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

[studier]

I appreciate the effort you've put into the Greek, but your conclusion still requires you to reverse Peter's own structure. The issue is resolved by walking through the text as Peter gives it, not as later theology wants it to be.

You keep equating "baptism" with water, but Peter explicitly separates the two. Peter says: "not the removal of dirt from the flesh." That phrase refers to literal water baptism, because washing dirt off a body is the only thing water baptism physically does. If Peter meant water baptism saves, this would be the most confusing way possible to express it. Your interpretation requires all 3 of these to be true at the same time: "baptism saves," "not the physical washing," but actually "the physical washing is required." That crumbles under its own weight.

Peter defines the saving element as the appeal, not the ritual. Peter's definition is: "but the appeal of a good conscience toward God". This is: internal, volitional, faith based, moral. It is not: water, immersion, ritual, external action. You keep saying "baptism is the appeal," but Peter says the opposite: not the external washing, but the internal appeal. You're merging the 2. Peter is separating them.

You're importing Acts 22:16 into 1 Pet 3:21, but the grammar doesn't support your use of it. Acts 22:16: wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord. The participle (calling) is the operative action.
The washing is tied to the calling, not the water. You're using Acts 22:16 to override Peter's own explanation. Peter doesn't need Paul to clarify him, Peter clarifies himself.

You say "baptism is the appeal," but Peter says the appeal is what baptism is not. Peter's contrast is: NOT the external washing BUT the internal appeal. You're collapsing the contrast Peter is making. Peter is distinguishing: the outward ritual (not saving), the inward appeal (saving). You're merging them into 1 saving event. Peter is separating them into 2 different categories.

You appeal to "the preponderance of the evidence," but Peter's own sentence contradicts your conclusion. You said: "I think the preponderance of the evidence is for water." But in this passage: Peter denies the physical washing, Peter defines the saving element as internal, Peter grounds the saving power in the resurrection & Peter uses Noah's water as judgment, not salvation. Your conclusion requires: water = salvation, Peter = unclear, resurrection = secondary. Peter's conclusion is: water = judgment, ark = salvation, , appeal = the saving response, resurrection = the saving power. Your reading reverses every part of Peter's structure.

Your "forest through the trees" argument is not exegesis. You said you read 91 baptism verses & a 2,000‑page treatise & concluded baptism is required. But none of that changes what Peter actually wrote. Volume of reading ≠ correctness of interpretation. Peter's own clarifications—not 91 verses, not a treatise—govern 1 Peter 3:21.

The core issue remains untouched. Peter says: NOT the physical washing, BUT the appeal, through the resurrection. You say: the physical washing is required, the appeal happens during the washing, the resurrection is part of the package.
Those are not the same thing. Your interpretation requires Peter to be unclear. Peter's own words are not unclear.

To make 1 Peter 3:21 teach water regeneration, you must: reverse the flood imagery, ignore Peter's denial of physical washing, redefine "appeal of a good conscience & relocate the saving power from the resurrection to the baptistry. Peter's own clarifications eliminate that interpretation.

Last paragraph first. I don’t believe water regenerates; if you think I do from what I said, then you’ve misunderstood me.

Water does not save. The saving element is the appeal of a good conscience directed to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and baptism is the physical act through or during which that appeal is expressed.

In effect, baptism = appeal, not in the sense that the water itself accomplishes salvation, but as the occasion in which the internal appeal is outwardly enacted.

Peter’s statement “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” negates the salvific power of external washing, not the ritual itself; treating this contrast as meaning water baptism is denied and baptism has nothing to do with water is a false equivalence.

Baptism is a much deeper, richer act than merely being dipped in water, and its full significance includes the outward enactment of the inward response to God.

The comparison to Acts22:16 illustrates this: be baptized and wash away your sins by calling on the name of the Lord, not by the water. The calling is the means, not the water, yet it is performed in coordination with the water. Similarly, Peter’s statement is that baptism/appeal saves, and the resurrection remains the source of saving power.

 

[FlyingDove]

Last paragraph first. I don’t believe water regenerates; if you think I do from what I said, then you’ve misunderstood me.

Water does not save. The saving element is the appeal of a good conscience directed to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and baptism is the physical act through or during which that appeal is expressed.

In effect, baptism = appeal, not in the sense that the water itself accomplishes salvation, but as the occasion in which the internal appeal is outwardly enacted.

Peter’s statement “not the removal of dirt from the flesh” negates the salvific power of external washing, not the ritual itself; treating this contrast as meaning water baptism is denied and baptism has nothing to do with water is a false equivalence.

Baptism is a much deeper, richer act than merely being dipped in water, and its full significance includes the outward enactment of the inward response to God.

The comparison to Acts22:16 illustrates this: be baptized and wash away your sins by calling on the name of the Lord, not by the water. The calling is the means, not the water, yet it is performed in coordination with the water. Similarly, Peter’s statement is that baptism/appeal saves, and the resurrection remains the source of saving power.

You actually just agreed with Peter's contrast. Peter says NOT the external washing BUT the internal appeal. You deny water regenerates & affirm the appeal saves - that's Peter's exact structure. The only thing you're adding is the claim that the appeal must happen during the ritual, but Peter never says that. That's tradition layered onto the text.

If the water contributes nothing, attaching the saving appeal to the ritual is arbitrary. Acts 22:16 says the same thing: the calling is the operative action, not the water & the flood imagery still stands untouched: water = judgment, ark = salvation. Peter's whole point is that water does NOT save.

So your view ends up merging what Peter separates. Peter's words don't support that - your assumption does.

 

[studier]

Repent - Water Baptism - Spirit Baptism
John the Baptist's purpose & baptism were preparatory, not remissive. His repeatedly stated mission was to prepare the way of the Lord (Mal 3:1, Matt 3:3, Mark 1:2–3). His "baptism of repentance" was a call for Israel to return to God Strong's Hebrew: 7725. שׁוּב (shub) -- Return, turn back, restore, repent an outward & inward cleansing that prepared the people to meet their long‑promised Messiah who alone would forgive sins. John, Jesus & Peter spoke Aramaic & Hebrew, where "repent" meant: ISRAEL return to GOD! Not the later Greek idea of "change your mind."

Acts 19:4 confirms this: "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
(NOTE: John preached to ISRAEL, "You're off course repent/return & believe in the 1 coming after me," Messiah, who alone will/can remit & pardon sins.)

John's water baptism did not remove or remit sin. "Nothing external removes sin." Israel's sacrificial system dealt with sin only by covering it. It did not remove or forgive sin. Once a year the high priest offered innocent animal blood sacrifices for the whole nation, but these sacrifices only covered sin & only for 1 year. The process had to be repeated annually..

Water baptism does not remit or pardon sin. Repentance does not remit or pardon sin. Obedience does not remit or pardon sin. Sabbath observance does not remit or pardon sin. Tithing does not remit or pardon sin. "Nothing external removes sin."

What removes sin, how & why:
Only faith & faith alone-placed in the finished, sin‑redeeming death & resurrection of the Lord Jesus-brings forgiveness. All glory, all credit, all praise belongs to our great God & Savior, Jesus the Christ.

The Word became flesh (Jn 1:1, 14 & Rev 19:13), born of a woman (Gal 4:4) by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:18-25 & Luke 1:26-38). His humanity was real & His blood was sinless (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 1:19; 1 Pet 2:22).

Scripture is clear: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Heb 9:22). Jesus said, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:28). Revelation affirms the same: He washed us from our sins in His own blood (Rev 1:5).

Hebrews identifies the Lord Jesus as our great High Priest (Heb 4:14), called by God after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10). Under the Old Covenant, the pattern was sin-imputation by the high priest. In Leviticus 16:21, Aaron laid both hands on the substitute, confessed the sins of the nation, transferring-imputing-those sins onto the innocent victim. That was the foreshadow.

Jesus is the fulfillment.

Jesus is the mediator of the New Testament (Heb 9:15 & 12:24), our great High Priest (Heb 4:14) & the One who offered Himself as the sacrifice (Matt 26:53). The risen Christ is the New Covenant High Priest who performs the real sin-transfer.

When we call on the name of the Lord (Acts 2:21 & Rom 10:13) & place our faith in Jesus' sin-atoning death & resurrection, He forgives all our sins (Heb 10:10–18) & imputes our sins onto Himself (Heb 10:10; 2 Cor 5:19; Rom 4:8, 11, 22–24). At that same moment, He places His forever (Jn 14:16), salvation‑sealing (Eph 1:13–14; 4:30; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; 2 Tim 1:14) indwelling Holy Spirit in you.

Anyone can dunk someone into a pool of water. Only Jesus, who knows the true heart of man, can baptize-place-His Holy Spirit in-you. Jesus then imputes His righteousness to us (2 Cor 5:21, Ja 2:23 & Isa 61:10), the very righteousness pictured as the white robe in Revelation 19:7–8 that grants us entrance to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Finally:
The only thing that removes sin from the soul is faith placed in the finished, sacrificial, sin‑atoning work of our great God & Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Some very general, initial counter-points:

• Re: baptism and sins:
  • John's baptism in water was repentance EIS (for, result) remission/release/pardon/cancellation of sins (Mark1:4; Luke3:3; Acts2:38)
  • Those being baptized by John in water were confessing their sins (Matt3:6; Mark 1:5)
  • John criticized Pharisees for coming to be baptized in water to flee coming wrath (which was for sins) (Matt3:7; Luke3:7)
• Re: anyone can dunk
  • It was God's will and command that they be baptized (Luke7:30)
• Re: Blood and remission:
  • Hebrews also joins blood and water (which was also for remission according to the above verses) for drawing near to God (Heb10:22)

 

[studier]

You actually just agreed with Peter's contrast. Peter says NOT the external washing BUT the internal appeal.

No, I said effectively baptism = appeal and was the occasion in which the internal appeal is outwardly enacted and its full significance includes the outward enactment of the inward response to God.

You deny water regenerates & affirm the appeal saves - that's Peter's exact structure.

Agreed, but the appeal is made outwardly in baptism and this baptism/outward appeal saves.

The only thing you're adding is the claim that the appeal must happen during the ritual, but Peter never says that. That's tradition layered onto the text.

I‘m not adding anything. The language ties the baptism and the appeal together as one, so the baptism itself is the outward appeal or the outward appeal is made during the outward baptism.

If the water contributes nothing, attaching the saving appeal to the ritual is arbitrary. Acts 22:16 says the same thing: the calling is the operative action, not the water & the flood imagery still stands untouched: water = judgment, ark = salvation. Peter's whole point is that water does NOT save.

I didn’t say the water contributes nothing. The water is God’s will. God specifies the water baptism/appeal saves just as He specifies in Acts22:16 that the baptism + the person calling the Lord's name washes away sins.

I agreed that the water represents judgment - it buried the old world, just as baptismal water corresponds to the burial of the 'old man.' But the Text says more. Peter explicitly states that Noah and family 'were saved through dia water' (1Pet3:20).

The Greek dia with the genitive indicates the medium or means of the action. While the water judged the world, it was the same medium that lifted the Ark and delivered Noah from that world. Peter calls baptism the 'antitype' of this. If you strip the water out of the antitype, you destroy the correspondence Peter is establishing. The water is also the God-ordained medium of the rescue; to call it 'arbitrary' or 'only judgment' is to ignore the grammar of the verse."

So your view ends up merging what Peter separates. Peter's words don't support that - your assumption does.

No, Peter merges water and appeal, which you attempt to separate.

 

[Ouch]

Repent - Water Baptism - Spirit Baptism
John the Baptist's purpose & baptism were preparatory, not remissive. His repeatedly stated mission was to prepare the way of the Lord (Mal 3:1, Matt 3:3, Mark 1:2–3). His "baptism of repentance" was a call for Israel to return to God Strong's Hebrew: 7725. שׁוּב (shub) -- Return, turn back, restore, repent an outward & inward cleansing that prepared the people to meet their long‑promised Messiah who alone would forgive sins. John, Jesus & Peter spoke Aramaic & Hebrew, where "repent" meant: ISRAEL return to GOD! Not the later Greek idea of "change your mind."

Acts 19:4 confirms this: "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
(NOTE: John preached to ISRAEL, "You're off course repent/return & believe in the 1 coming after me," Messiah, who alone will/can remit & pardon sins.)

John's water baptism did not remove or remit sin. "Nothing external removes sin." Israel's sacrificial system dealt with sin only by covering it. It did not remove or forgive sin. Once a year the high priest offered innocent animal blood sacrifices for the whole nation, but these sacrifices only covered sin & only for 1 year. The process had to be repeated annually..

Water baptism does not remit or pardon sin. Repentance does not remit or pardon sin. Obedience does not remit or pardon sin. Sabbath observance does not remit or pardon sin. Tithing does not remit or pardon sin. "Nothing external removes sin."

What removes sin, how & why:
Only faith & faith alone-placed in the finished, sin‑redeeming death & resurrection of the Lord Jesus-brings forgiveness. All glory, all credit, all praise belongs to our great God & Savior, Jesus the Christ.

The Word became flesh (Jn 1:1, 14 & Rev 19:13), born of a woman (Gal 4:4) by the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:18-25 & Luke 1:26-38). His humanity was real & His blood was sinless (2 Cor 5:21; Heb 4:15; 1 Jn 3:5; 1 Pet 1:19; 1 Pet 2:22).

Scripture is clear: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Heb 9:22). Jesus said, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt 26:28). Revelation affirms the same: He washed us from our sins in His own blood (Rev 1:5).

Hebrews identifies the Lord Jesus as our great High Priest (Heb 4:14), called by God after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10). Under the Old Covenant, the pattern was sin-imputation by the high priest. In Leviticus 16:21, Aaron laid both hands on the substitute, confessed the sins of the nation, transferring-imputing-those sins onto the innocent victim. That was the foreshadow.

Jesus is the fulfillment.

Jesus is the mediator of the New Testament (Heb 9:15 & 12:24), our great High Priest (Heb 4:14) & the One who offered Himself as the sacrifice (Matt 26:53). The risen Christ is the New Covenant High Priest who performs the real sin-transfer.

When we call on the name of the Lord (Acts 2:21 & Rom 10:13) & place our faith in Jesus' sin-atoning death & resurrection, He forgives all our sins (Heb 10:10–18) & imputes our sins onto Himself (Heb 10:10; 2 Cor 5:19; Rom 4:8, 11, 22–24). At that same moment, He places His forever (Jn 14:16), salvation‑sealing (Eph 1:13–14; 4:30; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; 2 Tim 1:14) indwelling Holy Spirit in you.

Anyone can dunk someone into a pool of water. Only Jesus, who knows the true heart of man, can baptize-place-His Holy Spirit in-you. Jesus then imputes His righteousness to us (2 Cor 5:21, Ja 2:23 & Isa 61:10), the very righteousness pictured as the white robe in Revelation 19:7–8 that grants us entrance to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Finally:
The only thing that removes sin from the soul is faith placed in the finished, sacrificial, sin‑atoning work of our great God & Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Takes a lot of talking to prove HIS WORD WRONG,

Finally:
The only thing that removes sin from the soul is faith placed in the finished, sacrificial, sin‑atoning work of our great God & Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Why did Peter say this?

Acts 2:38-39
King James Version
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.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Why did Ananias say this?

Acts 22:16
King James Version
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Do you know more than them???

Of course your opinion is wrong and HIS word is right.

It's not too late to repent.

Don't forget you need the Holy Ghost also to enter.

 

[FlyingDove]

Takes a lot of talking to prove HIS WORD WRONG,

Finally:
The only thing that removes sin from the soul is faith placed in the finished, sacrificial, sin‑atoning work of our great God & Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Why did Peter say this?

Acts 2:38-39
King James Version
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.

39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.

Why did Ananias say this?

Acts 22:16
King James Version
16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Do you know more than them???

Of course your opinion is wrong and HIS word is right.

It's not too late to repent.

Don't forget you need the Holy Ghost also to enter.

Temple Mt > All Mosaic law adherent Jews.

Under the Mosaic Law, Israel practiced many ceremonial water‑purification immersions (Ex 30:19–21, 40:12, Lev 6:27, 13:54, 14:8–9, 15:16; 16:4, 22:6). Every Israelite understood these washings. Someone who was impure/unclean before immersion was considered pure/clean after immersion. These were ceremonial purifications, not forgiveness rituals

John, Jesus, & Peter all spoke Aramaic & Hebrew, where repent meant Israel, return to God, Strong's Hebrew: 7725. שׁוּב (shub) -- Return, turn back, restore, repent not “get in water to be saved.”

This is exactly how the Jews interpreted baptism.
John 3:25 says a dispute arose between John's disciples and a Jew about purification. The debate wasn't about forgiveness or salvation — it was about purification. That's the category mikveh full immersion/baptism expressed.
(NOTE: John the Baptist, his disciples, & Jesus' disciples all performed the baptism of repentance (Acts 19:4). This was a Jewish purification immersion ritual, unrelated to remission. John 3:25 confirms the crowds understood these baptisms as purification washings, preparing Israel to return to God & believe in the coming Messiah.)

John the Baptist's mission was to prepare the way of the Lord (Lev 17:11; Mal 3:1; Matt 3:3; Mark 1:2–3). His "baptism of repentance" was preparatory, not remissive. In Hebrew & Aramaic, repent (שׁוּב / shub) means return, turn back, restore — Israel, return to God. So when the people confessed their sins, they were acknowledging that they had turned away from the Lord & through immersion they became pure/ceremonially clean, just as in the Mosaic purification washings

Acts 19:4 confirms this: "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
(NORE: John preached to Israel — return to God and believe in the One coming after me, the Messiah. Only Christ can remit &d pardon sins; John's baptism never could/did.)

Acts 2:38
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.”
(NOTE: Repent = return to God. Be baptized = purify yourself (unclean > clean). Remission comes by calling on the Messiah, not by water. Peter is speaking to Israel, using the same purification categories they ALL knew)

Acts 22:16 “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
(NOTE: The water is the ceremonial purification act. The actual removal of sin happens by calling on the Lord. The grammar makes the sequence clear: the washing is symbolic, the calling is effective.)

Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”
(NOTE: They believed, then they purified themselves through baptism & then they called on the Messiah for remission. Faith precedes baptism & remission is tied to Christ, not water.)

 

[FlyingDove]

Post #2219 revised

"Acts, the Mikveh & the Blood: How the Bible Defines Remission"

Understanding baptism through the lens of Jewish purification, apostolic preaching & the New Covenant High Priest.
(NOTE: Source: Jewish Virtual Library, Topical Bible, Sefaria & Hirsch)

Under the Mosaic Law, Israel practiced many ceremonial water‑purification immersions (Ex 30:19–21, 40:12, Lev 6:27, 13:54, 14:8–9, 15:16; 16:4, 22:6). Every Israelite understood these washings. Someone who was impure/unclean before immersion was considered pure/clean after immersion. These were ceremonial purifications, not forgiveness rituals

A mikveh full immersion purification ritual expressed: I acknowledge I've been in an unclean state, I'm turning away from that state, I'm returning to covenant faithfulness, I'm restoring my ritual status before God & community
(NOTE: Sources — Jewish Virtual Library; Topical Bible; Sefaria; Rabbi Samson R. Hirsch)

John, Jesus, & Peter all spoke Aramaic & Hebrew, where repent meant Israel, return to God: Strong's Hebrew: 7725. שׁוּב (shub) -- Return, turn back, restore, repent repent not "get in water to be saved."

This is exactly how the Jews interpreted baptism.
John 3:25 says a dispute arose between John's disciples & a Jew "about purification". The debate wasn't about forgiveness or salvation, it was about purification. That's the category mikveh immersion/baptism expressed.
(NOTE: John the Baptist, his disciples, & Jesus' disciples all performed the baptism of repentance (Acts 19:4). This was a Jewish purification immersion ritual, unrelated to remission. John 3:25 confirms the crowds understood these baptisms as purification washings, preparing Israel to return to God & believe in the coming Messiah.)

John the Baptist's mission was to prepare the way of the Lord (Lev 17:11, Mal 3:1, Matt 3:3, Mark 1:2–3). His "baptism of repentance" was preparatory, not remissive. In Hebrew & Aramaic, repent (שׁוּב / shub) means return, turn back, restore — Israel, return to God. When the people confessed their sins, they were acknowledging that they had turned away from the Lord & through immersion they became pure/ceremonially clean = Mosaic purification washings,

Acts 19:4 confirms this: "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
(NOTE: John preached to Israel > return to God & believe in the One coming after me, the Messiah. Only Christ can remit & pardon sins; John's baptism never could/did.)

Acts and the Purification Pattern

Acts 2:38
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.”
(NOTE: Repent = return to God. Be baptized = purify yourself (unclean > clean). Remission comes by calling on the Messiah, not by water. Peter is speaking to Israel, using the same purification categories they ALL knew)

Acts 22:16 “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
(NOTE: The water is the ceremonial purification act. The actual removal of sin happens by calling on the Lord. The washing is symbolic, the calling is effective.)

Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”
(NOTE: They believed, then they purified themselves through baptism & then they called on the Messiah for remission. Faith precedes baptism & remission is tied to Christ, not water.)

Water baptism does/did not remit or pardon sin. "Nothing external removes sin."

Scripture is clear:
"Without shedding of blood there is no remission" (Heb 9:22).

Jesus said, “This is My blood > shed for many for the remission of sins” (Matt 26:28).

He washed us from our sins in His own blood (Rev 1:5).

The Foreshadow and the Fulfillment

In Leviticus 16:21, Aaron laid both hands on the substitute, confessed the sins of the nation & transferred those sins onto the innocent victim. That was the foreshadow.

Jesus is the fulfillment.

Hebrews identifies Jesus as our great High Priest (Heb 4:14), called by God after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10). Under the Old Covenant, the pattern was sin-imputation by the high priest.

Jesus is the mediator of the New Testament (Heb 9:15 & 12:24), our great High Priest (Heb 4:14) & the One who offered Himself as the sacrifice (Matt 26:53). The risen Christ is the New Covenant High Priest who performs the real sin-transfer.

When we call on the name of the Lord (Acts 2:21 & Rom 10:13) & place our faith in Jesus' sin-atoning death & resurrection, He forgives all our sins (Heb 10:10–18) & imputes our sins onto Himself (Heb 10:10; 2 Cor 5:19; Rom 4:8, 11, 22–24). At that same moment, He places His forever (Jn 14:16), salvation‑sealing (Eph 1:13–14; 4:30; 2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; 2 Tim 1:14) indwelling Holy Spirit in you.

Anyone can dunk someone into water. Only Jesus, who knows the true heart, can baptize with/in/by the Holy Spirit. Jesus then imputes His righteousness to us (2 Cor 5:21, Ja 2:23 & Isa 61:10), the righteousness pictured as the white robe in Rev 19:7–8 that grants us entrance to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

Salvation Across the Ages

Before the incarnation, God required FAITH in the promised Messiah who would come (Gen 15:6 & Isa 53). During Jesus' earthly ministry, people were called to BELIEVE that He was the Messiah (Jn 20:31). After His death & resurrection, salvation is through FAITH in His finished, sin‑atoning work (Rom 3:25–26 & 1 Cor 15:1–4). In every era, salvation has always been by FAITH in God's Messiah & never by ritual, never by water, never by external acts.

The Gentile Timeline

Peter opened the door to Gentiles in Acts 10 (AD 37–40), but the church did not immediately begin a Gentile mission. Acts 11:19 shows that years after Cornelius, believers were still "preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only." The 1st intentional, Spirit‑commissioned Gentile mission begins in Acts 13 (AD 47–48), when Paul declares, "We turn to the Gentiles."

Acts records a deliberate 7–10 year gap between Gentile inclusion & Gentile evangelism, proving the early church was still operating inside Jewish categories long after Pentecost. This matters: salvation history unfolds in stages & neither John's baptism nor early Acts water rituals were ever the means of remission.

Water never remitted sins in the Law, in John's ministry, in Jesus' ministry, or in Acts. Water purified the ceremonially unclean > only blood removes sin (Lev 17:11). John's baptism was preparatory, not remissive. Peter's call in Acts 2:38 follows the same Jewish categories: repent (return to God), be baptized (purify yourselves) & call on Christ for remission (Acts 22:16 & Acts 10:43).

Even after Cornelius, the Jerusalem church continued preaching "to Jews only" (Acts 11:19) & the 1st Gentile mission did not begin until Paul in Acts 13 The timeline is unmistakable: God has always saved by FAITH in His Messiah, with the content of that FAITH expanding as He revealed more. Remission is found in Christ's blood alone!

Finally:
The only thing that removes sin from the soul is FAITH placed in the finished, sacrificial, sin‑atoning work of our great God & Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen.

 

[studier]

As i understand the points and claims made in #2,227:

The claim: Baptism is merely a Jewish Mikveh for ceremonial purification; yet the NC Writings define its result as aphesis (remission/pardon/cancellation of sins), using the exact same Greek word for water baptism (Mark1:4; Luke3:3; Acts2:38) that Jesus used for remission by His blood (Matt26:28).

The claim: The "calling" in Acts22:16 is the only operative action; yet the Greek grammar uses a participle of means to bind the "calling" (comparable to the appeal per 1Pet3:20-21) inside the "washing" (the baptism), making them a single, inseparable event.

The claim: "Nothing external removes sin"; yet the High Priestly pattern in Heb10:22 commands that we draw near with "bodies washed with pure water" as a parallel requirement to "hearts sprinkled."

The claim: Water represents only judgment; yet 1Peter3:20 specifies that Noah was "saved through [dia] water," identifying water as also the instrumental medium of transition to the new condition.

The claim: The "Gentile timeline" proves baptism was a Jewish-only ritual; yet Peter commanded Spirit-filled Gentiles to be baptized in water (Acts10:47–48) in accordance with Christ’s Great Commission to baptize "all nations" (Matt28:19), confirming it as a universal antitype/correspondence of the flood (1Pet3:20-21).

 

[Ouch]

Temple Mt > All Mosaic law adherent Jews.

Under the Mosaic Law, Israel practiced many ceremonial water‑purification immersions (Ex 30:19–21, 40:12, Lev 6:27, 13:54, 14:8–9, 15:16; 16:4, 22:6). Every Israelite understood these washings. Someone who was impure/unclean before immersion was considered pure/clean after immersion. These were ceremonial purifications, not forgiveness rituals

John, Jesus, & Peter all spoke Aramaic & Hebrew, where repent meant Israel, return to God, Strong's Hebrew: 7725. שׁוּב (shub) -- Return, turn back, restore, repent not “get in water to be saved.”

This is exactly how the Jews interpreted baptism.
John 3:25 says a dispute arose between John's disciples and a Jew about purification. The debate wasn't about forgiveness or salvation — it was about purification. That's the category mikveh full immersion/baptism expressed.
(NOTE: John the Baptist, his disciples, & Jesus' disciples all performed the baptism of repentance (Acts 19:4). This was a Jewish purification immersion ritual, unrelated to remission. John 3:25 confirms the crowds understood these baptisms as purification washings, preparing Israel to return to God & believe in the coming Messiah.)

John the Baptist's mission was to prepare the way of the Lord (Lev 17:11; Mal 3:1; Matt 3:3; Mark 1:2–3). His "baptism of repentance" was preparatory, not remissive. In Hebrew & Aramaic, repent (שׁוּב / shub) means return, turn back, restore — Israel, return to God. So when the people confessed their sins, they were acknowledging that they had turned away from the Lord & through immersion they became pure/ceremonially clean, just as in the Mosaic purification washings

Acts 19:4 confirms this: "John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on Him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus."
(NORE: John preached to Israel — return to God and believe in the One coming after me, the Messiah. Only Christ can remit &d pardon sins; John's baptism never could/did.)

Acts 2:38
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.”
(NOTE: Repent = return to God. Be baptized = purify yourself (unclean > clean). Remission comes by calling on the Messiah, not by water. Peter is speaking to Israel, using the same purification categories they ALL knew)

Acts 22:16 “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
(NOTE: The water is the ceremonial purification act. The actual removal of sin happens by calling on the Lord. The grammar makes the sequence clear: the washing is symbolic, the calling is effective.)

Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”
(NOTE: They believed, then they purified themselves through baptism & then they called on the Messiah for remission. Faith precedes baptism & remission is tied to Christ, not water.)

Mr Studier did a good job expaling why you are in error in Post 2,228.

So the FACT still remains, the only way for US to get rid of our sins in being baptized calling on the name of JESUS!!

Why do you fight against HIS word so hard?

FYI, you can't show ONE verse backing up faith removes our sins in that language.

 

[Ouch]

Acts 8 follows your Acts 2:38 = universal formula claim. Be baptized in water > Receive the Holy Spirit. Acts 8 They were baptized in water. Yet the Holy Spirit had fallen on NONE of them (v.16)

The question is WHY?

AMEM, that's all bible.

Being baptized in JESUS name and receiveing the Holy Ghost are two seperate things.

One we do, get baptized.

The other receiving the Holy Ghost is something JESUS does.

Why in Acts 8 they didn't get the Holy Ghost?

It just shows JESUS fills us in differet orders and it's up to HIM.

Acts 2, they obeyed and just waited.

Acts 8, they had to send for help.

Acts 10, so Peter knew it was for the Gentiles also, if not he may not or would not have baptized them.

Acts 19 Paul did it all on his own, baptized and laid hands on them.

 

[FlyingDove]

As i understand the points and claims made in #2,227:

The claim: Baptism is merely a Jewish Mikveh for ceremonial purification; yet the NC Writings define its result as aphesis (remission/pardon/cancellation of sins), using the exact same Greek word for water baptism (Mark1:4; Luke3:3; Acts2:38) that Jesus used for remission by His blood (Matt26:28).

The claim: The "calling" in Acts22:16 is the only operative action; yet the Greek grammar uses a participle of means to bind the "calling" (comparable to the appeal per 1Pet3:20-21) inside the "washing" (the baptism), making them a single, inseparable event.

The claim: "Nothing external removes sin"; yet the High Priestly pattern in Heb10:22 commands that we draw near with "bodies washed with pure water" as a parallel requirement to "hearts sprinkled."

The claim: Water represents only judgment; yet 1Peter3:20 specifies that Noah was "saved through [dia] water," identifying water as also the instrumental medium of transition to the new condition.

The claim: The "Gentile timeline" proves baptism was a Jewish-only ritual; yet Peter commanded Spirit-filled Gentiles to be baptized in water (Acts10:47–48) in accordance with Christ’s Great Commission to baptize "all nations" (Matt28:19), confirming it as a universal antitype/correspondence of the flood (1Pet3:20-21).

Every point you raised collapses once the biblical categories are kept where Scripture puts them: aphesis names the result of forgiveness, not the mechanism - Jesus' blood causes remission (Matt 26:28; Heb 9:22), while baptism signifies repentance & purification (Mk 1:4; Acts 19:4; Acts 10:43); in Acts 22:16 the participle "calling on His name" is the means of the washing, not the water, matching every apostolic sermon that ties remission to faith, not immersion (Acts 10:43, Rom 10:13, 1 Cor 6:11) Heb 10:22 uses priestly‑consecration imagery, not sacramental theology & the same book repeatedly denies that external washings remove sin (Heb 9:9–10); Noah wasn't saved by water but from it - the water was judgment, the ark was salvation & Peter explicitly says the saving element is the appeal, not the water (1 Pet 3:21) & the Gentile timeline still stands, because Peter baptized Cornelius after he received the Spirit (Acts 10:47), proving the water wasn't the means of remission. In every case, you're merging categories Scripture keeps distinct - purification vs. remission, symbol vs. cause, water vs. blood - while the apostles consistently anchor forgiveness in faith in Christ alone, not in water.

 

[Ouch]

Every point you raised collapses once the biblical categories are kept where Scripture puts them: aphesis names the result of forgiveness, not the mechanism - Jesus' blood causes remission (Matt 26:28; Heb 9:22), while baptism signifies repentance & purification (Mk 1:4; Acts 19:4; Acts 10:43); in Acts 22:16 the participle "calling on His name" is the means of the washing, not the water, matching every apostolic sermon that ties remission to faith, not immersion (Acts 10:43, Rom 10:13, 1 Cor 6:11) Heb 10:22 uses priestly‑consecration imagery, not sacramental theology & the same book repeatedly denies that external washings remove sin (Heb 9:9–10); Noah wasn't saved by water but from it - the water was judgment, the ark was salvation & Peter explicitly says the saving element is the appeal, not the water (1 Pet 3:21) & the Gentile timeline still stands, because Peter baptized Cornelius after he received the Spirit (Acts 10:47), proving the water wasn't the means of remission. In every case, you're merging categories Scripture keeps distinct - purification vs. remission, symbol vs. cause, water vs. blood - while the apostles consistently anchor forgiveness in faith in Christ alone, not in water.

Story time!!!!

How does faith alone remove our sins?

Why in HIS word do we see that being baptized in JESUS name is how we remove our sins?

Why do you say, "while baptism signifies repentance & purification"?

When HIS word says it for remission of our sins, which has nothing to do with repentance?

Why do you say, "the Gentile timeline still stands, because Peter baptized Cornelius after he received the Spirit (Acts 10:47), proving the water wasn't the means of remission"

How does Peter baptizing them after they received the Holy Ghost PROVE they received remission of sins before their sins were remitted?

Going against HIS word cause a lot of questions that hopefully you can either answer or correct your thinking?.

 

[Wansvic]

You actually just agreed with Peter's contrast. Peter says NOT the external washing BUT the internal appeal. You deny water regenerates & affirm the appeal saves - that's Peter's exact structure. The only thing you're adding is the claim that the appeal must happen during the ritual, but Peter never says that. That's tradition layered onto the text.

If the water contributes nothing, attaching the saving appeal to the ritual is arbitrary. Acts 22:16 says the same thing: the calling is the operative action, not the water & the flood imagery still stands untouched: water = judgment, ark = salvation. Peter's whole point is that water does NOT save.

So your view ends up merging what Peter separates. Peter's words don't support that - your assumption does.

God's word is very clear, those who believe in Jesus and His sacrifice can have their sins remitted upon obedience to water baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus. It's not about the water, it's actually about believing what GOD says and doing what HE requires.

As far as receiving the Holy Ghost, scripture reveals that is a separate experience. Peter did say those who repent, AND are baptized in the name of Jesus SHALL receive the Holy Ghost. The idea that receiving the Holy Ghost takes place at the exact moment a person submits to being water baptized is not consistent with scripture.

Scripture indicates that God filled people with His Spirit prior to their obeying the command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus. Scripture also reveals why. God sees the heart. He knows who will obey Him when the need to be water baptized in the name of Jesus is revealed. (Acts 15:7-8, 10:43, 47-48)

"Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us..." Acts 15:7-8


Scripture reveals both water baptism and receiving the Holy Ghost are essential elements of the NT rebirth. And the timing in which God chooses to give His Spirit reveals so much for those in search of the truth. (Acts 2, 8, 10, 19, 22)

 

[FlyingDove]

As i understand the points and claims made in #2,227:

The claim: Baptism is merely a Jewish Mikveh for ceremonial purification; yet the NC Writings define its result as aphesis (remission/pardon/cancellation of sins), using the exact same Greek word for water baptism (Mark1:4; Luke3:3; Acts2:38) that Jesus used for remission by His blood (Matt26:28).

The claim: The "calling" in Acts22:16 is the only operative action; yet the Greek grammar uses a participle of means to bind the "calling" (comparable to the appeal per 1Pet3:20-21) inside the "washing" (the baptism), making them a single, inseparable event.

The claim: "Nothing external removes sin"; yet the High Priestly pattern in Heb10:22 commands that we draw near with "bodies washed with pure water" as a parallel requirement to "hearts sprinkled."

The claim: Water represents only judgment; yet 1Peter3:20 specifies that Noah was "saved through [dia] water," identifying water as also the instrumental medium of transition to the new condition.

The claim: The "Gentile timeline" proves baptism was a Jewish-only ritual; yet Peter commanded Spirit-filled Gentiles to be baptized in water (Acts10:47–48) in accordance with Christ’s Great Commission to baptize "all nations" (Matt28:19), confirming it as a universal antitype/correspondence of the flood (1Pet3:20-21).

I appreciate the engagement, but each of your "The claim:" lines misstate what I actually wrote. Let me clarify the categories so the discussion stays anchored in the text rather than in assumptions.

Baptism is merely a Jewish mikveh for ceremonial purification:
What I actually argued is that baptism originated in Jewish purification categories — which is historically & textually undeniable (Ex 30; Lev 14–16; John 3:25). That does not mean baptism is "merely" anything. It means the framework the apostles used was the one they inherited. Aphesis names the result, not the mechanism. Jesus' blood causes remission (Matt 26:28; Heb 9:22). Baptism signifies repentance & purification (Mark 1:4 & Acts 19:4). Same word, different cause

The calling in Acts 22:16 is the only operative action"
That's not what I said. I said the grammar makes the means explicit: "Be baptized" - the purification act, "Wash away your sins" - the imagery, "Calling on His name" - the effective means (participle of means). Paul's sins were washed away the same way Peter preached in Acts 10:43 - by believing in Christ, not by water.

Nothing external removes sin: Correct - because Hebrews explicitly says so (Heb 9:9–10). The "bodies washed with pure water" in Heb 10:22 is Levitical consecration imagery (Ex 29:4 & Lev 8:6), not a sacramental command. Hebrews’ entire argument is that external washings cannot cleanse the conscience. Only Christ’s blood does that.

Water represents only judgment: I never said "only." I said Peter identifies the water of the flood as judgment & the ark as salvation - which is exactly what the text says. Saved through water" (dia) means "through the ordeal," not "by means of water." Peter immediately clarifies that baptism saves not by the removal of dirt from the flesh, but by the appeal to God (1 Pet 3:21). The saving agent is the appeal, not the water.

The Gentile timeline proves baptism was a Jewish‑only ritual." This is the one point that needs correction, because it is not what I wrote. My point was: Baptism began in Jewish purification categories & was practiced in that framework until Gentiles were brought in.

I explicitly affirmed: Gentiles were baptized (Acts 10:47–48), Baptism is for "all nations" (Matt 28:19), And Acts 10 is decisive because the Gentiles received the Spirit before water - the same pattern as Acts 2"1-4 God Himself separates Spirit‑giving from water baptism in both the Jewish & Gentile inaugurations. The timeline establishes origin & context, not exclusivity.

 

[Biilybob65]

You're shifting the discussion away from what the verses actually say & into a philosophical category of "ongoing belief" that John himself does not use the way you're using it. Dealing with your points directly & textually.

The present tense in Jn 3:16 does not mean "continuous performance. If your reading were correct, then every present tense statement in John would require ongoing effort " including: "whoever believes has eternal life" ,” "he who hears My word has eternal life", "he who comes to Me shall never hunger" & "he who believes in Me shall never thirst". But John never attaches duration of life to duration of belief. He attaches possession of life to the act of believing. This is the gnomic present, a general truth, not a stopwatch.

Your translation (whoever is believing) doesn't change the promise. Even if we render it that way, the result clause is still: "has eternal life." Not: "has life as long as he keeps believing", "has life until he sins," "has life until he fails to endure." You're adding conditions John never states.

The purpose clause strengthens OSAS, not weakens it. You asked whether the purpose clause softens the typical OSAS reading. It actually reinforces it. The purpose of God sending His Son is: "so that the believing ones will not perish but have eternal life." If believers can perish, then God's stated purpose fails. If eternal life can end, then it was never eternal. Your reading makes God's purpose contingent on human consistency. John's reading makes God's purpose fulfilled in Christ.

"Continuing faith" is the fruit of salvation, not the condition for keeping it. You're importing a theological category into John that John never uses. John distinguishes: believing > life & not believing > condemnation. He never says: "believing > life until you stop believing," or "eternal life lasts only as long as your faithfulness does". Thats theology imposed on the text, not drawn from it.

"Its a big Text” is not an argument. Appealing to the size of Scripture doesn't overturn the clarity of Jesus' promises. If you want to argue that salvation is conditional on lifelong performance, you need: a verse that says eternal life can end, a verse that says believers can perish, a verse that says the Spirit can unseal a believer, a verse that says Christ can lose a sheep, a verse that says the Father revokes His gift. John gives the opposite on every point.

The core issue remains untouched. Jesus says: has eternal life, shall never perish, shall never die, shall not come into condemnation, no one can snatch them out of My hand. Your interpretation requires all of these to be temporary, conditional, or reversible. John & Jesus say the opposite.

I should not comment here this should be a thread in itself not to derail this thread but had to share a thought.
You said "If eternal life can end, then it was never eternal. Your reading makes God's purpose contingent on human consistency."
Let us remember that the eternal life does not start until we die so if we do make it to death in God's favor then yes you are correct. The bible teaches we must walk in the light to achieve the promise of eternal life while we are still on this earth. The bible does teach that it is possible to fall from grace. To many warnings not to acknowledge that. But yes if we put up a good fight and win the race we will never lose eternal life.

 

[studier]

Every point you raised collapses once the biblical categories are kept where Scripture puts them: aphesis names the result of forgiveness, not the mechanism - Jesus' blood causes remission (Matt 26:28; Heb 9:22), while baptism signifies repentance & purification (Mk 1:4; Acts 19:4; Acts 10:43)

Of course, I'd disagree, and already did.

The issue we have with the actual language is that Matt26:28; Acts2:38; Mark1:4; Luke3:3 all use the same Greek phrase "eis aphesin hamartiōn" (into/for remission [of] sins). If blood is for remission, then so is baptism for remission. It's not an either/or, but a both/and reality. We can talk about things like cause vs. occasion, but we can't change the language.

in Acts 22:16 the participle "calling on His name" is the means of the washing, not the water, matching every apostolic sermon that ties remission to faith, not immersion (Acts 10:43, Rom 10:13, 1 Cor 6:11)

This has already been addressed. The grammar of Acts22:16 ties the calling to the water baptism. As I noted earlier, it's a big Text, and our goal should be harmonizing everything it says - from the blood to the water to the appeal - instead of trying to change the language or use only selective parts to support certain chosen frameworks.

Heb 10:22 uses priestly‑consecration imagery, not sacramental theology & the same book repeatedly denies that external washings remove sin (Heb 9:9–10);

Heb10:22 takes us from temporary OC practices to NC realities. In this verse, believers are commanded to approach our great High Priest with a true heart and certainty of faith because we have had both our conscience sprinkled/cleansed and our bodies washed/bathed with/in pure water.

Heb9:9-10 does deny that repeated OC washings/baptisms could perfect consciences, but Heb10:22 is not describing OC ritual; it is describing the completed cleansing that grants access to God. The reference to bodies washed with pure water therefore cannot be dismissed as incidental or figurative. It's combined with having had our conscience cleansed and is the basis for approaching Christ with a true heart and certainty of faith.

Noah wasn't saved by water but from it - the water was judgment, the ark was salvation & Peter explicitly says the saving element is the appeal, not the water (1 Pet 3:21)

I see no need to repeat in depth what the language of 1Pet3:20-21 actually says. "dia" does not mean "from." The baptism, which is most certainly water, or there's no need for Peter to attach this to the Noahic Flood water, is the appeal or the appeal is made during the water baptism. That's the language and the logic of the verses.

& the Gentile timeline still stands, because Peter baptized Cornelius after he received the Spirit (Acts 10:47), proving the water wasn't the means of remission.

Peter’s immediate response in this event was to command the water. He didn't see the Spirit as a replacement for the baptism, but as the divine authorization for Him to baptize Gentiles. Peter did exactly as he had been commanded in the Great Commission, recognizing the water as the covenantal venue for this new phase. The baptism en water and in Spirit are both involved - the Great Commission command for men to baptize and Christ's promise to be with them.

 

[Biilybob65]

I want to take a minute to address what I understand about Acts 10:44-48.

A lot of people seem to try to connect the indwelling spirit as what happened in verse 44. I think a better rendering would be it was not the indwelling but the spirit poured out for witness. In Mark 16:17-20 in those verse we read that Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. also in Acts 1:8 they were to receive power to be witness as they did in Acts 2:4 in careful read we see this only happened to the Apostle on the day of Pentecost which was foretold of Joel see Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;.
It is further noted by what Peter said in Acts 10:47 when he said "which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”. Here he point back to Pentecost to when this happened to the Apostles. It completes the on all of Joel's prophesy. It hadn't any where between the day of Pentecost to this day. It is not the giving of the indwelling spirit but the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy.

Now in Acts 10:48 we read "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

This is what Peter was sent to preach. It is the same gospel as of Acts 2 the fact that the baptism is in the name of the Lord is your verification that it is the same as Acts 2:38 in which the sin is remitted and the indwelling spirit is deposited. We must let the bible do the talking it will clarify itself if let to do so.

 

[Biilybob65]

I should not comment here this should be a thread in itself not to derail this thread but had to share a thought.
You said "If eternal life can end, then it was never eternal. Your reading makes God's purpose contingent on human consistency."
Let us remember that the eternal life does not start until we die so if we do make it to death in God's favor then yes you are correct. The bible teaches we must walk in the light to achieve the promise of eternal life while we are still on this earth. The bible does teach that it is possible to fall from grace. To many warnings not to acknowledge that. But yes if we put up a good fight and win the race we will never lose eternal life.

I kinda miss stated this we do have promise of eternal life in the gospel which is conditional on our walking in the spirit. We can walk away but once we die that seals the deal if we are justified we then no longer and only then will it not be taken away.

 

[studier]

I want to take a minute to address what I understand about Acts 10:44-48.

A lot of people seem to try to connect the indwelling spirit as what happened in verse 44. I think a better rendering would be it was not the indwelling but the spirit poured out for witness. In Mark 16:17-20 in those verse we read that Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. also in Acts 1:8 they were to receive power to be witness as they did in Acts 2:4 in careful read we see this only happened to the Apostle on the day of Pentecost which was foretold of Joel see Acts 2:16 But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;.
It is further noted by what Peter said in Acts 10:47 when he said "which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”. Here he point back to Pentecost to when this happened to the Apostles. It completes the on all of Joel's prophesy. It hadn't any where between the day of Pentecost to this day. It is not the giving of the indwelling spirit but the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy.

Now in Acts 10:48 we read "And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days."

This is what Peter was sent to preach. It is the same gospel as of Acts 2 the fact that the baptism is in the name of the Lord is your verification that it is the same as Acts 2:38 in which the sin is remitted and the indwelling spirit is deposited. We must let the bible do the talking it will clarify itself if let to do so.

How do you read Acts11:15... when Peter explains Acts10?

 

[FlyingDove]

I should not comment here this should be a thread in itself not to derail this thread but had to share a thought.
You said "If eternal life can end, then it was never eternal. Your reading makes God's purpose contingent on human consistency."
Let us remember that the eternal life does not start until we die so if we do make it to death in God's favor then yes you are correct. The bible teaches we must walk in the light to achieve the promise of eternal life while we are still on this earth. The bible does teach that it is possible to fall from grace. To many warnings not to acknowledge that. But yes if we put up a good fight and win the race we will never lose eternal life.

If eternal life only begins after death, then no one in John's Gospel HAS eternal life, no one "has passed from death to life" & Jesus' promises collapse into conditional probation instead of present salvation. John's entire Holy‑Spirit‑inspired argument falls apart under that view.

What you said is not what the Bible says. You claimed, "The Bible teaches we can fall from grace," but you didn't cite a single verse. There's a reason for that.

Paul explains that someone "falls from grace" when they turn from Christ to the Law as a means of justification.

It is not about losing salvation, failing to endure, sinning too much, or dying out of favor. It is about abandoning grace for law‑keeping.

The "fall" is a shift from the grace‑system to the law‑system, not from salvation to damnation.

The Law demands works to access blessings. Grace supplies blessings & gifts freely through faith. I embrace the latter.