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

[Biilybob65]

Those who become filled with Holy Spirit and speak in tongues do so through an act of faith. The experience doesn't occur before a willingness to believe. We are to believe what God has revealed concerning any topic in order for the associated reality to come to pass. That's called Faith.

1 Corinthians 13:8-10 states that tongues will cease when "the perfect" comes. There is nothing more perfect than Jesus and the age He will usher in. It is at that point that gifts will no longer be necessary because they will be replaced by direct knowledge.

The Bible reveals that speaking in tongues is a sign used to draw unbelievers and for edification of believers. The idea that these needs no longer exist couldn't be further from the truth.

Note: Believers expect to speak in tongues upon being filled with the Holy Ghost. Scripture records the absence of evidence revealed the infilling of the Holy Ghost had not taken place and the assistance of others was necessary. (Acts 8:12-18, 19:1-7)

The prefect means the complete you are misusing the word for which it was intended. Tongues is not for edification of the saints but for a sign to unbelievers so once again you are missing the point.

You insist that Believers expect to speak in tongue but you miss the whole bible context that this was not given to all but to a few it is not promised to all and not all got it your refusal to see that is what is hindering your judgment. The gift was never intended to be forever but for a time. It was to confirm the word until the word was perfect (complete) it served its purpose.

 

[Wansvic]

The prefect means the complete you are misusing the word for which it was intended. Tongues is not for edification of the saints but for a sign to unbelievers so once again you are missing the point.

You insist that Believers expect to speak in tongue but you miss the whole bible context that this was not given to all but to a few it is not promised to all and not all got it your refusal to see that is what is hindering your judgment. The gift was never intended to be forever but for a time. It was to confirm the word until the word was perfect (complete) it served its purpose.

You don't know about or are failing to accept what God's word actually says: " he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

 

[Biilybob65]

You don't know about or are failing to accept what God's word actually says: " he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church."

You are blinded by your bias and are not getting the truth about this subject I understand that happens and will pray that God I'm opens your eyes to the truth about tongues. Until then I will leave you alone in your study and let the spirit guide you into the truth.

 

[lrs68]

The prefect means the complete you are misusing the word for which it was intended.

The only thing ever perfect is Jesus. Has he come a second time like Paul is talking about? Have you noticed that Knowledge is greater today than it was on earth when Paul wrote this? Nothing will end until the Perfect (Jesus) comes and the end of this Age is completed.

 

[FlyingDove]

Baptism - John the Baptist - Peter - Jesus & Remission

Scripture Study Principles

Myles Coverdale; a Bible theologian & translator from the 1500’s. He wrote the Coverdale Bible. Say's don't judge Scripture by what is spoken, or written only.

When dissecting any verse of scripture. Ask yourself, of whom, to whom, with what words, what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what is written before and what follows any single verse context.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
(NOTE: ALL scripture is written for our LEARNING. ALL scripture isn't written for our DOCTRINE.)
Example: Are NT believers required to bring an animal sacrifice to the Temple?

All Scripture is written for us, but not all Scripture is written to us.

Acts: A Transition Book
Acts maps the shift from the dispensation of Law to the dispensation of Grace. John the Baptist never baptized a Gentile in the Judean wilderness & no Gentile receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost on the Temple Mount (Acts 2). The categories are 100% Jewish from start to finish.

Understanding Baptism Through Jewish Eyes
(NOTE: Source: Jewish Virtual Library, Topical Bible, Sefaria & Hirsch)

Under the Mosaic Law, Israel practiced many ceremonial water‑purification immersions (Ex 30; Lev 6, 13–16, 22). Every Israelite understood the pattern:
Unclean > immerse > clean.

Impure > immerse > pure.

Out of fellowship > immerse > restored.

These immersions never removed sin. They restored ritual purity, not forgiveness.

A full Mikveh (precursor to NT baptism) 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

John, Jesus, & Peter all spoke Aramaic & Hebrew, where repent meant > return to God. See Strong's Hebrew repent: h7725. שׁוּב (shub) -- Return, turn back, restore

Category Is Purification:
Jn 3:25 records a dispute between John's disciples about purification. Not forgiveness. Not salvation. PURIFICATION! This is exactly how Jews interpreted immersion.
(NOTE: John the Baptist, his disciples, & Jesus' disciples all performed the baptism of repentance.

Acts 19:4 confirms John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, preparing Israel to believe in the coming Messiah. It was not a remission ritual.

John the Baptist's mission was to prepare the way of the Lord (Mal 3:1 & Matt 3:3). His "baptism of repentance" was preparatory, not remissive.
Confession of sins = acknowledging they had turned away > Immersion = becoming ceremonially clean > This is Mosaic purification, not atonement.

Acts & 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 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 Philip's preaching, then were baptized. Faith precedes water. Remission is tied to Christ, not immersion.)

"Nothing external removes sin."

Faith in ehe NAME saves, Faith in the BLOOD removes sin & the Jesus HOLY SPIRIT Baptism Forever seals the believers salvation. Water is a obedience response.

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).

Foreshadow

Lev 16:21, Aaron laid both hands on the substitute, confessed the sins of the nation & imputes/transfers the sins onto the innocent victim. That was the foreshadow.

Jesus is the fulfillment.

Heb identifies Jesus as our great High Priest (Heb 4:14), called by God after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10) & Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 9:15; 12:24)

Under the Old Covenant, the priest transferred sin. Under the New Covenant, Christ 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 baptizes the believer with His forever (Jn 14:16), salvation‑sealing (Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:22, 2 Cor 5:5) indwelling Holy Spirit in you.

Anyone can immerse 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 accessed through FAITH (Rom 5:1-2) 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
Acts shows a deliberate 7–10 year gap between:
Gentile inclusion (Cornelius, Acts 10), Gentile evangelism (Paul, Acts 13), Even after Cornelius, the Jerusalem church preached "to Jews only" (Acts 11:19). The categories remained Jewish long after Pentecost.

This matters:
Neither John's water baptism nor early Acts water baptisms were ever the mechanism of remission. Water purified the ceremonially unclean. Only blood removes sin (Lev 17:11).

Two Sacraments every Believer should Partake in:

Water Baptism, a public identification with Jesus death & resurrection. An act of obedience/a gateway to discipleship. This undertaking is an outward physical expression, of the inner spiritual transformation activated, when Christ baptized you with His eternal life giving Holy Spirit.

Communion, both these actions are commanded acts are commanded by the Lord Himself. Neither action is the doorway leading to eternal salvation. These events follow the salvation sealing Holy Spirit baptism, performed by Christ alone. See Matt 3:11, Lk 3:16, Mk 1:8, Jn 1:33, Acts 1:4-5, 2:38, 10:45, 11:16)

Conclusion
Faith in Jesus sacrificial sin atoning work SAVES, His BLOOD washes away sin & Jesus baptism in/of/with His FOREVER (Jn 14:16) indwelling Holy Spirit SEALS (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14) the believers eternal life. AMEN & Amen

 

[Wansvic]

You are blinded by your bias and are not getting the truth about this subject I understand that happens and will pray that God I'm opens your eyes to the truth about tongues. Until then I will leave you alone in your study and let the spirit guide you into the truth.

I am surprised by your comment especially since the scripture expresses the truth with such clarity. You may want to read it again:

" he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." 1 Cor. 14:2-3

And I agree, may we all continue to study and allow the Spirit to be our guide.

 

[studier]

Myles Coverdale; a Bible theologian & translator from the 1500’s. He wrote the Coverdale Bible. Say's don't judge Scripture by what is spoken, or written only.

When dissecting any verse of scripture. Ask yourself, of whom, to whom, with what words, what time, where, to what intent, with what circumstances, considering what is written before and what follows any single verse context.

Although you've paraphrased Coverdale a bit, he speaks of basic exegetical practice and is not providing cover for systematic theologies and changing Scripture to fit them.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.
(NOTE: ALL scripture is written for our LEARNING. ALL scripture isn't written for our DOCTRINE.)
Example: Are NT believers required to bring an animal sacrifice to the Temple?

All Scripture is written for us, but not all Scripture is written to us.

Although not entirely wrong, using Rom15:4 to separate doctrine from learning can be a very convenient and problematic precedent. Your animal sacrifice example is a straw man; the New Testament explicitly labels sacrifices as obsolete shadows (Heb10:1), while the things you seek to dismiss are post-resurrection New Covenant instructions.

Acts: A Transition Book
Acts maps the shift from the dispensation of Law to the dispensation of Grace. John the Baptist never baptized a Gentile in the Judean wilderness & no Gentile receives the Holy Spirit at Pentecost on the Temple Mount (Acts 2). The categories are 100% Jewish from start to finish.

I've come to see that calling Acts a 'Transitional Book' is a loaded choice of words. It seems more accurate to view it as the progressive spread of the already-ratified New Covenant. To claim Pentecost was '100% Jewish' and therefore non-doctrinal ignores that the New Covenant was promised to the Jew first and then the nations and seeks to break any continuity. The audience expands throughout Acts, but the Gospel remains the same.

Understanding Baptism Through Jewish Eyes
(NOTE: Source: Jewish Virtual Library, Topical Bible, Sefaria & Hirsch)

Under the Mosaic Law, Israel practiced many ceremonial water‑purification immersions (Ex 30; Lev 6, 13–16, 22). Every Israelite understood the pattern:
Unclean > immerse > clean.

Impure > immerse > pure.

Out of fellowship > immerse > restored.

These immersions never removed sin. They restored ritual purity, not forgiveness.

A full Mikveh (precursor to NT baptism) 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

John, Jesus, & Peter all spoke Aramaic & Hebrew, where repent meant > return to God. See Strong's Hebrew repent: h7725. שׁוּב (shub) -- Return, turn back, restore

In their fuller discussions, the same Jewish sources are way deeper than you portray and describe immersion as a comprehensive transition - even a kind of rebirth - so appeals to mikveh support, rather than undermine, the NT portrayal of baptism as a God-appointed entry into New Covenant life.

Category Is Purification:
Jn 3:25 records a dispute between John's disciples about purification. Not forgiveness. Not salvation. PURIFICATION! This is exactly how Jews interpreted immersion.
(NOTE: John the Baptist, his disciples, & Jesus' disciples all performed the baptism of repentance.

In context, John3:25 is a dispute over whether one should be baptized by John or by Jesus, but the underlying discussion concerns the broad category of katharismos - covenantal status, moral cleansing, and access to God - so it cannot be reduced to some mere ritual washing, which as discussed above was not the full view of what mikveh was.

Acts 19:4 confirms John's baptism was a baptism of repentance, preparing Israel to believe in the coming Messiah. It was not a remission ritual.

John the Baptist's mission was to prepare the way of the Lord (Mal 3:1 & Matt 3:3). His "baptism of repentance" was preparatory, not remissive.
Confession of sins = acknowledging they had turned away > Immersion = becoming ceremonially clean > This is Mosaic purification, not atonement.

Mal3:1 and Matt3:3 emphasize John’s role in preparing the way for the coming Messiah. Acts19:4 shows that his baptism called people to repentance and belief in that Messiah, and its silence regarding forgiveness does not negate the broader teaching in Acts linking baptism with covenantal access and remission of sins.

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)

Acts2:38, discussed extensively in this thread, links repentance and baptism directly to the remission of sins, showing that baptism is more than ritual purification and conveys covenantal access in light of the Messiah.

Acts 22:16 “Be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
(NOTE: The washing is symbolic > the calling is effective.)

Acts22:16, also discussed extensively in this thread, links baptism and washing directly to the remission of sins, showing that the act itself, together with calling on the Lord, is part of God’s appointed means of forgiveness—not merely symbolic.

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 Philip's preaching, then were baptized. Faith precedes water. Remission is tied to Christ, not immersion.)

Acts8:12 shows that while faith preceded baptism, the sequence reflects the consistent pattern in Acts linking immersion with entry into the New Covenant community, and not just being symbolic.

 

[studier]

"Nothing external removes sin."

Faith in ehe NAME saves, Faith in the BLOOD removes sin & the Jesus HOLY SPIRIT Baptism Forever seals the believers salvation. Water is a obedience response.

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).

Foreshadow

Lev 16:21, Aaron laid both hands on the substitute, confessed the sins of the nation & imputes/transfers the sins onto the innocent victim. That was the foreshadow.

Jesus is the fulfillment.

Heb identifies Jesus as our great High Priest (Heb 4:14), called by God after the order of Melchizedek (Heb 5:10) & Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb 9:15; 12:24)

Under the Old Covenant, the priest transferred sin. Under the New Covenant, Christ 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 baptizes the believer with His forever (Jn 14:16), salvation‑sealing (Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:22, 2 Cor 5:5) indwelling Holy Spirit in you.

Anyone can immerse 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 accessed through FAITH (Rom 5:1-2) 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
Acts shows a deliberate 7–10 year gap between:
Gentile inclusion (Cornelius, Acts 10), Gentile evangelism (Paul, Acts 13), Even after Cornelius, the Jerusalem church preached "to Jews only" (Acts 11:19). The categories remained Jewish long after Pentecost.

This matters:
Neither John's water baptism nor early Acts water baptisms were ever the mechanism of remission. Water purified the ceremonially unclean. Only blood removes sin (Lev 17:11).

Two Sacraments every Believer should Partake in:

Water Baptism, a public identification with Jesus death & resurrection. An act of obedience/a gateway to discipleship. This undertaking is an outward physical expression, of the inner spiritual transformation activated, when Christ baptized you with His eternal life giving Holy Spirit.

Communion, both these actions are commanded acts are commanded by the Lord Himself. Neither action is the doorway leading to eternal salvation. These events follow the salvation sealing Holy Spirit baptism, performed by Christ alone. See Matt 3:11, Lk 3:16, Mk 1:8, Jn 1:33, Acts 1:4-5, 2:38, 10:45, 11:16)

Conclusion
Faith in Jesus sacrificial sin atoning work SAVES, His BLOOD washes away sin & Jesus baptism in/of/with His FOREVER (Jn 14:16) indwelling Holy Spirit SEALS (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5, 2 Tim 1:14) the believers eternal life. AMEN & Amen

Acts presents a progressive, covenantal spread of salvation beginning with Israel, showing continuity between John’s baptism and the New Covenant, where faith in Christ is essential and baptism consistently participates in forgiveness and covenant incorporation - contrasting with “faith-alone” soteriology, which ignores the Text’s repeated pairing of faith with baptism.

 

[TheLearner]

Acts 10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

God pours out the Holy Spirit on Cornelius & his household while Peter is still speaking. They haven't been baptized yet. They haven't performed any rituals. They simply heard the message about Jesus death & resurrection & believed it. Peter later explains that God "purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). The Holy Spirit's coming is God's own testimony that He had accepted them.

Peter later interprets this event at the Jerusalem Council, stating that God "purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). The Holy Spirit's coming is God's own testimony that He had accepted them. This isn't a theological inference, it's an inspired apostolic explanation of what happened.

The Holy Spirit's coming is consistently presented in Scripture as the definitive marker of salvation (Gal 3:2, Eph 1:13, Rom 4:5). The text itself requires us to conclude that Cornelius was saved at the moment he believed.


Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise.

Paul plainly describes the moment of salvation:
They HEARD, they BELIEVED & God SEALED them with His eternal life giving Holy Spirit. No hint of delay, no additional requirement, no uncertainty. The sealing came at BELIEF, because salvation rests on Christ's finished work, not on mans performance.

Every time I pray, I simply ask Jesus and the Holy Spirit to pray with us, for us and everything I forgot. And, forgive our sins, fill us with the Holy Spirit.

 

[TheLearner]

When me and my friends who speak many languages encounter tongues. We examine them to see if they are really an language. It is very rare to find the genuine McCoy.

 

[FlyingDove]

Although you've paraphrased Coverdale a bit, he speaks of basic exegetical practice and is not providing cover for systematic theologies and changing Scripture to fit them.



Although not entirely wrong, using Rom15:4 to separate doctrine from learning can be a very convenient and problematic precedent. Your animal sacrifice example is a straw man; the New Testament explicitly labels sacrifices as obsolete shadows (Heb10:1), while the things you seek to dismiss are post-resurrection New Covenant instructions.



I've come to see that calling Acts a 'Transitional Book' is a loaded choice of words. It seems more accurate to view it as the progressive spread of the already-ratified New Covenant. To claim Pentecost was '100% Jewish' and therefore non-doctrinal ignores that the New Covenant was promised to the Jew first and then the nations and seeks to break any continuity. The audience expands throughout Acts, but the Gospel remains the same.



In their fuller discussions, the same Jewish sources are way deeper than you portray and describe immersion as a comprehensive transition - even a kind of rebirth - so appeals to mikveh support, rather than undermine, the NT portrayal of baptism as a God-appointed entry into New Covenant life.



In context, John3:25 is a dispute over whether one should be baptized by John or by Jesus, but the underlying discussion concerns the broad category of katharismos - covenantal status, moral cleansing, and access to God - so it cannot be reduced to some mere ritual washing, which as discussed above was not the full view of what mikveh was.



Mal3:1 and Matt3:3 emphasize John’s role in preparing the way for the coming Messiah. Acts19:4 shows that his baptism called people to repentance and belief in that Messiah, and its silence regarding forgiveness does not negate the broader teaching in Acts linking baptism with covenantal access and remission of sins.



Acts2:38, discussed extensively in this thread, links repentance and baptism directly to the remission of sins, showing that baptism is more than ritual purification and conveys covenantal access in light of the Messiah.



Acts22:16, also discussed extensively in this thread, links baptism and washing directly to the remission of sins, showing that the act itself, together with calling on the Lord, is part of God’s appointed means of forgiveness—not merely symbolic.



Acts8:12 shows that while faith preceded baptism, the sequence reflects the consistent pattern in Acts linking immersion with entry into the New Covenant community, and not just being symbolic.

None of your replies actually address the categories I laid out. You're reframing my points into sacramental language ("covenantal access," "entry into New Covenant life," "appointed means of forgiveness") instead of interacting with the Jewish purification categories that the NT authors themselves were operating in.

My argument is simple & hasn't been touched yet:
Jewish immersion = purification, not remission

John's baptism = preparatory, not remissive

Acts 19:4 confirms this

Acts 22:16 uses symbolic washing, not literal remission

Acts 8:12 shows faith precedes water

Remission in Scripture is blood‑only (Heb 9:22; Matt 26:28; Rev 1:5)

Spirit baptism is the sealing act (Eph 1:13–14; Acts 10:45; 11:16)

Water baptism is obedience, not the mechanism of remission.

You haven't addressed any of these categories. You've replaced them with a different theological framework & responded to that instead.

If you want to continue the discussion, we need to stay within the actual categories the NT authors were using:
purification vs remission, blood vs water, Spirit baptism vs ritual immersion & the Jewish context of early Acts.

 

[Biilybob65]

I am surprised by your comment especially since the scripture expresses the truth with such clarity. You may want to read it again:

" he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
But he that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort.
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue edifieth himself; but he that prophesieth edifieth the church." 1 Cor. 14:2-3

And I agree, may we all continue to study and allow the Spirit to be our guide.

that is not intended for worship service according to Paul for even the speaker knows not what he says ig can not edify the assembly and is to be kept quite with the speaker to God only

 

[studier]

None of your replies actually address the categories I laid out

Disagreed. Maybe you can't or don't want to understand, or just want to summarily dismiss what you don't agree with.

 

[FlyingDove]

Disagreed. Maybe you can't or don't want to understand, or just want to summarily dismiss what you don't agree with.

At this point the disagreement isn't about verses, it' about categories. I'm working from the categories the NT authors actually used, Jewish purification vs remission, blood vs water, Spirit baptism vs ritual immersion & John's baptism as preparatory. Your replies consistently shift into a sacramental framework that the text itself doesn't operate in. That's why nothing is connecting.

For clarity, my position remains:

Jewish immersion = purification, not remission

John's baptism = preparatory, not remissive (Acts 19:4 states this outright)

Remission in Scripture is blood‑based, not water‑based

Spirit baptism is salvations sealing act (Acts 10–11 & Eph 1:13–14)

Water baptism is obedience, not the mechanism of remission

Acts 22:16 uses symbolic washing language, not literal removal of sin

Acts 8:2 shows faith precedes water

If we're not using the same categories, the conversation can't move forward. I've laid out my framework plainly from the text & the Jewish context. Anyone reading can evaluate which set of categories actually fits the passages.

 

[Lamar]

When me and my friends who speak many languages encounter tongues. We examine them to see if they are really an language. It is very rare to find the genuine McCoy.

Most of your encounters with tongues are false spirits???

Are you or your friends in possession of the gift of discerning spirits?

What do you with the false claims of physical supernatural manifestations of the Holy Spirit?

Do you and your friends call out the blasphemy and rebuke the spirit or just ignore it?

 

[CS1]

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
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.

The line of reasoning mentioned in (“Acts 2:38 says be baptized for the remission of sins”) is a hallmark argument of oneness or baptismal-regeneration groups.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s behind that “tactic” and why it often shows up in debates:

1. What They Teach

• Oneness Pentecostals (United Pentecostal Church International, Apostolic churches, etc.) and baptismal-regeneration advocates (like the Church of Christ, Christian Church, or some Apostolic groups) insist that water baptism is a necessary condition for salvation.
• They usually quote Acts 2:38 as their cornerstone:
  
  “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...”
  They interpret “for” (eis in Greek) as meaning “in order to obtain” forgiveness, not “because of.”​

2. Why It’s a “Tactic”

In discussion, these groups tend to:

• Anchor every salvation argument in Acts 2:38, ignoring the broader New-Testament pattern of salvation by faith apart from works (e.g., Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).
• Equate water with spiritual regeneration, even when passages clearly distinguish them (John 3:5; Acts 10:44-48; 1 Peter 3:21).
• Frame the conversation as obedience vs. disobedience, implying that anyone who disagrees is rejecting God’s command rather than discussing interpretation.
• Selectively quote early-Acts passages, before Paul’s revelation of salvation by grace through faith, as though those transitional moments define normative doctrine for the entire Church Age.

Essentially, it’s a rhetorical move: they start with Acts 2:38 as the hermeneutical “lens,” then reinterpret every other passage through it.

3. What’s Often Overlooked

• Context of Acts 2 — Peter was preaching to Jews under the Law who had just crucified their Messiah. The command to repent and be baptized was part of a national call to faith and public identification with Christ, not a mechanical formula for personal regeneration.
• Comparative Passages — In Acts 10, Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before baptism; in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer was told, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” with no mention of baptism first.
• Greek nuance — The word eis (“for”) in Acts 2:38 can also mean “because of” or “on account of,” as in Matthew 12:41 (“They repented at [Greek eis] the preaching of Jonah”).
• Paul’s clarification — “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17). That’s hard to square with baptism being essential for salvation.

4. The Broader Pattern
The New Testament consistently teaches:

• Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9; Rom 10:9-10).
• Baptism follows salvation as an outward sign of inward faith (Acts 10:47-48; Gal 3:27).
• The Spirit’s baptism, not water, places believers into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

So when groups use Acts 2:38 as their proof-text, they’re reversing the biblical order—putting the symbol ahead of the substance.

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

View attachment 281106
Key Takeaways

1. Acts 2:38 was situational — Peter addressing Jews at Pentecost during a covenant transition, not defining a permanent formula for all salvation.
2. Scripture interprets Scripture — later revelation through Paul clarifies salvation is by faith apart from works or rituals (Romans 3–5; Galatians 2).
3. Water vs. Spirit — the New Testament distinguishes symbolic baptism in water from the real regenerating baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; Titus 3:5).
4. Faith precedes baptism — everywhere else in Acts, people believe first (Acts 8:36–37; 10:44–48; 16:30–33).

Grace and Peace

Outstanding !

 

[studier]

At this point the disagreement isn't about verses, it' about categories. I'm working from the categories the NT authors actually used, Jewish purification vs remission, blood vs water, Spirit baptism vs ritual immersion & John's baptism as preparatory. Your replies consistently shift into a sacramental framework that the text itself doesn't operate in. That's why nothing is connecting.

For clarity, my position remains:

Jewish immersion = purification, not remission

John's baptism = preparatory, not remissive (Acts 19:4 states this outright)

Remission in Scripture is blood‑based, not water‑based

Spirit baptism is salvations sealing act (Acts 10–11 & Eph 1:13–14)

Water baptism is obedience, not the mechanism of remission

Acts 22:16 uses symbolic washing language, not literal removal of sin

Acts 8:2 shows faith precedes water

If we're not using the same categories, the conversation can't move forward. I've laid out my framework plainly from the text & the Jewish context. Anyone reading can evaluate which set of categories actually fits the passages.

The issue isn’t that Jewish categories didn’t exist, but that you treat them as rigid and mutually exclusive and insist on your premise as the only framework for discussion. Even your own cited Jewish sources describe immersion as more than simple ritual purification - sometimes as a comprehensive transition or rebirth. Ezekiel36 frames cleansing with clean water, forgiveness, and Spirit renewal as an integrated promise, and Acts consistently links repentance, faith, baptism, forgiveness, and Spirit reception in the same pattern. Nowhere does the NT restrict baptism to mere purification or water to symbolic status, so your separations are your assertions, not Scriptural.

 

[FlyingDove]

The issue isn’t that Jewish categories didn’t exist, but that you treat them as rigid and mutually exclusive and insist on your premise as the only framework for discussion. Even your own cited Jewish sources describe immersion as more than simple ritual purification - sometimes as a comprehensive transition or rebirth. Ezekiel36 frames cleansing with clean water, forgiveness, and Spirit renewal as an integrated promise, and Acts consistently links repentance, faith, baptism, forgiveness, and Spirit reception in the same pattern. Nowhere does the NT restrict baptism to mere purification or water to symbolic status, so your separations are your assertions, not Scriptural.

You're merging categories the NT authors kept distinct. Pointing out those distinctions isn't "“rigidity", it's simply refusing to collapse purification, remission, Spirit renewal, prophetic imagery & water ritual into one sacramental construct. Ezekiel 36 is prophetic metaphor, not a ritual mechanism & the NT never uses it to define water baptism or to claim that water itself remits sin. Appealing to "integration" doesn't erase the actual textual boundaries.

Nothing in your reply shows that Jewish immersion ever conveyed remission, that John's baptism was anything but preparatory (Acts 19:4 says this directly), that remission is ever water‑based rather than blood‑based, that Spirit baptism isn't the sealing act, or that Acts 22:16's washing language is literal rather than symbolic. Those distinctions remain because the text itself maintains them.

Since we're working from different frameworks & you're choosing to merge categories the NT keeps separate, there's no productive way forward. My position is already laid out clearly from the text & the Jewish context. I'll leave it there for anyone who wants to evaluate which framework actually fits the passages

 

[Wansvic]

Acts 2:38 (KJV)
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.

The line of reasoning mentioned in (“Acts 2:38 says be baptized for the remission of sins”) is a hallmark argument of oneness or baptismal-regeneration groups.

Here’s a breakdown of what’s behind that “tactic” and why it often shows up in debates:

1. What They Teach

• Oneness Pentecostals (United Pentecostal Church International, Apostolic churches, etc.) and baptismal-regeneration advocates (like the Church of Christ, Christian Church, or some Apostolic groups) insist that water baptism is a necessary condition for salvation.
• They usually quote Acts 2:38 as their cornerstone:
  
  “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...”
  They interpret “for” (eis in Greek) as meaning “in order to obtain” forgiveness, not “because of.”​

2. Why It’s a “Tactic”

In discussion, these groups tend to:

• Anchor every salvation argument in Acts 2:38, ignoring the broader New-Testament pattern of salvation by faith apart from works (e.g., Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5).
• Equate water with spiritual regeneration, even when passages clearly distinguish them (John 3:5; Acts 10:44-48; 1 Peter 3:21).
• Frame the conversation as obedience vs. disobedience, implying that anyone who disagrees is rejecting God’s command rather than discussing interpretation.
• Selectively quote early-Acts passages, before Paul’s revelation of salvation by grace through faith, as though those transitional moments define normative doctrine for the entire Church Age.

Essentially, it’s a rhetorical move: they start with Acts 2:38 as the hermeneutical “lens,” then reinterpret every other passage through it.

3. What’s Often Overlooked

• Context of Acts 2 — Peter was preaching to Jews under the Law who had just crucified their Messiah. The command to repent and be baptized was part of a national call to faith and public identification with Christ, not a mechanical formula for personal regeneration.
• Comparative Passages — In Acts 10, Cornelius and his household received the Holy Spirit before baptism; in Acts 16, the Philippian jailer was told, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved,” with no mention of baptism first.
• Greek nuance — The word eis (“for”) in Acts 2:38 can also mean “because of” or “on account of,” as in Matthew 12:41 (“They repented at [Greek eis] the preaching of Jonah”).
• Paul’s clarification — “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” (1 Cor 1:17). That’s hard to square with baptism being essential for salvation.

4. The Broader Pattern
The New Testament consistently teaches:

• Salvation is by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9; Rom 10:9-10).
• Baptism follows salvation as an outward sign of inward faith (Acts 10:47-48; Gal 3:27).
• The Spirit’s baptism, not water, places believers into the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:13).

So when groups use Acts 2:38 as their proof-text, they’re reversing the biblical order—putting the symbol ahead of the substance.

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

View attachment 281106
Key Takeaways

1. Acts 2:38 was situational — Peter addressing Jews at Pentecost during a covenant transition, not defining a permanent formula for all salvation.
2. Scripture interprets Scripture — later revelation through Paul clarifies salvation is by faith apart from works or rituals (Romans 3–5; Galatians 2).
3. Water vs. Spirit — the New Testament distinguishes symbolic baptism in water from the real regenerating baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; Titus 3:5).
4. Faith precedes baptism — everywhere else in Acts, people believe first (Acts 8:36–37; 10:44–48; 16:30–33).

Grace and Peace

Much of the information you present is not accurate. The doctrine of churches you mention do not include baptismal-regeneration in the sense that the Spirit is received during water baptism.

Scripture does reveal when a person believes in Jesus and repents they receive remission of sin upon obedience to the command to be water baptized in the name of Jesus. It is only because of Jesus' sacrifice that this is even possible. And since the removal of the stain of sin is not optional it is in fact a necessary condition of salvation. As is the need to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Scripture is explicit. Both experiences are required in order to be born again.

In answer to the statements you made (noted below) consider the following:
1. What Peter initially presented to Jews in Acts 2:38 was later carried to all groups of humanity. (Acts 8:12-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7)
2. Paul didn't change what Peter presented concerning the gospel. In fact Paul was still preaching the need of water baptism in the name of Jesus, and laying hands on individuals to assist in their receiving the Holy Ghost some 20+ years after the gospel message was revealed. (Acts 19:1-7)
3. It's not water vs Spirit-It is the Spirit that brings about the reality associated with the act of obedience related to water. (1 Cor. 12:13)
Titus 3:5 expresses two experiences: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, AND renewing of the Holy Ghost;"
4. Of course receiving forgiveness of sin and being filled with the Spirit is dependent upon BELIEVING what God says is true: ie, Luke 7:30.


The preceding reveals the inaccuracy of your statements below:

1. Acts 2:38 was situational — Peter addressing Jews at Pentecost during a covenant transition, not defining a permanent formula for all salvation.
2. Scripture interprets Scripture — later revelation through Paul clarifies salvation is by faith apart from works or rituals (Romans 3–5; Galatians 2).
3. Water vs. Spirit — the New Testament distinguishes symbolic baptism in water from the real regenerating baptism of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; Titus 3:5).
4. Faith precedes baptism — everywhere else in Acts, people believe first (Acts 8:36–37; 10:44–48; 16:30–33)."

 

[Lamar]

At this point the disagreement isn't about verses, it' about categories. I'm working from the categories the NT authors actually used, Jewish purification vs remission, blood vs water, Spirit baptism vs ritual immersion & John's baptism as preparatory. Your replies consistently shift into a sacramental framework that the text itself doesn't operate in. That's why nothing is connecting.

"Jewish purification vs. remission"? Purification or remission, what is your point?

"Blood vs. water"? The blood is symbolic as it is in the Lord's Supper unless you are Roman Catholic. The water is the physical link to the moment of the remission of sins. Much like the gazing upon the brass serpent was the physical link to the moment of the remission of sickness.

"Spirit baptism vs. ritual immersion"? Spiritual baptism is metaphysical and so cannot be attested to. Not sure what you mean by "ritual immersion".

"John's baptism as preparatory"? John used the same baptism during his ministry as Jesus used during His ministry.
Water for the remission of sins. (John 3:22 thru John 4:2)

John's baptism = preparatory, not remissive (Acts 19:4 states this outright)

John's baptism = remission of sins. Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3 states this outright.

Remission in Scripture is blood‑based, not water‑based

The blood is symbolic (unless you are Roman Catholic) and not literal. Water is literal and is the moment but not the cause of the remission of sins.