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

[FlyingDove]

"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 = remission of sins. Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3 states this outright.

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.

The categories you're using aren't the ones the NT authors used. In Scripture, purification & remission are not the same thing. Jewish immersion restored ritual purity, it never removed sin. That's why remission is consistently tied to blood, not water (Heb 9:22, Matt 26:28, Rev 1:5). Calling blood "symbolic" & water "literal" reverses the biblical pattern.

Acts 19:4 explicitly distinguishes John's baptism from remission: John preached repentance so people would believe in Christ, the One who actually brings forgiveness. Ma 1:4 & Luke 3:3 use Hebrew categories where repentance leads toward remission, not that water causes it.

Spirit baptism is attested in the text itself (Acts 10–11 & Eph 1:13–14) & the NT repeatedly shows the Spirit given before water, not because of water.

If we're not using the same categories the NT uses - purification vs remission, blood vs water, Spirit baptism vs ritual immersion - we'll just talk past each other. My framework is grounded in those categories, so I'll leave it there for anyone reading.

"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 = remission of sins. Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3 states this outright.

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.

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul

Heb 9:22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission

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

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

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

Act 10:43 through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins

The categories you're using aren't the ones the NT authors used. In Scripture, purification & remission are not the same thing. Jewish immersion restored ritual purity, it never removed sin. That's why remission is consistently tied to blood, not water (Heb 9:22, Matt 26:28, Rev 1:5). Calling blood "symbolic" & water "literal" reverses the biblical pattern.

Acts 19:4 explicitly distinguishes John's baptism from remission: John preached repentance so people would believe in Christ, the One who actually brings forgiveness. Ma 1:4 & Luke 3:3 use Hebrew categories where repentance leads toward remission, not that water causes it.

Spirit baptism is attested in the text itself (Acts 10–11 & Eph 1:13–14) & the NT repeatedly shows the Spirit given before water, not because of water.

If we're not using the same categories the NT uses - purification vs remission, blood vs water, Spirit baptism vs ritual immersion - we'll just talk past each other. My framework is grounded in those categories, so I'll leave it there for anyone reading.

 

[studier]

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

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

The NT does not enforce the rigid separations you insist on. Your repeated claim that Jewish sources define immersion as mere ritual purification is uncited and unproven, and the sources themselves describe immersion as far broader - even a transformation and kind of rebirth. Jer2:13 and Jer17:13 show God as Israel’s mikveh and fountain of living waters, and Ez36 links water, cleansing, forgiveness, a new heart, and Spirit renewal as a single divine act. Acts consistently presents repentance, faith, baptism, forgiveness, and Spirit reception together, without suggesting water itself remits sin. Baptism is part of God’s appointed means for His saving work, not a substitute for it. Since you continue to insist on an erroneous, unproven premise as fact, we are agreed there is no productive way forward - the burden remains on you to demonstrate, without selective citation, that your sources actually support your claims.

 

[FlyingDove]

The NT does not enforce the rigid separations you insist on. Your repeated claim that Jewish sources define immersion as mere ritual purification is uncited and unproven, and the sources themselves describe immersion as far broader - even a transformation and kind of rebirth. Jer2:13 and Jer17:13 show God as Israel’s mikveh and fountain of living waters, and Ez36 links water, cleansing, forgiveness, a new heart, and Spirit renewal as a single divine act. Acts consistently presents repentance, faith, baptism, forgiveness, and Spirit reception together, without suggesting water itself remits sin. Baptism is part of God’s appointed means for His saving work, not a substitute for it. Since you continue to insist on an erroneous, unproven premise as fact, we are agreed there is no productive way forward - the burden remains on you to demonstrate, without selective citation, that your sources actually support your claims.

You're now appealing to metaphors & theological synthesis rather than the categories the NT authors actually use. Jeremiah calling God Israel's "“mikveh" or "fountain of living waters" is prophetic imagery, not a definition of ritual immersion & it doesn't overturn the historical fact that Jewish mikveh immersion restored ritual purity, not remission. If you believe otherwise, you'll need to cite an actual Jewish source that states immersion removed sin. So far, none has been provided.

Ezekiel 36 likewise uses prophetic metaphor to describe God's future cleansing & renewal, not a ritual mechanism. The NT never cites Ezekiel 36 to define water baptism or to claim that water conveys forgiveness. Your appeal to "integration" is theological interpretation, not an exegetical demonstration that purification, remission, Spirit renewal & water ritual are the same category.

Acts 19:4 explicitly distinguishes John's baptism from remission. Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3 use Hebrew categories where repentance leads toward remission, not that water causes it. Nothing in your reply shows that remission is ever water‑based rather than blood‑based, or that Spirit baptism is not the sealing act (Acts 10–11; Eph 1:13–14). Those distinctions remain because the text itself maintains them.

Since you're choosing to merge categories the NT keeps separate & you haven't provided any Jewish source stating that immersion conveyed remission, there's no further way to move the discussion forward. My framework is grounded in the categories the NT authors actually use, so I'll leave it there for anyone evaluating which approach fits the passages.

Water baptism is not the cause or the mechanism of sin remission.

The risen Christ enters heaven & """""in the presence of God places His own blood in the heavenly alter made without hands & obtains eternal redemption""""" for all that will trust in His sacrificial sin atoning payment. (Heb 9)

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul

Heb 9:22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission

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

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

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

Act 10:43 through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins

Calling on the Lord Jesus & by placing Faith in His finished sacrificial sin atoning payment is the cause & mechanism of sin remission.

 

[studier]

You're now appealing to metaphors & theological synthesis rather than the categories the NT authors actually use. Jeremiah calling God Israel's "“mikveh" or "fountain of living waters" is prophetic imagery, not a definition of ritual immersion & it doesn't overturn the historical fact that Jewish mikveh immersion restored ritual purity, not remission. If you believe otherwise, you'll need to cite an actual Jewish source that states immersion removed sin. So far, none has been provided.

Ezekiel 36 likewise uses prophetic metaphor to describe God's future cleansing & renewal, not a ritual mechanism. The NT never cites Ezekiel 36 to define water baptism or to claim that water conveys forgiveness. Your appeal to "integration" is theological interpretation, not an exegetical demonstration that purification, remission, Spirit renewal & water ritual are the same category.

Acts 19:4 explicitly distinguishes John's baptism from remission. Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3 use Hebrew categories where repentance leads toward remission, not that water causes it. Nothing in your reply shows that remission is ever water‑based rather than blood‑based, or that Spirit baptism is not the sealing act (Acts 10–11; Eph 1:13–14). Those distinctions remain because the text itself maintains them.

Since you're choosing to merge categories the NT keeps separate & you haven't provided any Jewish source stating that immersion conveyed remission, there's no further way to move the discussion forward. My framework is grounded in the categories the NT authors actually use, so I'll leave it there for anyone evaluating which approach fits the passages.

Water baptism is not the cause or the mechanism of sin remission.

The risen Christ enters heaven & """""in the presence of God places His own blood in the heavenly alter made without hands & obtains eternal redemption""""" for all that will trust in His sacrificial sin atoning payment. (Heb 9)

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul

Heb 9:22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission

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

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

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

Act 10:43 through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins

Calling on the Lord Jesus & by placing Faith in His finished sacrificial sin atoning payment is the cause & mechanism of sin remission.

Your response repeatedly misrepresents my argument - claiming I said water itself removes sin - which I never claimed, creating a classic straw-man fallacy. At the same time, you shift the burden of proof onto me to defend that misrepresentation, rather than supporting your own claim that Jewish immersion was only ritual purification. Again, those sources themselves describe immersion as broader, sometimes transformative. The NT consistently links repentance, faith, baptism, forgiveness, and Spirit reception, and passages like Jer2:13, Jer17:13, and Ez36 portray God as the mikveh, cleansing with clean water as part of His saving work and Spirit renewal. The use of fallacies, including burden-shifting, does not negate these clear textual patterns - the burden remains on you to prove your premise, no matter how many times you attempt to shift it.

 

[Lamar]

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

You do understand that verbiage like this is symbolic...don't you?

There was no blood in the cup...correct?

 

[tablet123]

Act 2:38 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.

For
eis
ice
A primary preposition; to or into (indicating the point reached or entered).

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

Here it says baptism to wash away sins.

Jews, Gentiles, and Samaritans were all baptized in the name of Jesus.

All we do in word or deed in Jesus' name.

Jesus came in the name of the Father.

The Son inherited the name from the Father.

The Holy Spirit comes in the name of the Jesus.

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles not names.

And the name is singular.

Jesus is the name.

Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Rom 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Rom 6:5 For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

We are baptized in the likeness of Jesus' death which then we will be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

We have to identify with the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

When Jesus was buried that is when the sins were laid down.

We have to repent, water baptism, receiving the Spirit.

We can't cut out the middle man.

1Pe 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

It says water baptism does now save us.

1Th 1:3 Remembering without ceasing your work of faith,

and labour of love, and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ, in the sight of God and our Father

Some people say we are not saved by works.

But repenting, and confessing Christ is a work.

Even faith is a work.

For all we do and think is a work.

The only way we can be saved without works is we know nothing.

And then boom we are saved and then led like a puppet with no input from us at all.

Not even thinking what to do.

For everything we would think or do for the kingdom of God is a work.

We would go about our lives and not even know there was a God and He is guiding us.

For to believe there is a God is a work.

Because it is a choice we made because we are born not knowing God.

 

[FlyingDove]

"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 = remission of sins. Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3 states this outright.

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.

Water baptism is not the cause or the mechanism of sin remission.

The risen Christ enters heaven & "in the presence of God" ""places His own blood in the heavenly alter"" made without hands & obtains eternal redemption""""" for all that will trust in His sacrificial sin atoning payment. (Heb 9)

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul

Heb 9:22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission

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

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

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

Act 10:43 through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins

Calling on the Lord Jesus & by placing Faith in His finished sacrificial sin atoning payment is the cause & mechanism of sin remission.

Faith is the cause & mechanism of sin remission

Acts 10:44 & Eph 1:13, provide the doctrinal evidence that salvation occurs at the point of faith, placed in Jesus, prior to any ritual action.

In Acts 10:44, the Holy Spirit falls upon Cornelius & his household while Peter is still speaking. The narrative is careful to note that this occurs before baptism (Acts 10:47). Peter later interprets this event at the Jerusalem Council, stating that God "purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). This is the inspired apostolic explanation of what happened. The Spirit's coming is consistently presented in Scripture as the definitive marker of salvation (Rom 8:9; Gal 3:2; Eph 1:13). Therefore, the text itself requires us to conclude that Cornelius was saved at the moment he believed.

Eph 1:13 provides the doctrinal counterpart to the narrative. Paul outlines the sequence with precision:
Hearing the word of truth > Believing the gospel > Being sealed with the Holy Spirit

FAITH placed in the FAITHFUL work of Jesus SAVES, the BLOOD washes away sin & Jesus Holy Spirit baptism SEALS the believers salvation. Water is never cause of salvation.

No additional steps are needed FAITH & SEALING. Jesus Holy Spirit baptisms SEALING is the divine confirmation of salvation & Paul treats it as such. The text does not allow for a later sacramental trigger.

These passages do not diminish the importance of baptism as an act of obedience, identification with Jesus death & resurrection & public confession. But they do make clear that baptism is not the instrument of remission or the means by which salvation is conferred.

The New Testament consistently attributes forgiveness, justification & spiritual life to faith in Christ & to the application of His sacrificial sin atoning payment, not to external rites.

The Scriptures themselves present both a narrative example Acts 10 (confirmed by scripture Acts 15:9) & a doctrinal explanation (Eph 1:13) in which salvation is explicitly tied to faith prior to any ritual action. Any theological system that denies this must explain why the apostolic witness does not align with its claims.

 

[FlyingDove]

You do understand that verbiage like this is symbolic...don't you?

There was no blood in the cup...correct?

The NT

 

[FlyingDove]

"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 = remission of sins. Mark 1:4 & Luke 3:3 states this outright.

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.

Water baptism is not the cause or the mechanism of sin remission.

The risen Christ enters heaven & """""in the presence of God places His own blood in the heavenly alter made without hands & obtains eternal redemption""""" for all that will trust in His sacrificial sin atoning payment. (Heb 9)

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul

Heb 9:22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission

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

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

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

Act 10:43 through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins

Calling on the Lord Jesus & by placing Faith in His finished sacrificial sin atoning payment is the cause & mechanism of sin remission.

FAITH is the cause & mechanism of sin remission, Blood is sins removal agent & Jesus Holy Spirit Baptism (1 Cor 12:13 & Col 2:11) SEALS the believers eternal life.

Acts 10:44 & Eph 1:13, provide the doctrinal evidence that salvation occurs at the point of faith, placed in Jesus, prior to any ritual action.

In Acts 10:44, the Holy Spirit falls upon Cornelius & his household while Peter is still speaking. The narrative is careful to note that this occurs before baptism (Acts 10:47). Peter later interprets this event at the Jerusalem Council, stating that God "purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). This is the inspired apostolic explanation of what happened. The Spirit's coming is consistently presented in Scripture as the definitive marker of salvation (Rom 8:9; Gal 3:2; Eph 1:13). Therefore, the text itself requires us to conclude that Cornelius was saved at the moment he believed.

Eph 1:13 provides the doctrinal counterpart to the narrative. Paul outlines the sequence with precision:
Hearing the word of truth > Believing the gospel > Being sealed with the Holy Spirit

FAITH placed in the FAITHFUL work of Jesus saves, the BLOOD washes away sin & Jesus Holy Spirit baptism SEALS the believers salvation. Water is never cause of salvation.

No additional steps are needed FAITH & SEALING. Jesus Holy Spirit baptisms SEALING is the divine confirmation of salvation & Paul treats it as such. The text does not allow for a later sacramental trigger.

These passages do not diminish the importance of baptism as an act of obedience, identification with Jesus death & resurrection & public confession. But they do make clear that baptism is not the instrument of remission or the means by which salvation is conferred.

The New Testament consistently attributes forgiveness, justification & spiritual life to faith in Christ & to the application of His sacrificial sin atoning payment, not to external rites.

The Scriptures themselves present both a narrative example Acts 10 (confirmed by scripture Acts 15:9) & a doctrinal explanation (Eph 1:13) in which salvation is explicitly tied to faith prior to any ritual action. Any theological system that denies this must explain why the apostolic witness does not align with its claims.

 

[FlyingDove]

You do understand that verbiage like this is symbolic...don't you?

There was no blood in the cup...correct?

"Correct, there was no literal blood in the cup. Jesus was using covenant symbolism, the same way the OT used symbolic elements to point to the real saving act. The remission isn't in the cup & it isn't in the water. It's in the actual blood He shed the next day. The symbol points to the reality, it doesn't perform the remission. That's exactly why the NT consistently ties forgiveness to Christ's blood, not to the cup or to water baptism.

Water baptism is not the cause or the mechanism of sin remission.

The risen Christ enters heaven & """""in the presence of God places His own blood in the heavenly alter made without hands & obtains eternal redemption""""" for all that will trust in His sacrificial sin atoning payment. (Heb 9)

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul

Heb 9:22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission

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

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

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

Faith in Jesus Faithful 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.

 

[TrustandObey]

"Correct, there was no literal blood in the cup. Jesus was using covenant symbolism, the same way the OT used symbolic elements to point to the real saving act. The remission isn't in the cup & it isn't in the water. It's in the actual blood He shed the next day. The symbol points to the reality, it doesn't perform the remission. That's exactly why the NT consistently ties forgiveness to Christ's blood, not to the cup or to water baptism.

The blood is symbolic and can never be the mechanism, only the cause. The blood points to the water, which is the moment of remission but not the cause.

There is never a physical moment of contact with literal human blood. The making someone clean comes from water, as the Bible mentions many times.

What do you think is the mechanism and moment of the remission of sins if not water baptism?

 

[FlyingDove]

The blood is symbolic and can never be the mechanism, only the cause. The blood points to the water, which is the moment of remission but not the cause.

There is never a physical moment of contact with literal human blood. The making someone clean comes from water, as the Bible mentions many times.

What do you think is the mechanism and moment of the remission of sins if not water baptism?

Your claim that "the blood is symbolic but the water is the mechanism" contains a built in contradiction. The NT treats the cup as symbolic, but the blood as the actual atoning reality that obtains eternal redemption (Heb 9:12). If the blood is only symbolic, then the cross, the sacrifice, the propitiation & the remission tied to that blood all become symbolic as well. But if the blood is real in its saving effect & the NT repeatedly says it is.

Then remission cannot be located in the water, because Scripture never assigns that role to baptism. You can't call the blood symbolic & the water the mechanism without reversing the categories the NT itself establishes. Water purifies the flesh (Heb 9:10), but only Christ's blood cleanses the conscience (Heb 9:14). The mechanism of remission is His blood & the moment is when one believes & calls on His name (Acts 10:43; Rom 10:13; Eph 1:13). Water baptism is obedience, not the moment or mechanism of forgiveness.

 

[studier]

Water baptism is not the cause or the mechanism of sin remission.

The risen Christ enters heaven & """""in the presence of God places His own blood in the heavenly alter made without hands & obtains eternal redemption""""" for all that will trust in His sacrificial sin atoning payment. (Heb 9)

Lev 17:11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul

Heb 9:22 Without shedding of blood there is no remission

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

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

Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God

Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins

Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins

Rom 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved

Act 10:43 through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins

Calling on the Lord Jesus & by placing Faith in His finished sacrificial sin atoning payment is the cause & mechanism of sin remission.

FAITH is the cause & mechanism of sin remission, Blood is sins removal agent & Jesus Holy Spirit Baptism (1 Cor 12:13 & Col 2:11) SEALS the believers eternal life.

Acts 10:44 & Eph 1:13, provide the doctrinal evidence that salvation occurs at the point of faith, placed in Jesus, prior to any ritual action.

In Acts 10:44, the Holy Spirit falls upon Cornelius & his household while Peter is still speaking. The narrative is careful to note that this occurs before baptism (Acts 10:47). Peter later interprets this event at the Jerusalem Council, stating that God "purified their hearts by faith" (Acts 15:9). This is the inspired apostolic explanation of what happened. The Spirit's coming is consistently presented in Scripture as the definitive marker of salvation (Rom 8:9; Gal 3:2; Eph 1:13). Therefore, the text itself requires us to conclude that Cornelius was saved at the moment he believed.

Eph 1:13 provides the doctrinal counterpart to the narrative. Paul outlines the sequence with precision:
Hearing the word of truth > Believing the gospel > Being sealed with the Holy Spirit

FAITH placed in the FAITHFUL work of Jesus saves, the BLOOD washes away sin & Jesus Holy Spirit baptism SEALS the believers salvation. Water is never cause of salvation.

No additional steps are needed FAITH & SEALING. Jesus Holy Spirit baptisms SEALING is the divine confirmation of salvation & Paul treats it as such. The text does not allow for a later sacramental trigger.

These passages do not diminish the importance of baptism as an act of obedience, identification with Jesus death & resurrection & public confession. But they do make clear that baptism is not the instrument of remission or the means by which salvation is conferred.

The New Testament consistently attributes forgiveness, justification & spiritual life to faith in Christ & to the application of His sacrificial sin atoning payment, not to external rites.

The Scriptures themselves present both a narrative example Acts 10 (confirmed by scripture Acts 15:9) & a doctrinal explanation (Eph 1:13) in which salvation is explicitly tied to faith prior to any ritual action. Any theological system that denies this must explain why the apostolic witness does not align with its claims.

Re: the new copy and paste version being repeated, the argument continually relies on a false binary - faith alone versus baptism as a rival mechanism - by continuing to use the straw-man claim that baptism itself remits sin. The NT presents a third category: faith as the basis of salvation, with baptism as an appointed act that accompanies repentance and Spirit reception, not a competing cause. Verses that reflect this pattern are simply bypassed. The repeated insistence that others must disprove an assumed framework is a basic burden-shifting fallacy. The earlier premise that Jewish sources restrict immersion to mere purification is silently abandoned rather than proven.

 

[FlyingDove]

Re: the new copy and paste version being repeated, the argument continually relies on a false binary - faith alone versus baptism as a rival mechanism - by continuing to use the straw-man claim that baptism itself remits sin. The NT presents a third category: faith as the basis of salvation, with baptism as an appointed act that accompanies repentance and Spirit reception, not a competing cause. Verses that reflect this pattern are simply bypassed. The repeated insistence that others must disprove an assumed framework is a basic burden-shifting fallacy. The earlier premise that Jewish sources restrict immersion to mere purification is silently abandoned rather than proven.

Your "3rd category" evaporates the moment you read the texts: Acts 10:44 shows the Spirit falling before baptism. Acts 15:9 says God purified their hearts by faith & Eph 1:13 gives the inspired sequence > hearing > believing > sealed. Without placing baptism at the moment of remission, purification, or Spirit reception. You didn't answer a single remission verse I cited (Heb 9:22, Matt 26:28, Rom 3:25, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14). All of which explicitly tie forgiveness to Christ's blood, not water. That's not a "“false binary" that's the Bible's own category: blood remits sin, water never does.

Your framework isn't being disproven, it's being bypassed by the apostolic witness itself. The narrative (Acts 10), the apostolic interpretation (Acts 15:9) & the doctrinal explanation (Eph 1:13) all place salvation at the moment of faith prior to any ritual, leaving your "3rd category" as nothing more than a rhetorical invention with no textual support.

 

[Lamar]

Your response repeatedly misrepresents my argument - claiming I said water itself removes sin - which I never claimed, creating a classic straw-man fallacy. At the same time, you shift the burden of proof onto me to defend that misrepresentation, rather than supporting your own claim that Jewish immersion was only ritual purification. Again, those sources themselves describe immersion as broader, sometimes transformative. The NT consistently links repentance, faith, baptism, forgiveness, and Spirit reception, and passages like Jer2:13, Jer17:13, and Ez36 portray God as the mikveh, cleansing with clean water as part of His saving work and Spirit renewal. The use of fallacies, including burden-shifting, does not negate these clear textual patterns - the burden remains on you to prove your premise, no matter how many times you attempt to shift it.

I think he knows what he is doing but has no other recourse to defend his ideology.

 

[Lamar]

Your "3rd category" evaporates the moment you read the texts: Acts 10:44 shows the Spirit falling before baptism.

What does Acts 10:44 have to do with the moment of the remission of sins?

Were they not still baptized in the manner and purpose of Acts 2:38?

 

[studier]

Your "3rd category" evaporates the moment you read the texts: Acts 10:44 shows the Spirit falling before baptism. Acts 15:9 says God purified their hearts by faith & Eph 1:13 gives the inspired sequence > hearing > believing > sealed. Without placing baptism at the moment of remission, purification, or Spirit reception. You didn't answer a single remission verse I cited (Heb 9:22, Matt 26:28, Rom 3:25, Eph 1:7, Col 1:14). All of which explicitly tie forgiveness to Christ's blood, not water. That's not a "“false binary" that's the Bible's own category: blood remits sin, water never does.

Your framework isn't being disproven, it's being bypassed by the apostolic witness itself. The narrative (Acts 10), the apostolic interpretation (Acts 15:9) & the doctrinal explanation (Eph 1:13) all place salvation at the moment of faith prior to any ritual, leaving your "3rd category" as nothing more than a rhetorical invention with no textual support.

Have you dropped the erroneous appeal to Jewish sources, or can we expect to see it again? Faith-alone assumptions read Acts10 as negating baptism, but Peter saw it as God commanding him to baptize, overcoming any reluctance. Baptism remained part of God’s appointed sequence, not a rival or optional step, and your false binary continues

 

[studier]

I think he knows what he is doing but has no other recourse to defend his ideology.

It's adherence to a basic systematic theology that needs to negate what certain Scriptures say and favor others. This whole thread is based in trying to first change the Greek language ("eis") of Acts2:38 to fit a system to oppose another system. Failing there it must come in and say Acts2:38 (and others) were transitioned into oblivion. I simply don't see this being proven and I see false claims re: Jewish resources and history being made in combination with fallacious arguments like straw man and false dichotomies - and others - that are very typical when it comes to arguing systems.

 

[FlyingDove]

What does Acts 10:44 have to do with the moment of the remission of sins?

Were they not still baptized in the manner and purpose of Acts 2:38?

Acts 10:44–48 lets settle the core issue directly. Peter says the Holy Spirit fell on them "just as on us at (Pentecost) the beginning" (Acts 11:15), which Jesus Himself defined as Holy Spirit baptism (Acts 1:5). That Holy Spirit baptism happened before water & is interpreted by Peter as God purifying their hearts by FAITH (Acts 15:9). So here's the unavoidable question:

Which baptism actually marks the moment of salvation in the narrative? The baptism Jesus performed where He immersed them in the Holy Spirit in Acts 10:44, or the water baptism Peter performs afterward in Acts 10:47?

You can't say "both," because the text gives the order. You can't say "water,' because Peter says God had already purified (Acts 15:9). And you can't say "neither," because the Holy Spirit's arrival is the forever (Jn 14:16) seal of salvation (Eph 1:13, 2 Cor 1:22 & 5:5).

Peter still led them to water because baptism was the public identification with Jesus as Messiah. A bold & costly act for any Jew of that time. It was obedience & confession, not the moment God granted remission. Remission happened when the Holy Spirit baptized/filled/indwelt them 1st.

 

[Lamar]

Acts 10:44–48 lets settle the core issue directly.

These verses are at its core descriptive and most certainly not prescriptive.

You are attempting to negate Acts 2:38 with a description of a one-time supernatural manifestation in Caesarea.

What happened in Caesarea does not annul the clear commands of repentance and water baptism in Acts 2:38.

What happened in that house in Caesarea was a one-time physical supernatural manifestation of the Holy Spirit and cannot and is not duplicated afterward.