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

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

You can't have "Jesus‑name baptism" before the resurrection because Christian baptism is grounded in the death, burial & resurrection of Christ (Rom 6:3–4).

You can’t be baptized into a death & resurrection that hasn’t happened yet.

You're just making up stuff as you go along. They were already baptized into Jesus. Jesus said they were already clean through his word.

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. John 15:3​

​

Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. John 13:10​

 

[FlyingDove]

Not explicitly, but it's most definately stated indirectly in Acts 19:4

Paul didn't write acts.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Paul didn't write acts.

irrelevant

 

[Biilybob65]

1st, You didn’t answer my question TWICE. I asked where PAUL, in his own writings, instructs baptism in Jesus' name or receiving the Spirit through a water ritual. You gave me Acts again. That’s the definition of importing.

You’re building your doctrine by forcing a narrative book (Acts) to overrule clear apostolic teaching (Paul). That’s backwards.

You’re answering a question I didn’t ask. I asked for PAUL'S teaching. You keep giving me LUKE’S narration.

You also equate John’s prophecy with Acts 2:38. But John’s prophecy is fulfilled in Acts 2:4 & Acts 11:15–16: Both Spirit events, both without water, both without a spoken formula.

That alone proves Acts 2:38 is NOT the fulfillment of John’s prophecy.

Let’s map out Acts facts:

Acts 2:4, They are filled with the Spirit. NO water. NO Jesus‑name formula. This event is Jesus fulfilling Johns prophecy.

Acts 2:21, Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved.

Acts 2:32–36, Peter preaches the resurrection & Messiahship of Jesus.

Acts 2:37, They HEAR & are "pricked in the heart." That's FAITH.

Acts 2:41, Those who GLADLY RECEIVED his word were baptized. FAITH 1st & Baptism after. No tongues from the 3,000.

Your doctrine demands Acts 2:38 as a universal salvation script. But Acts itself collapses that idea:

Acts 2, They believe first.
Acts 8, BELIEVE, baptized & Spirit comes much later.
Acts 10, BELIEVE, Spirit falls & baptized later.
Acts 11, Spirit falls with NO water & NO formula.
Acts 16, BELIEVE, saved, baptized later.
Acts 19, BELIEVE, Spirit, baptized later.
Acts 13:39, ALL who BELIEVE are justified.
Acts 13:48, As many as were ordained to eternal life BELIEVED. No baptism in Jesus name & NO Water!

If Acts 2:38 were the universal formula, Acts 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, & 19 would all contradict your gospel formula. But they don’t, your interpretation does.

Sherlock, you may want to rethink your position. FD

1st, You didn’t answer my question TWICE. I asked where PAUL, in his own writings, instructs baptism in Jesus' name or receiving the Spirit through a water ritual. You gave me Acts again. That’s the definition of importing.

I have given you the biblical answer. If Luke said Paul said that then Paul said it. That is biblical fact that God seen the need to have recorded. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: If I read it from Gods divine word I trust it to be the truth.

You’re building your doctrine by forcing a narrative book (Acts) to overrule clear apostolic teaching (Paul). That’s backwards.

I am building my doctrine, by the doctrine, that God had recorded and Acts of the Apostles.It is the foundation that the church is built upon. Yes the church started in Acts, and the scriptures flow from there. Paul did not write books, but letters to the churches, and they were correction of error letters that the churches was not in line with the scriptures on.

You also equate John’s prophecy with Acts 2:38. But John’s prophecy is fulfilled in Acts 2:4 & Acts 11:15–16: Both Spirit events, both without water, both without a spoken formula.

That alone proves Acts 2:38 is NOT the fulfillment of John’s prophecy.

Let’s map out Acts facts:

Acts 2:4, They are filled with the Spirit. NO water. NO Jesus‑name formula. This event is Jesus fulfilling Johns prophecy.

Acts 2:21, Whoever calls on the Lord will be saved.

Acts 2:32–36, Peter preaches the resurrection & Messiahship of Jesus.

Acts 2:37, They HEAR & are "pricked in the heart." That's FAITH.

Acts 2:41, Those who GLADLY RECEIVED his word were baptized. FAITH 1st & Baptism after. No tongues from the 3,000.

This my brother is where you are misunderstanding scripture. The pouring out of the spirit as you point to in Acts 2 and Acts 11 is not a salvation issue. It is fulfillment of Joel's prophecy and ONLY happened in those two incidents and is never recorded as happening again like that in the whole new testament. That outpouring was on a group and not the individual indwelling that is promised to all.
The truth of Acts 2 is that once God poured out the spirit UPON the Jews ( which according to the word only the Apostles received ) Peter then preached the gospel of Christ the gospel call they heard believed and asked what must I do and Peter gave them the response to the call 38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Why di you keep fighting against the words of God?

Your doctrine demands Acts 2:38 as a universal salvation script. But Acts itself collapses that idea:

Acts 2, They believe first.
Acts 8, BELIEVE, baptized & Spirit comes much later.
Acts 10, BELIEVE, Spirit falls & baptized later.
Acts 11, Spirit falls with NO water & NO formula.
Acts 16, BELIEVE, saved, baptized later.
Acts 19, BELIEVE, Spirit, baptized later.
Acts 13:39, ALL who BELIEVE are justified.
Acts 13:48, As many as were ordained to eternal life BELIEVED. No baptism in Jesus name & NO Water!

If Acts 2:38 were the universal formula, Acts 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, & 19 would all contradict your gospel formula. But they don’t, your interpretation does.

Sherlock, you may want to rethink your position.

This is because you are not understanding the difference in the way the spirit is working in the scriptures you posted.

Acts 2, They believe first. ( yes they must believe before the can respond to the gospel call it is that way all through Acts of the Apostles)

Acts 8, BELIEVE, baptized & Spirit comes much later. ( believe and was baptized and got the indwelling spirit but Philip wanted to transfer the power gift for witness so he could move on and they could grow the church so Philip called on Peter to transfer the power because he wss unable and this is not the same way it happened in Acts 2 Or 10 and 11 two different actions of the spirit.

Acts 10, BELIEVE, Spirit falls & baptized later. ((spirit came upon just as in acts 2 was the fulfillment of Joel on the Jews first then upon the gentiles it is not the indwelling promise of 2:38 but the completion of the outpouring on all then was baptized with the baptism of 2:38 to receive remission of sin and the indwelling spirit)

Acts 11, Spirit falls with NO water & NO formula. (same as 10 just repeated in scripture in separate chapter)

Acts 16, BELIEVE, saved, baptized later. (believed baptized with the baptism of Act 2:38 for reason given in scripture)

Acts 19, BELIEVE, Spirit, baptized later. ( baptized incorrectly taught correctly believed baptized by the baptism of Acts 2:38 and had hands laid on to transfer the power of witness to grow the newly planted church so Paul could continue his mission. Two different working of the spirit.)

Acts 13:39, ALL who BELIEVE are justified.
Acts 13:48, As many as were ordained to eternal life BELIEVED. No baptism in Jesus name & NO Water 9( In those two verses it is implied that the gospel was preached and was excepted even though it did not go into detail it is common understanding that this is the same as in Acts 19. When Paul asked if they had gotten the spirit when they believed he assumed that they were baptized in Christ name so Paul and all scripture is including the faith response as part of the believing I know you wont accept this but that is the biblical reaction.

 

[Biilybob65]

Paul didn't write acts.

No, that is correct, but Paul did indeed say what is recorded of him saying so this is a mute point.

 

[Biilybob65]

You're proving my point for me. You keep treating Acts as the doctrinal foundation & Paul as commentary. But the Bible shows tremendous church growth through Paul’s ministry & not Luke’s narration.

Paul absolutely WAS GIVEN a distinct gospel & revelation:

My gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25). Not from man but by direct revelation from Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11–12)

The dispensation of grace given to ME for YOU Gentiles (Eph 3:2)

I laid the foundation as a wise master builder (1 Cor 3:10).

You can’t erase those verses just because they contradict your formula.

As for Acts 19, Paul's ONLY recorded instruction is "believe on Christ Jesus" (v.4).

Verse 5 is LUKE narrating what they did, not Paul giving a command or formula.

And the Spirit comes by laying on of hands (v.6), not water.

Paul the master builder, chosen by Jesus Himself (Acts 9:15; 26:16–17) expects the Spirit at belief: Did you receive the Spirit when you believed? (Acts 19:2).

Paul's epistles repeatedly teach FAITH Justifies. Not a water + formula = Spirit indwelling.

You're reversing the biblical hierarchy. Doctrine comes from the apostles' teaching, not Luke’s narration. Acts describes events; Paul defines doctrine.

Treating Acts as the foundation & Paul as commentary is the exact opposite of how the New Testament is structured.

so you are one of those two gospel false teachers one for the Jews through Peter and a separate gospel for the gentiles through Paul. Makes a little more sense where your false doctrine is coming from.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

so you are one of those two gospel false teachers one for the Jews through Peter and a separate gospel for the gentiles through Paul. Makes a little more sense where your false doctrine is coming from.

Mid-Acts dispensationalism. A total crock

 

[FlyingDove]

You're just making up stuff as you go along. They were already baptized into Jesus. Jesus said they were already clean through his word.

Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you. John 15:3​

​

Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all. John 13:10​

Just read the verse you’re using to support your claim.

That those at the Acts 2 Pentecost outpouring people were already baptized in Jesus’ name.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
(NOTE: clean through the WORD Jesus SPOKE to them. Not through water, not through a baptismal formula.)

John 7:
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”
(NOTE: the Holy Spirit is not given until AFTER Jesus is glorified. I.E. after His death, resurrection & ascension.)

John 4:
1 “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.)”
(NOTE: Jesus HIMSELF ""DID NOT BAPTIZE""" His disciples did. So your idea that Jesus personally water‑baptized them "in His name" is directly contradicted by the text.)

Acts 2:4 is the fulfillment of John’s prophecy, “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit,” and it happens with NO water and NO formula.

You’re quoting passages about spiritual cleansing & trying to turn them into water baptism. "Clean through the word" in John 15:3 is not baptism. It is cleansing by the WORD Jesus spoke, not a water ritual.

And again: you can’t be baptized into a death and resurrection that hasn’t happened yet (Romans 6:3–4).

Christian baptism is grounded in Christ’s death, burial & resurrection. Before that, it simply does not exist.

You’re importing a doctrine into the text that isn't there & then trying to read it back into Acts 2.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Just read the verse you’re using to support your claim.

That those at the Acts 2 Pentecost outpouring people were already baptized in Jesus’ name.

John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
(NOTE: clean through the WORD Jesus SPOKE to them. Not through water, not through a baptismal formula.)

John 7:
38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)”
(NOTE: the Holy Spirit is not given until AFTER Jesus is glorified. I.E. after His death, resurrection & ascension.)

John 4:
1 “When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples.)”
(NOTE: Jesus HIMSELF ""DID NOT BAPTIZE""" His disciples did. So your idea that Jesus personally water‑baptized them "in His name" is directly contradicted by the text.)

Acts 2:4 is the fulfillment of John’s prophecy, “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit,” and it happens with NO water and NO formula.

You’re quoting passages about spiritual cleansing & trying to turn them into water baptism. "Clean through the word" in John 15:3 is not baptism. It is cleansing by the WORD Jesus spoke, not a water ritual.

And again: you can’t be baptized into a death and resurrection that hasn’t happened yet (Romans 6:3–4).

Christian baptism is grounded in Christ’s death, burial & resurrection. Before that, it simply does not exist.

You’re importing a doctrine into the text that isn't there & then trying to read it back into Acts 2.

The disciples were already baptizing in Jesus' name while he was alive, so you think they themselves weren't baptized in his name then? Ridiculous

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) John 4:1-2​

 

[FlyingDove]

The disciples were already baptizing in Jesus' name while he was alive, so you think they themselves weren't baptized in his name then? Ridiculous

When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,) John 4:1-2​

Ok, in Post #1932 you said “the only logical conclusion” from Acts 19:3–6 is that Paul water‑baptized the Ephesians in Jesus’ name.

Then in Post #1933 you admitted it’s “not explicit,” but “stated indirectly.”

In Post #1938 you claimed all 120 at Pentecost were already baptized in Jesus’ name, with zero Scripture, just "because you said so."

Sorry, but opinions, logical conclusions, indirect statements & assumptions aren't sound doctrine. If it's not explicitly taught in Scripture, it can't be binding.

Meanwhile, Scripture explicitly says Jesus' closest disciples did NOT fully understand who He was or what He came to do before the resurrection.
Lk 18:34 “They understood none of these things… it was hid from them.”
Lk 9:45 “It was hid from them, that they perceived it not.”
Jn 12:16 They didn’t understand His actions until after He was glorified.
Mk 9:32 They “understood not” His teaching about His death.
Jn 20:9 They did not yet understand the Scriptures about the resurrection.
Jn 13:7 “What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.”

The disciples didn’t grasp the resurrection, the mission, or the Scriptures until after Jesus rose. So the idea that they fully understood His identity before the resurrection & were already "Jesus‑name baptized", doesn’t line up with a plethora of Scripture. It’s beyond a stretch.

You're promoting doctrine on indirect inferences while ignoring explicit verses. That's the definition of Ridiculous!

 

[FlyingDove]

so you are one of those two gospel false teachers one for the Jews through Peter and a separate gospel for the gentiles through Paul. Makes a little more sense where your false doctrine is coming from.

LOL, I'm not teaching "2 gospels." I'm quoting the verses you reject.

Paul doesn’t preach a different gospel, he preaches the same gospel. But with a distinct revelation & stewardship given by direct revelation from Christ. That’s not my doctrine, that's recorded scripture.
To whom I now send you (Acts 26:17)
My gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25)
Not from man… but by revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11–12)
The dispensation of grace given to ME for YOU Gentiles (Eph 3:2)
I laid the foundation as a wise master builder (1 Cor 3:10)

Those are not 2 gospels. That's one gospel with a specific apostolic stewardship entrusted to Paul.

Peter himself acknowledges this:
2 Peter 3:15–16, Peter says Paul's writings contain wisdom given to him & are on the level of Scripture. So, even Peter affirms Paul's unique revelation & authority.

Your accusation is just a way to avoid dealing with the actual point:

Acts is narrative; Paul is doctrine. Lk describes events; Paul explains their meaning.

You’re building doctrine from narrative & ignoring the apostle who was commissioned to define it. And none of that requires "2 gospels".

It just requires reading the verses you choose to ignore.

 

[Biilybob65]

LOL, I'm not teaching "2 gospels." I'm quoting the verses you reject.

Paul doesn’t preach a different gospel, he preaches the same gospel. But with a distinct revelation & stewardship given by direct revelation from Christ. That’s not my doctrine, that's recorded scripture.
To whom I now send you (Acts 26:17)
My gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25)
Not from man… but by revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11–12)
The dispensation of grace given to ME for YOU Gentiles (Eph 3:2)
I laid the foundation as a wise master builder (1 Cor 3:10)

Those are not 2 gospels. That's one gospel with a specific apostolic stewardship entrusted to Paul.

Peter himself acknowledges this:
2 Peter 3:15–16, Peter says Paul's writings contain wisdom given to him & are on the level of Scripture. So, even Peter affirms Paul's unique revelation & authority.

Your accusation is just a way to avoid dealing with the actual point:

Acts is narrative; Paul is doctrine. Lk describes events; Paul explains their meaning.

You’re building doctrine from narrative & ignoring the apostle who was commissioned to define it. And none of that requires "2 gospels".

It just requires reading the verses you choose to ignore.

Paul was called to preach the same gospel Peter was called to preach. There is neither Jew nor Gentile we are all one and called by the same gospel therefore Paul preached the sane gospel Peter preached in Acts 2

 

[FlyingDove]

Paul was called to preach the same gospel Peter was called to preach. There is neither Jew nor Gentile we are all one and called by the same gospel therefore Paul preached the sane gospel Peter preached in Acts 2

Of course Paul & Peter preached the same gospel, nobody said otherwise. The issue isn't what gospel they preached, but how Christ commissioned them to preach it & to whom. BTW, there are no gentiles baptized at the Acts2 Pentecost.

The Bible makes a distinction you're pretending doesn’t exist: Same gospel, Different stewardship, audience & revelation

That's not my doctrine, that’s the New Testament’s own language. Paul says:
MY gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25), Given to ME for YOU Gentiles (Eph 3:2), The gospel was not from man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11–12), To whom I now send you (Acts 26:17), I laid the foundation as a wise master builder (1 Cor 3:10)

Peter says: Paul’s writings contain wisdom given to him (2 Pet 3:15–16). And Peter warns people not to twist Paul’s writings. Paul’s writings carry unique apostolic weight.

So yes, same gospel, but different apostolic stewardship. That’s exactly what the Bible says. Your claim is that Paul preached the Acts 2 formula. But Paul himself denies that.

Paul explicitly says: Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17). Did you receive the Spirit by works or by the hearing of faith? (Gal 3:2). I thank God I baptized none of you (1 Cor 1:14). One Lord, one faith, one baptism & Paul defines that baptism as Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13)

If Paul preached the Acts 2:38 formula, he would never say: Christ did NOT send me to baptize. I thank God I baptized none of you. You received the Spirit by faith, not works.

So no, Paul did NOT preach Peter’s Acts 2 water‑formula message. He preached the same gospel, but with the revelation of justification by faith, Spirit reception by faith & the Gentile dispensation entrusted to him by Christ.

That's not two gospels. That's one gospel with two apostles operating in their God‑assigned roles. Your argument collapses because you're forcing Paul to preach Peter's sermon instead of letting Paul preach his Christ commissioned message.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The Bible makes a distinction you're pretending doesn’t exist: Same gospel, Different stewardship, audience & revelation

That's not my doctrine, that’s the New Testament’s own language. Paul says:
MY gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25), Given to ME for YOU Gentiles (Eph 3:2), The gospel was not from man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11–12), To whom I now send you (Acts 26:17), I laid the foundation as a wise master builder (1 Cor 3:1

Initially there was no difference in audience. Paul proclaimed "his" gospel to Jews as well as to gentile proselytes in the synagogues.

Furthermore, Paul met with Peter and some others in order to ensure that "his" gospel was what they proclaimed.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Paul’s writings carry unique apostolic weight.

No more than Peter's. Unique because they were different types of people. Peter was an uneduacted fisherman who learned personally from Jesus, and Paul was a highly educated scholar who had to learn through revelation from scripture.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

So yes, same gospel, but different apostolic stewardship. That’s exactly what the Bible says. Your claim is that Paul preached the Acts 2 formula. But Paul himself denies that.

Paul explicitly says: Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17).

But Paul did baptize numerous times, and we can safely assume from Acts 19:5 that he did so in the name of Jesus, as Peter did in Acts 2:38.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

So no, Paul did NOT preach Peter’s Acts 2 water‑formula message. He preached the same gospel, but with the revelation of justification by faith, Spirit reception by faith & the Gentile dispensation entrusted to him by Christ.

Peter declared that they were saved by grace as the gentiles were. No difference. Same gospel, same message, ie, salvation by grace through faith

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. Acts 15:10-11​

 

[Biilybob65]

Of course Paul & Peter preached the same gospel, nobody said otherwise. The issue isn't what gospel they preached, but how Christ commissioned them to preach it & to whom. BTW, there are no gentiles baptized at the Acts2 Pentecost.

The Bible makes a distinction you're pretending doesn’t exist: Same gospel, Different stewardship, audience & revelation

That's not my doctrine, that’s the New Testament’s own language. Paul says:
MY gospel (Rom 2:16; 16:25), Given to ME for YOU Gentiles (Eph 3:2), The gospel was not from man, but by revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal 1:11–12), To whom I now send you (Acts 26:17), I laid the foundation as a wise master builder (1 Cor 3:10)

Peter says: Paul’s writings contain wisdom given to him (2 Pet 3:15–16). And Peter warns people not to twist Paul’s writings. Paul’s writings carry unique apostolic weight.

So yes, same gospel, but different apostolic stewardship. That’s exactly what the Bible says. Your claim is that Paul preached the Acts 2 formula. But Paul himself denies that.

Paul explicitly says: Christ sent me not to baptize but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 1:17). Did you receive the Spirit by works or by the hearing of faith? (Gal 3:2). I thank God I baptized none of you (1 Cor 1:14). One Lord, one faith, one baptism & Paul defines that baptism as Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13)

If Paul preached the Acts 2:38 formula, he would never say: Christ did NOT send me to baptize. I thank God I baptized none of you. You received the Spirit by faith, not works.

So no, Paul did NOT preach Peter’s Acts 2 water‑formula message. He preached the same gospel, but with the revelation of justification by faith, Spirit reception by faith & the Gentile dispensation entrusted to him by Christ.

That's not two gospels. That's one gospel with two apostles operating in their God‑assigned roles. Your argument collapses because you're forcing Paul to preach Peter's sermon instead of letting Paul preach his Christ commissioned message.

Oh my dear brother you are so confused in your theology. You are correct that Paul was sent the gospel to the gentiles ad Peter preached to the Jews but the preached the same gospel call with the same response to the call.
Let reason this difference of view out with scripture help. You want to point to 1 Corinthians 1:17 as proof that Paul did not tach as Peter in Acts 2:38 that being Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize but to preach the gospel that he did not preach baptism but scripture does not allow that view and in fact in the same chapter you use it refutes that view

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? ( the logical answer is no Christ died for me so I was baptized in the name of Christ) {see teaching why to be baptized in Christ name see Romans 6}


13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
These verses tell that Paul did teach baptism and even did baptize a few but tells why he doesn't make it a practice of doing the baptizing not preaching against it but just not doing the dipping in fear of some should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

So yes Paul taught the same message as Peter for God is not a respecter of person but all are called by the same gospel whether they be Jew or gentile. Paul also taught the Ephesians in Acts 19 the baptism in Christ name and personally baptized them.

The baptism in Christ name is as much part of the grace as the faith as Jesus said he that believes and is baptized will be saved. saving faith is active not hearing only but doing the gospel is to be obeyed.

 

[FlyingDove]

Oh my dear brother you are so confused in your theology. You are correct that Paul was sent the gospel to the gentiles ad Peter preached to the Jews but the preached the same gospel call with the same response to the call.
Let reason this difference of view out with scripture help. You want to point to 1 Corinthians 1:17 as proof that Paul did not tach as Peter in Acts 2:38 that being Paul said he wasn't sent to baptize but to preach the gospel that he did not preach baptism but scripture does not allow that view and in fact in the same chapter you use it refutes that view

13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? ( the logical answer is no Christ died for me so I was baptized in the name of Christ) {see teaching why to be baptized in Christ name see Romans 6}


13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?
14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.
These verses tell that Paul did teach baptism and even did baptize a few but tells why he doesn't make it a practice of doing the baptizing not preaching against it but just not doing the dipping in fear of some should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

So yes Paul taught the same message as Peter for God is not a respecter of person but all are called by the same gospel whether they be Jew or gentile. Paul also taught the Ephesians in Acts 19 the baptism in Christ name and personally baptized them.

The baptism in Christ name is as much part of the grace as the faith as Jesus said he that believes and is baptized will be saved. saving faith is active not hearing only but doing the gospel is to be obeyed.

You keep repeating the phrase "same gospel = same response," but that’s your equation, not Scripture's.

The Bible never says "“same gospel = same formula." It says same gospel, different stewardship, different audience & different revelation. That's what scripture records Paul teaching.

I'll address your points 1 by 1.

You quoted 1 Cor 1:13–16 as if it supports your view, but you skipped the part that destroys your argument: Christ sent me NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel. (1 Cor 1:17). If water most essential part of salvation/AS USE CLAIM. Paul could never say that.

Paul DID baptize a few. But that proves nothing about a formula. Paul baptizing a handful of people does NOT mean: He preached YOUR obsession water baptism formula as part of the gospel & no place in scripture cites that he did. He
NEVER preached water as the means of receiving the Spirit NEVER! He does say: Christ did NOT send me to baptize & I thank God I baptized none of you.

You keep claiming Paul baptized the Ephesians in Acts 19. But the text never says that. In Acts 19:4 Paul’s ONLY recorded instruction: Was that they should BELIEVE on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus. Acts 19:6 Than the Spirit comes by laying on of hands, not water. This isn't your salvation holy grail formula, Peter' preached in Acts 2

He that believes is baptized will be saved” — you’re misusing it
You quoted Mark 16:16, Jesus say's He that believeth (FAITH 1st NOT your salvation holy grail formula order, Peter' preached in Acts 2) & you skipped the second half: Jesus said; He that is not baptized will be condemned. Jesus ties condemnation to UNBELIEF & NOT lack of water baptism.

"Same gospel" does NOT mean "same administration" Same gospel? Yes. Same stewardship? No. Same audience? No. Same revelation? No. Same commission? No. Same baptismal emphasis? No. Paul says:
Given to ME for YOU Gentiles. To whom I NOW send you. "MY gospel." "I laid the foundation." "I received my administration/stewardship/commission, NOT from man but by direct revelation of Jesus Christ.

Peter confirms Paul's administration/stewardship/commission: Peter say's Paul's writings contain wisdom given to him. People twist Paul's writings to their destruction. If Peter & Paul preached the same formula, Peter would not warn people about misunderstanding Paul.

Your entire argument ASSUMESS what you're trying to prove. You keep saying: Paul preached Acts 2:38 because Peter preached Acts 2:38. But Paul says:
Christ did NOT send me to baptize. You received the Spirit by hearing of faith. I thank God I baptized none of you. "One baptism" = Spirit baptism (1 Cor 12:13). If Peter & Paul preached the same message. Please advise where Peter say's. What Paul just said. The two administration/stewardship/commission done line up in scripture.

Finally, you closed with this:

"""The baptism in Christ name is as much part of the grace as the faith as Jesus said he that believes and is baptized will be saved. saving faith is active not hearing only but doing the gospel is to be obeyed."""

SAVED By GRACE = unearned favor [baptism in Christ name has nothing to do with God's GIFT of GRACE] thru FAITH Salvation is given by Christ' GIFT of the Holy Spirit [NO H2O REQUIRED]. And no surprise you just added another works requirement OBEY.

Genuine faith will result in good works.

Rom 1:5 "Through him we received grace" & apostleship "to call all the Gentiles to the obedience" "that comes from faith" for his name’s sake
(MY NOTE: A Gentiles Faith leads to obedience)

Rom 16:26 Now revealed & made known through the prophetic writings by the command of the eternal God, "so that all the Gentiles might come to the obedience," "that comes from faith"
(MY NOTE: A Gentiles obedience is a direct result of their Faith)

When true Faith is the root obedience & good works will be the fruit.

Good works are the evidences of Genuine FAITH & not a requirement or the cause of salvation.

 

[lrs68]

I've presented 2 Verses about Water Baptizing explaining Jesus, His Disciples are Water Baptizing Judeans and not far away John the Baptist is also Water Baptizing.

This is important because I am willing to bet the Disciples of Jesus and Jesus Himself are most likely doing it in the Name of Jesus because the Upper Room experience is years away from this moment to include the Holy Spirit.

But it's probably why in the Book of Acts we see everyone using the Formula of Name of Jesus because they were probably doing it in Verse 22.

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.

23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.



Probably the correct Formula is in Jesus Name.

It's even a historical fact in Church History until it was changed by the RCC in the 4th Century who was in full control of the established Church during that period.