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

[Wansvic]

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!

Peter revealed everyone was to obey the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. As such, the command applied to all those present including the apostles themselves. Confirmation of this truth is recorded in Acts 19. The 12 men Paul witnessed to had already been water baptized by John. Yet, they were required to submit to water baptism in the name of Jesus in association with His death, burial, and resurrection.

 

[Wansvic]

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.

Peter introduced the same gospel message that included the same requirements for both Jews and Gentiles. (Acts 15) Paul was just used to continue to minister to the Gentiles.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Peter revealed everyone was to obey the command to be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sin. As such, the command applied to all those present including the apostles themselves.

This is merely an assumption. Jesus told the disciples to baptize others in his name, not themselves. Jesus washed only their feet because he said they were already clean through the word spoken to them.

 

[FlyingDove]

Just for the record, God said he had already cleansed what Peter thought in his ignorance was unclean. So Peter was observing a law that only existed in his mind. The only logical explanation for this is that God cleansed gentiles at the cross, which the baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch bears out.

And the voice spoke unto him again the second time, What God has cleansed, don't call profane. Acts 10:15​

The vision doesn't say Gentiles were cleansed at the cross.

Jewish law is still in full force. The stone baluster wall that separated/divided the outer temple Courtyard. Still had warning signs: Any foreign uncircumcised person caught crossing into another courtyard was punishable by DEATH. Under Jewish law gentiles were still considered ungodly & impure. Living outside of covenant seals.

God give's Peter permission to break Jewish law & sends Peter on a mission to open salvations door to gentiles.

The actual text teaches the opposite of your position: they HEAR, they BELIEVE & THEN: God purifies them by giving the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:44, The Holy Ghost falls on these gentiles while Peter is preaching, not at the cross.

Acts 11:15–17, Peter says the Spirit fell on them "as on us at the beginning/Pentecost". Same pattern: Hearing > Believing > Receiving Christ' Salvation Sealing, Eternal Life Giving Holy Spirit.

Acts 15:9, God "PURIFIED their hearts BY FAITH". NOT at the CROSS & NOT with WATER BAPTISM!

Additionally, these verses also collapse your "“baptized in Jesus’ name needed for salvation" claim.

So, here's the unavoidable problem for your view. If Gentiles were already cleansed at the cross, why does God wait until Acts 10 for the Spirit to fall. Your timeline doesn't match Peter's words, Luke's narrative or the actual sequence of events.

 

[Wansvic]

This is merely an assumption. Jesus told the disciples to baptize others in his name, not themselves. Jesus washed only their feet because he said they were already clean through the word spoken to them.

You've pointed out something I need to study further. Thanks.

 

[Ouch]

This is merely an assumption. Jesus told the disciples to baptize others in his name, not themselves. Jesus washed only their feet because he said they were already clean through the word spoken to them.

Are you saying HIS discople were told to baptizee others and not themselvels?

Since that is the only way to get rid of our sins, HIS disciples didn't need to becuase JESUS washed their feet?

I'm sure you know, baptism in JESUS name didn't start until Acts 2 right?

 

[Lamar]

Just because someone has sincere faith doesn't mean that they will never mess up at all. Even genuine believers can have their weak moments. Now in Genesis 15:6, we read that Abraham believed in the Lord and his faith was accounted to him for righteousness. Also see Romans 4:2-3. No spiritually deadly consequences for him.

We are not talking about "messing up" or "weak moments", we are talking about the moment of remission of sins.

The issue is when.

When are we buried with Christ?
When are we raised with Christ?
When are we united with Him?
When is our old self crucified?
When do we have the remission of sins?

There are two opposing views on when is that moment.

Water baptism of the repentant. (Baptismal Regeneration)
or
At some point or level of belief. (Faith Alone Regeneration)

If one rejects the clear command for water baptism for the remission of sins he is not simply having a "weak moment" but rejecting the avenue that the Bible leads us toward. You are replacing this Biblical avenue with one of your own making, one that suits your sensibilities about what should be needed for the remission of sins.

Regardless of how sincere a person's faith in the soul cleansing power of the blood of Jesus Christ, if they choose to disregard the command of how to properly receive this gift then they are in the same boat as the person found without the proper wedding garment in Matthew 22.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

So, here's the unavoidable problem for your view. If Gentiles were already cleansed at the cross, why does God wait until Acts 10 for the Spirit to fall.

Because Daniel prophesied that God would establish the new covenant with Israel and Judah for 7 years during the 70th week. Jesus established the new covenant during the first 3.5 years and the apostles did so for the remaining 3.5 years, at which point God opened the door for the gentiles to enter. God fulfilled his promise to Israel first and then officially brought the nations into the covenant.

But at least one gentile was brought in before that when the Ethiopian eunuch was saved after Stephen was killed. Many Samaritans were also saved at that time

 

[FlyingDove]

Because Daniel prophesied that God would establish the new covenant with Israel and Judah for 7 years during the 70th week. Jesus established the new covenant during the first 3.5 years and the apostles did so for the remaining 3.5 years, at which point God opened the door for the gentiles to enter. God fulfilled his promise to Israel first and then officially brought the nations into the covenant.

But at least one gentile was brought in before that when the Ethiopian eunuch was saved after Stephen was killed. Many Samaritans were also saved at that time

LOL, Mental gymnastics, speculation & more assumptions, Oh My!

You just created a far bigger problem for your own position.

If God waited 7 years to open the covenant to Gentiles, "as you speculate from Daniel" then Gentiles were not cleansed at the cross. Your own argument destroys your earlier claim.

You can't have it both ways, Either: Gentiles were cleansed at the cross (your assumption) OR God waited 7 years to open the covenant to Gentiles. Both cannot be true.

And your "speculatory" appeal to Daniel actually agrees with my point: God opens the door to Gentiles in Acts 10, not at the cross.

Peter confirms the salvation sequence that destroys your: water baptism in Jesus name only & you must speak in tongues to be saved
Acts 10:
44 While Peter speaks, they HEAR, BELIEVE & Holy Ghost falls on then all.

45 Peter & the Jews with him are astonished. Because Gentiles had received the GIFT.

Acts 11:15, The Holy Spirit fell on them as on us at the beginning/PENTECOST..

Acts 15:8, 9, They HEARD, BELIEVED & God purified their hearts by FAITH, not at the cross.

No water baptism in Jesus name & no tongues required to be saved!

 

[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.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

If God waited 7 years to open the covenant to Gentiles, "as you speculate from Daniel" then Gentiles were not cleansed at the cross. Your own argument destroys your earlier claim.

IMO Cornelius' conversion marked the official opening to the kingdom for gentiles. The Samaritans and The Ethiopian eunuch were gentiles who were saved before that. You need to address those two.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

God give's Peter permission to break Jewish law & sends Peter on a mission to open salvations door to gentiles.

It wasn't against the law of Moses for Peter to enter the house of a gentile, so he didn't need God's permission. It was against Jewish oral tradition.

 

[mailmandan]

We are not talking about "messing up" or "weak moments", we are talking about the moment of remission of sins. The issue is when.

Acts 10:43 -To Him all the prophets witness that, through His name, whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins.

Acts 13:38 - Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through this Man is preached to you the forgiveness of sins; 39 and by Him everyone who believes is justified from all things from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.

Acts 26:18 - to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.

That's when. The moment we believe in/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

When are we buried with Christ?
When are we raised with Christ?
When are we united with Him?
When is our old self crucified?
When do we have the remission of sins?

A symbol (water baptism) is not the reality but is a picture of the reality.

There are two opposing views on when is that moment.

Water baptism of the repentant. (Baptismal Regeneration)
or
At some point or level of belief. (Faith Alone Regeneration)

It's the moment that we believe in/place faith in Jesus Christ for salvation.

If one rejects the clear command for water baptism for the remission of sins he is not simply having a "weak moment" but rejecting the avenue that the Bible leads us toward.

You must read your pet verse "Acts 2:38" alongside verses like (Luke 24:47; Acts 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) where forgiveness is explicitly tied to repentance/belief/faith and not the ritual itself. Water baptism is a sign of that reality but not the source of it.

You are replacing this Biblical avenue with one of your own making, one that suits your sensibilities about what should be needed for the remission of sins.

The only logical and Biblical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is that faith in Jesus Christ "implied in repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17,18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*

Regardless of how sincere a person's faith in the soul cleansing power of the blood of Jesus Christ, if they choose to disregard the command of how to properly receive this gift then they are in the same boat as the person found without the proper wedding garment in Matthew 22.

You fail to properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching your conclusion on doctrine. Apart from becoming a child of God through belief/faith (John 1:12; Galatians 3:26) leaves one without a wedding garment.

 

[FlyingDove]

IMO Cornelius' conversion marked the official opening to the kingdom for gentiles. The Samaritans and The Ethiopian eunuch were gentiles who were saved before that. You need to address those two.

The Samaritans were of Jewish descent. They had intermarried (against Mosaic law Deut 7:34, Ezra 9:1-2 & Neh 13:23-27) & were despised & considered unclean by the Jews.

In the exchange with the Samaritan women, She & Jesus each mention a mountain of worship (Jn 4:20-21). The Samaritans had their own temple on Mt Gerazim

IMO Cornelius' conversion marked the official opening to the kingdom for gentiles. The Samaritans and The Ethiopian eunuch were gentiles who were saved before that. You need to address those two.

Jerusalem isn't just a city, it's covenant headquarters.

Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Everything follows the exact covenant sequence Jesus gave.

Jerusalem 1st, It's the place God puts His Name (Deut 12:5, 11; 16:2; 1 Kgs 8:29; 11:36; 2 Kgs 21:4; 2 Chr 6:6; 7:16).

Judea, The Jewish homeland surrounding the covenant center.

Samaria, JEWS that had intermarried. This was against Mosaic law (Deut 7:3-4, Ezra 9:1-2, Neh 13:23-27). They were seen as impure/unclean & living outside of covenant seals. Samaritans had their own temple on Mt Gerizim (Jn 4:20–22).

Ethiopian eunuch, He's NOT a gentile > He's a PROSELYTE. "He came to Jerusalem to worship". He's reading a scroll. Philip physically approaches, joins & baptizes him (Acts 8:29–38). That alone proves the eunuch was not a pagan Gentile. Under Jewish law, a Jew would not: enter a Gentile’s chariot, sit with a Gentile, share water with a Gentile, because doing so made him ritually unclean (see Jn 18:28).

Deut 16:16 required all covenant males to attend the pilgrimage feasts & Ex 12:48–49, Num 15:14–16, Deut 31:12 shows that proselytes were under the same worship obligations as native Israelites. The Ethiopian eunuch came to Jerusalem as a proselyte obeying the feast command.

Cornelius the 1st Gentile inclusion.

That's the Acts 1:8 pattern exactly as Jesus commanded: Jerusalem > Judea > Samaria > Proselytes > Gentile nations. BOOM!

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The Samaritans were of Jewish descent. They had intermarried (against Mosaic law Deut 7:34, Ezra 9:1-2 & Neh 13:23-27) & were despised & considered unclean by the Jews.

They absolutely weren't. They were imports from other nations who adopted the religion of Israel. Jesus himself said they weren't children of Israel, otherwise he wouldn't have said this.

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 10:5-6​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Ethiopian eunuch, He's NOT a gentile > He's a PROSELYTE. "He came to Jerusalem to worship". He's reading a scroll. Philip physically approaches, joins & baptizes him (Acts 8:29–38). That alone proves the eunuch was not a pagan Gentile. Under Jewish law, a Jew would not: enter a Gentile’s chariot, sit with a Gentile, share water with a Gentile, because doing so made him ritually unclean (see Jn 18:28).

The Eunuch may have been a proselyte, but he was not an Israelite because it was against the law for him to be a part of Israel as the verse I posted earlier shows. Therefore he was a gentile. There were 2 types of proselytes: proselytes of the gate (God fearers) and proselytes of righteouness. The latter had to get circumcised and keep the law of Moses, which made him a member of Israel (which the eunuch could not do); and the former merely had to observe certain synagogue rules (Acts 15:29) to be able to worship in synagogues.

You keep repeating this about not being lawful to assocaite with gentiles, but it's not true because the law of Moses did not forbid Israelites from associating with gentiles. It was an oral tradition of the pharisees.

 

[FlyingDove]

They absolutely weren't. They were imports from other nations who adopted the religion of Israel. Jesus himself said they weren't children of Israel, otherwise he wouldn't have said this.

These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Matthew 10:5-6​

The Old Testament explicitly says Samaritans were a MIXED Israelite population. Your claim that Samaritans were "imports only" is both biblically & historically false.

Scripture says:
The Assyrians deported some Israelites (2 Kgs 17:6) But not all, many Israelites remained in the land (2 Kgs 17:24–29). Those remaining Israelites intermarried with the foreigners (2 Kgs 17:33–34)

This is exactly why Ezra & Nehemiah condemn intermarriage (Ezra 9:1–2; Neh 13:23–27).

If Samaritans were "IMPORTS ONLY" then: There would be no Israelites left to intermarry with. Ezra & Nehemiah's rebukes would make ZERO sense

Jesus wouldn't call the Samaritan woman's ancestor "JACOB" (Jn 4:12). Scripture records Samaritans were mixed Israelites, not Gentiles.

Matt 10:5-6 doesn't say Samaritans "weren’t children of Israel" Their Jews that broke covenant (I cited the scripture) Jesus told the woman: You worship what you do not know (Jn 4:22). That's a theological critique, not an ethnicity statement. Neither Jesus or anyone else says: Samaritans are Gentiles, Samaritans are not Israelites, Samaritans are foreigners, NEVER!

Jesus own sequence:

If Samaritans were Gentiles, then: Jesus would be sending the apostles to Gentiles before Acts 10 Cornelius house.

Peter would not say it was "unlawful" to enter a Gentile's house (Acts 10:28)

The Jews would not be "astonished" when Gentiles receive the Spirit (Acts 10:45).

Acts 11:19 would not say they were still preaching to Jews only. This is after after Samaria.

And Cornelius house would not be the 1st Gentile inclusion

Your stated position contradicts the entire book of Acts.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Scripture says:
The Assyrians deported some Israelites (2 Kgs 17:6) But not all, many Israelites remained in the land (2 Kgs 17:24–29). Those remaining Israelites intermarried with the foreigners (2 Kgs 17:33–34)

lol none of those verses say what you say they say

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Matt 10:5-6 doesn't say Samaritans "weren’t children of Israel" Their Jews that broke covenant (I cited the scripture) Jesus told the woman: You worship what you do not know (Jn 4:22). That's a theological critique, not an ethnicity statement. Neither Jesus or anyone else says: Samaritans are Gentiles, Samaritans are not Israelites, Samaritans are foreigners, NEVER!

Jesus specifically said they were not Israelites, by excluding them from those whom the disciples could visit, which was only the lost sheep of Israel

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

If Samaritans were "IMPORTS ONLY" then: There would be no Israelites left to intermarry with. Ezra & Nehemiah's rebukes would make ZERO sense

Ezra was rebuking the Jews who returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. It had nothing to do with Samaria