

[NightTwister]

It doesn’t take much to understand the obvious. Take care!

It certainly doesn't. Grace and Peace.

 

[LightBearer316]

I’m assuming you understand English pretty well. You don’t necessarily have to use the word “immerse” to make a comparison using similar language like, “coming up out of/ from the water” means the same thing! In other words, you know they were NOT sprinkled.

There is only one baptism, according to Eph 4:4-6. People who think there are more than one are wresting Scripture. Either you believe what God states, or you deny Him. He commanded us to believe and be baptized and wash away our sins.

2 Examples/ Making Inferences:
Matt. 3:16 is an example of Jesus coming up out of the water = Immersion
Acts 8:38 The Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water. = Immersion

I don’t think Jesus was talking about some kind of “spiritual baptism” in Mark 16:16. The wording is pretty straightforward. In the early church, when someone believed the gospel, they immediately went and got baptized in water. It was the outward step that normally followed faith.

But notice something important in the verse:
Jesus doesn’t say, “He that isn’t baptized will be condemned.”
The only thing tied to condemnation is unbelief.

That lines up with the rest of the New Testament. Faith is what saves. Baptism comes after as the public identification with Christ. You see the same pattern in Acts over and over—people hear, they believe, and then they’re baptized.

So yes, it’s talking about water baptism, but not as the thing that actually saves anyone. It’s belief first, baptism second. The emphasis is clearly on faith, not the ritual.

Regarding Mark 16:16 KJV there would be two results of the preaching. Some would believe, be baptized, and be saved; some would disbelieve and be condemned.

Verse 16 is used by some to teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation. We know it cannot mean that for the following reasons:

1. The thief on the cross was not baptized; yet he was assured of being in Paradise with Christ (Luke 23:43 KJV).

2. The Gentiles in Caesarea were baptized after they were saved (Acts 10:44–48 KJV).

3. Jesus Himself did not baptize (John 4:1, 2 KJV)—a strange omission if baptism were necessary for salvation.

4. Paul thanked God that he baptized very few of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:14–16 KJV)—an impossible thanksgiving if baptism were essential for salvation.

5. Approximately 150 passages in the NT state that salvation is by faith alone. No verse or few verses could contradict this overwhelming testimony.

6. Baptism is connected with death and burial in the NT, not with spiritual birth. What then does verse 16 mean? I believe it mentions baptism as the expected outward expression of belief. Baptism is not a condition of salvation, but an outward proclamation that the person has been saved.

Grace and Peace

 

[studier]

Regarding Mark 16:16 KJV there would be two results of the preaching. Some would believe, be baptized, and be saved; some would disbelieve and be condemned.

Verse 16 is used by some to teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation. We know it cannot mean that for the following reasons:

1. The thief on the cross was not baptized; yet he was assured of being in Paradise with Christ (Luke 23:43 KJV).

Mark16:16 is a clear statement:

• It says believing and being baptized results in being saved
  • The 2 coordinate Greek participles make this clear
• It says not believing will result in being condemned
  • This says nothing about baptism
    • Silence does not negate the requirement of baptism in the first clause

According to Mark, believing and being baptized would result in being saved. We can know what Mark meant when he wrote this because his language is clear grammatically and logically.

1. The thief on the cross was obviously an exceptional and extraordinary case with Jesus Christ Himself handling the matter.

• This does not negate or change what Mark wrote
• This exception does not logically prove baptism is never necessary
• A.T. Robertson Harmony of the Gospels (linked) p.249 concludes Mark16:16 follows what we normally call "The Great Commission" given by our Lord Jesus Christ: NKJ Matt28:16-20 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. 17 When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amem.

Point #1 and the first 2 bullet points are sufficient to argue against the claim that the thief on the cross should change what Mark says and means. Assuming Robertson's work is accurate, it doesn't seem wise to be changing what Mark says and why he may have said it (Mark16:15 cf. Matt28:19).

 

[studier]

Regarding Mark 16:16 KJV there would be two results of the preaching. Some would believe, be baptized, and be saved; some would disbelieve and be condemned.

Verse 16 is used by some to teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation. We know it cannot mean that for the following reasons:

2. The Gentiles in Caesarea were baptized after they were saved (Acts 10:44–48 KJV).

Mark16:16 is a clear statement:

• It says believing and being baptized results in being saved
  • The 2 coordinate Greek participles make this clear
• It says not believing will result in being condemned
  • This says nothing about baptism
    • Silence does not negate the requirement of baptism in the first clause

According to Mark, believing and being baptized would result in being saved. We can know what Mark meant when he wrote this because his language is clear grammatically and logically.

2. This is the initial launch of the Gospel ministry to the Gentiles. It is thus another extraordinary event and one that God had to specifically prepare Peter to even undertake Acts10. The Holy Spirit falling upon Cornelius and those with him plus what God had done with Peter to prepare him to even undertake this mission caused Peter to conclude that they could not forbid baptism to these Gentiles Act10:47-48.

• This should not be used as normative to say that Jesus Christ's command to go to the nations baptizing them is unnecessary or not normative.
• This does not logically prove baptism is not essential and Peter most certainly did not take it that way.
• This most certainly should not be used to rewrite or reframe Mark16:16.

 

[studier]

Regarding Mark 16:16 KJV there would be two results of the preaching. Some would believe, be baptized, and be saved; some would disbelieve and be condemned.

Verse 16 is used by some to teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation. We know it cannot mean that for the following reasons:

3. Jesus Himself did not baptize (John 4:1, 2 KJV)—a strange omission if baptism were necessary for salvation.

Mark16:16 is a clear statement:

• It says believing and being baptized results in being saved
  • The 2 coordinate Greek participles make this clear
• It says not believing will result in being condemned
  • This says nothing about baptism
    • Silence does not negate the requirement of baptism in the first clause

According to Mark, believing and being baptized would result in being saved. We can know what Mark meant when he wrote this because his language is clear grammatically and logically.

3. Jesus Baptizing:

• John4:2 does say Jesus was not [personally] baptizing and does seem to clarify that Jesus was not baptizing as John3:22 seems to say He was and John3:26 may seem to say He was - but His disciples were baptizing [for Him].
• There is no strange omission here. Jesus has His disciples baptizing.
• Again, this in no way rewrites or reframes Mark16:16 which pertains to post-Great Commission timing and the resurrected Jesus Christ commanding His disciples to go to the nations baptizing them.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

But notice something important in the verse:
Jesus doesn’t say, “He that isn’t baptized will be condemned.”
The only thing tied to condemnation is unbelief.

Because without faith baptism is just an empty performative rite with no power to save. Faith alone doesn't save and baptism alone doesn't save, but baptism coupled with faith saves because it is doing what God commands.

 

[studier]

Regarding Mark 16:16 KJV there would be two results of the preaching. Some would believe, be baptized, and be saved; some would disbelieve and be condemned.

Verse 16 is used by some to teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation. We know it cannot mean that for the following reasons:

4. Paul thanked God that he baptized very few of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:14–16 KJV)—an impossible thanksgiving if baptism were essential for salvation.

Mark16:16 is a clear statement:

• It says believing and being baptized results in being saved
  • The 2 coordinate Greek participles make this clear
• It says not believing will result in being condemned
  • This says nothing about baptism
    • Silence does not negate the requirement of baptism in the first clause

According to Mark, believing and being baptized would result in being saved. We can kno5w what Mark meant when he wrote this because his language is clear grammatically and logically.

4. The context of Paul's thanksgiving is not against baptism but for his limited exposure to the factions that were taking place due to immature believers favoring the ones who baptized them.

• Paul did baptize some 1Cor1:14-16
• Paul was baptized Acts9:18; Acts22:16
• Paul was proclaiming and when Lydia and her household were baptized Acts16:15
• Paul is there and at minimum involved when the jailer and his family were baptized Acts16:33
• Paul is there and at minimum involved when the Corinthians were baptized Acts18:8
• Paul in Ephesus is involved in the rebaptism of some of John the Baptist's disciples and after their baptism Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit Acts19:5
• Paul was not opposed to baptism.
• Paul was opposed to the carnality of immature believers breaking into factions based upon who had baptized them.
• Again, this in no way rewrites or reframes Mark16:16.

 

[studier]

Regarding Mark 16:16 KJV there would be two results of the preaching. Some would believe, be baptized, and be saved; some would disbelieve and be condemned.

Verse 16 is used by some to teach the necessity of water baptism for salvation. We know it cannot mean that for the following reasons:

5. Approximately 150 passages in the NT state that salvation is by faith alone. No verse or few verses could contradict this overwhelming testimony.

Mark16:16 is a clear statement:

• It says believing and being baptized results in being saved
  • The 2 coordinate Greek participles make this clear
• It says not believing will result in being condemned
  • This says nothing about baptism
    • Silence does not negate the requirement of baptism in the first clause

According to Mark, believing and being baptized would result in being saved. We can kno5w what Mark meant when he wrote this because his language is clear grammatically and logically.

5. Response:

• This is a statement about the content of the NC Text without proof
• "faith-alone" is an assertion about the content of the NC Text and here attached to a claim without proof and followed by a sweeping claim based upon unproven assertion.
• Again, none of this changes what Mark16:16 clearly says.

 

[studier]

6. Baptism is connected with death and burial in the NT, not with spiritual birth. What then does verse 16 mean? I believe it mentions baptism as the expected outward expression of belief. Baptism is not a condition of salvation, but an outward proclamation that the person has been saved.

I believe this misrepresents the clear language of Mark16:16 and that nothing changes that clear grammatical and logical language.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

6. Baptism is connected with death and burial in the NT, not with spiritual birth. What then does verse 16 mean? I believe it mentions baptism as the expected outward expression of belief. Baptism is not a condition of salvation, but an outward proclamation that the person has been saved.

Baptism actually is connected with both the death (immersion) and resurrection (raised out of the water) of Christ. We are reconciled through his death and saved in his resurrected life, which is spritual birth. This is pictured in Jesus' baptism, when after being raised out of the water the holy spirit descended upon him and God declared him to be his son.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

When Jesus was baptized, the door into God's presence opened to him. This was the antitype of Levitical priests being washed at the door of the tabernacle as part of their commissioning ceremony before they could enter into God's house. There was no other way to enter the sheepfold. Narrow is the gate that leads to life.

And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shalt wash them with water. Exodus 29:4​

 

[LightBearer316]

Mark16:16 is a clear statement:

• It says believing and being baptized results in being saved
  • The 2 coordinate Greek participles make this clear
• It says not believing will result in being condemned
  • This says nothing about baptism
    • Silence does not negate the requirement of baptism in the first clause

According to Mark, believing and being baptized would result in being saved. We can kno5w what Mark meant when he wrote this because his language is clear grammatically and logically.

4. The context of Paul's thanksgiving is not against baptism but for his limited exposure to the factions that were taking place due to immature believers favoring the ones who baptized them.

• Paul did baptize some 1Cor1:14-16
• Paul was baptized Acts9:18; Acts22:16
• Paul was proclaiming and when Lydia and her household were baptized Acts16:15
• Paul is there and at minimum involved when the jailer and his family were baptized Acts16:33
• Paul is there and at minimum involved when the Corinthians were baptized Acts18:8
• Paul in Ephesus is involved in the rebaptism of some of John the Baptist's disciples and after their baptism Paul laid hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit Acts19:5
• Paul was not opposed to baptism.
• Paul was opposed to the carnality of immature believers breaking into factions based upon who had baptized them.
• Again, this in no way rewrites or reframes Mark16:16.

Your reply repeats the same assumption without proving it — that Mark 16:16 makes baptism a requirement for salvation. But the text itself, the grammar, and the rest of Scripture say otherwise.

Let’s walk through this carefully and biblically.

1. The second clause controls the meaning, not your assumption

Jesus Himself defines the cause of condemnation:

“He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16 KJV)​

If baptism were equally essential, then Jesus would have tied condemnation to both unbelief and lack of baptism.

But He didn’t.

Your argument that “silence does not negate the requirement” ignores the fact that Jesus explicitly names the condition that results in damnation, and it isn’t baptism.

You cannot make baptism more essential than the Lord Himself made it.

2. Greek participles don’t override Jesus’ own interpretation

Yes, πιστεύσας (“having believed”) and βαπτισθείς (“having been baptized”) appear together in the first clause.

But your argument collapses when you look at the contrast clause — the actual interpretive key of the verse.

Greek grammarians (including Robertson, whom you cited) all agree:
the negative clause clarifies which part is essential.

If both belief and baptism were required, the parallel would be:

“He that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned.”​

But Jesus did not say that.

You cannot build doctrine from the first half of the sentence while ignoring the explanatory second half.

3. Paul’s statements about baptism destroy baptismal-regeneration theology

You listed places where Paul was present at baptisms.
Great — so what?

None of those passages say baptism saves.

But Paul explicitly says:
“Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”

— 1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV

If baptism were part of the saving act, Paul would have written the opposite.

You cannot separate the gospel from the thing that (allegedly) saves.

Paul literally thanks God he baptized almost none of them (1 Cor. 1:14–16 KJV).
That is impossible if baptism is a salvation requirement.

This is why your attempt to soften Paul’s words (“he was only avoiding factions”) does not work.

Paul does not say:

“I thank God I didn’t baptize many of you because of factions.”​

He says:

“I thank God I baptized none of you lest you should say I baptized in my own name.”​

The issue wasn't baptismal unity — it was the fact that baptism has zero salvific power, which is why he could safely step back from doing much of it.

4. Paul repeatedly separates salvation from baptism

Paul connects salvation to faith, not ritual:

• “To him that believeth… his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Rom. 4:5 KJV)
• “You are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:26 KJV)
• “For by grace are ye saved through faith… not of works.” (Eph. 2:8–9 KJV)

If Paul believed salvation occurs at baptism, he contradicted himself over a dozen times.

And Paul is the apostle who received the Gospel directly from Christ (Gal. 1:11–12 KJV).

5. Acts never treats baptism as the thing that saves

Let’s look at the passages you cited:
• Acts 16 — The Jailer

Paul answers his salvation question with one condition:

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” (Acts 16:31 KJV)​

If baptism were the saving moment, Paul lied to him.

But he didn’t — because salvation is by faith, baptism follows.
• Acts 18:8

They believed and were baptized — same sequence everywhere.

Belief is the saving act; baptism is the public sign.
• Acts 19

This chapter disproves your theology completely:

They were baptized twice, yet still not saved or Spirit-indwelt until later.

If salvation occurs at baptism,
why didn’t their first baptism save them?

Because baptism isn’t the saving act.
Faith in Christ is.

6. Nothing in Mark 16:16 rewrites the Gospel

Your final sentence claims Mark 16:16 “cannot be reframed.”

Agreed.

Let’s read it exactly as written:

• Saved: believe (baptism is the expected public obedience, not the saving cause)
• Condemned: not believe

That is the same message:

• Jesus preached
• Paul preached
• Peter preached
• John preached

Salvation is by faith, and baptism is the obedience that follows, not the instrument that saves.

Summary
Here is the simple biblical truth:

• Mark 16:16 ties salvation to belief, and condemnation to unbelief.
• Greek participles do not override the Lord’s own interpretation.
• Paul separates the Gospel from baptism (1 Cor. 1:17).
• Paul repeatedly teaches salvation by faith alone.
• Acts consistently shows baptism as response, not cause.
• Your theological assumption is being read into Mark 16:16, not out of it.

No apostle ever taught baptism saves.
Scripture consistently teaches faith saves, and baptism is the believer’s testimony, not the believer’s justification.

Grace and Peace

 

[studier]

Your reply repeats the same assumption without proving it — that Mark 16:16 makes baptism a requirement for salvation. But the text itself, the grammar, and the rest of Scripture say otherwise.

I’m going to respond to each of your statements in separate posts so everything stays simple and clear, and so we can compare each claim directly from the text.

This opening statement assumes what it needs to prove. Mark16:16 explicitly states belief and baptism in the first clause - the salvation clause. Simply asserting “the text says otherwise” is not an argument - it’s a form of fallacy.

 

[studier]

1. The second clause controls the meaning, not your assumption

Jesus Himself defines the cause of condemnation:

“He that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16:16 KJV)
If baptism were equally essential, then Jesus would have tied condemnation to both unbelief and lack of baptism.

But He didn’t.

This is argument from silence.

The second clause - negative clause - shows what causes condemnation, but it does not cancel the first clause, which clearly links salvation to believing and being baptized.

Two statements - two fallacies (at minimum).

 

[studier]

Your argument that “silence does not negate the requirement” ignores the fact that explicitly names the condition that results in damnation, and it isn’t baptism.

My statement was not arguing from silence - the first clause explicitly links salvation to believing and being baptized.

Argument from silence, non-sequitur, false-equivalence.

This claim treats the omission of baptism in the negative clause as proof it isn’t required.

Cumulatively, 3 statements so far - each fallacious.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

No apostle ever taught baptism saves.

The antitype, baptism, also now saves us. Not the putting off the filth of flesh, but the petition of a good conscience into God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ: 1 Peter 3:21​

 

[studier]

You cannot make baptism more essential than the Lord Himself made it.

Strawman, Non-Sequitur, False Equivalence.

Jesus’ first clause explicitly links salvation to believing and being baptized, which aligns with His command in the Great Commission (Mark16:15 cf. Matt28:18-20), which interestingly does not mention believing.

Fallacies.