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

[LightBearer316]

Except of course when it's mentioned that households were baptized.
1. Cornelius' Household (Acts 10)
2. Lydia's Household (Acts 16)
3. The Philippian Jailer's Household (Acts 16)
4. Crispus’ Household (Acts 18)
5. Stephanas’ Household (1 Corinthians 1)

That’s a very familiar response, and it often sounds convincing on the surface. But once you examine each “household baptism” passage in context, you find that every single one either explicitly or implicitly shows faith first — not automatic or infant baptism.

That’s a great point — the “household baptisms” are often cited as exceptions. But when we look at each passage closely, every single one fits the same New Testament pattern:
faith first, baptism follows.

Let’s look at them one by one.
1. Cornelius’ Household — Acts 10:44–48

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” (v. 44)​

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (v. 47)​

Observation:
The entire household heard the word, received the Holy Spirit, and only then were baptized.
That means they already believed — the Spirit is never given to unbelievers (John 7:39; Acts 11:17).

2. Lydia’s Household — Acts 16:14–15

“The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.”​

“And when she was baptized, and her household…”​

Observation:
The text explicitly says Lydia believed. It does not say infants or unbelievers were present — only that “her household” followed her example.
Nothing suggests baptism without faith; it simply indicates everyone in her home also responded to the gospel message.

3. The Philippian Jailer’s Household — Acts 16:30–33

“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (v. 31)​

“And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” (v. 32)​

“And he… was baptized, he and all his, straightway.” (v. 33)​

Observation:
Paul and Silas preached to the whole family, and they all believed. Verse 34 says,

“He rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”​

So faith clearly preceded baptism for everyone present.​

4. Crispus’ Household — Acts 18:8

“Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.”​

Observation:
Faith comes first again — they believed, then were baptized.
The text even emphasizes belief before baptism for both Crispus and the other Corinthians.

5. Stephanas’ Household — 1 Corinthians 1:16; 16:15

“I baptized also the household of Stephanas…” (1 Cor 1:16)​

“They have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” (1 Cor 16:15)​

Observation:
Far from being infants, members of Stephanas’ household were active servants in ministry — evidence of conscious faith.

So basically:
There’s not a single case in Acts or the epistles where baptism is applied to unbelievers, infants, or anyone apart from personal faith.
The “household baptisms” don’t contradict the pattern — they confirm it:

Faith → Salvation → Baptism.​

That’s why every consistent passage reads this way:

• Acts 8:12 — “They believed… then they were baptized.”
• Acts 10:47 — “Can anyone forbid water, seeing they have received the Spirit?”
• Acts 16:31–33 — “Believe… and thou shalt be saved.”

Grace and peace — always letting Scripture interpret Scripture.

 

[NightTwister]

That’s a very familiar response.

That's a very familiar response that there were no children or infants in those households.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Non sequitur. I'm merely providing the definitions of certain baptisms.

Why don't you provide the verses you were referencing so I can check the Greek?

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Justification (past) — you were saved from sin’s penalty.

Sin's penalty is death. Of itself (alone) being declared righteous (justification) doesn't save one from death ; it makes us right with God. It is Christ's life that saves us from sin's penalty.

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved in his life. Romans 5:10​

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The more I look at this, the more I am being convinced that water baptism is analogous to, or perhaps the type of, physical circumcision.

I meant antitype, not type. Physical circumcsion would be the type and water bpatism would be the antitype, ie the fulfillment that the type pointed to.

 

[Aaron56]

Why don't you provide the verses you were referencing so I can check the Greek?

I already checked the Greek. We're good.
Surely you know the scriptures.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Mother: "Son, here's a gift for your birthday!"
Son: "Oh boy, a free gift! What is it?"
Dad: "Open it and find out"
Son: "I can't because it's not a free gift if I have to do something"
Dad to Mom: "How soon can you make a doctor's appointment?"

 

[LightBearer316]

That's a very familiar response that there were no children or infants in those households.

That’s a fair observation, brother — but notice that the assumption that there were infants in those households is every bit as speculative as the assumption that there weren’t. The difference is that the text actually gives us clues that point one direction.

In every single case, the inspired record connects the whole household with hearing, believing, receiving the Spirit, or serving — all conscious acts of faith:

• Cornelius’ house (Acts 10:44–48): “All who heard the word” received the Spirit. Infants can’t “hear and believe.”
• Jailer’s house (Acts 16:32–34): Paul “spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house.” Verse 34 concludes, “He rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”
• Crispus’ house (Acts 18:8): They “believed on the Lord.”
• Stephanas’ house (1 Cor 16:15): They “addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.”
• Lydia’s house (Acts 16:14–15): The only heart specifically mentioned as opened is hers, but the natural reading is that the rest likewise responded to Paul’s message.

So yes — the word household doesn’t rule out children, but the context of each passage rules out the idea of baptism apart from faith. The New Testament pattern never changes:

“They that gladly received his word were baptized.” — Acts 2:41​

No passage describes anyone baptized before believing the gospel.

If we let Scripture interpret Scripture, the weight of evidence runs one way:
Faith → Salvation → Baptism.

Grace and peace, always in the Word.

 

[LightBearer316]

I hope other will take the time to read Chapter 10 entirely in the book of ACTS for themselves. (Acts 10)
1. Cornelius’ Household — Acts 10:44–48

“While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.” (v. 44)
“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” (v. 47)

Observation:
The entire household heard the word, received the Holy Spirit, and only then were baptized.
That means they already believed — the Spirit is never given to unbelievers (John 7:39; Acts 11:17).

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

That means they already believed — the Spirit is never given to unbelievers (John 7:39; Acts 11:17).

Was Balaam a believer?

And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness. And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding [in his tents] according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him. Numbers 24:1-2​

​

King Saul was given the spirit, yet was a disobedient man. Cornelius only spoke in tongues, but Saul prophesied. Was Saul a believer?

And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What [is] this [that] is come unto the son of Kish? [Is] Saul also among the prophets? 1 Samuel 10:10-11​

 

[LightBearer316]

Was Balaam a believer?

And when Balaam saw that it pleased the LORD to bless Israel, he went not, as at other times, to seek for enchantments, but he set his face toward the wilderness. And Balaam lifted up his eyes, and he saw Israel abiding [in his tents] according to their tribes; and the spirit of God came upon him. Numbers 24:1-2​

​

King Saul was given the spirit, yet was a disobedient man. Cornelius only spoke in tongues, but Saul prophesied. Was Saul a believer?

And when they came thither to the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What [is] this [that] is come unto the son of Kish? [Is] Saul also among the prophets? 1 Samuel 10:10-11​

Brother, I appreciate your examples, but those refer to the Spirit’s temporary empowerment under the Old Covenant, not the indwelling Spirit given to believers after Christ’s resurrection (John 7:39; Acts 2).

In Acts 10, the Spirit was given to Cornelius’ household as a sign of genuine faith and salvation; the same way He’s given to every believer today (Acts 11:17; Ephesians 1:13).

Let’s keep the focus on the context of the household baptisms, since that’s what’s being discussed. Every New Testament passage still shows faith preceding baptism.

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Brother, I appreciate your examples, but those refer to the Spirit’s temporary empowerment under the Old Covenant, not the indwelling Spirit given to believers after Christ’s resurrection (John 7:39; Acts 2).

In Acts 10, the Spirit was given to Cornelius’ household as a sign of genuine faith and salvation; the same way He’s given to every believer today (Acts 11:17; Ephesians 1:13).

Let’s keep the focus on the context of the household baptisms, since that’s what’s being discussed. Every New Testament passage still shows faith preceding baptism.

Grace and Peace

Cornelius' baptism in the spirit was a sign to Peter to not withhold the water from them. If water is not very important, why was that the first thing out of his mouth? It is because to him was entrusted the keys of the kingdom to remit or hold sins. How could he possibly do that? By administering or not administering water baptism. Jesus said nothing about the baptism of the spirit being into remittance of sins, but that it was to empower his disciples as his witnesses.

 

[LightBearer316]

Cornelius' baptism in the spirit was a sign to Peter to not withhold the water from them. If water is not very important, why was that the first thing out of his mouth? It is because to him was entrusted the keys of the kingdom to remit or hold sins. How could he possibly do that? By administering or not administering water baptism. Jesus said nothing about the baptism of the spirit being into remittance of sins, but that it was to empower his disciples as his witnesses.

This is actually a good opportunity to clarify the heart of the issue — because your reply reveals a confusion between two different kinds of baptism (Spirit vs. water) and a misunderstanding of Peter’s role.

Brother, I agree that Cornelius’ Spirit baptism was indeed a sign — but not a sign for Peter to add a ritual requirement.
It was a sign from God that Gentiles had already been accepted by faith, before any water touched them.

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” — Acts 10:47​

Peter’s words don’t make water the means of forgiveness — they show water as the confirmation of forgiveness already received.
If the Holy Spirit had already fallen on them, then their sins were already remitted. The Spirit never indwells the unforgiven.

That’s why Peter later explained it this way in Acts 11:17–18:

“Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God? … Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”​

Notice — faith and repentance unto life came first. The gift of the Spirit confirmed it. Water baptism followed as outward testimony.

About Peter and the “Keys of the Kingdom”

Yes, Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom” (Matthew 16:19) — but keys open doors, they don’t wash sins.
Peter used those keys three times:

1. To the Jews (Acts 2)
2. To the Samaritans (Acts 8, through confirmation by Peter and John)
3. To the Gentiles (Acts 10)

Each time, he opened a new “door” of gospel access — but he didn’t create a new method of salvation. The same pattern follows:
Faith → Spirit → Water — never reversed.

Water vs. Spirit Baptism

You’re right that the baptism of the Spirit empowered the disciples (Acts 1:8), but in Cornelius’ case, it also served as a sign of full acceptance.
Peter explicitly recognized that the Spirit’s outpouring on Gentiles proved that salvation was already theirs.

If water were the instrument of remission, Peter would have said, “Let’s baptize them so they can receive forgiveness.”
Instead, he said, “Can we withhold water from those who have already received the Spirit?”
That’s a completely different order — and one the text makes unambiguous.

Basically:

• The Spirit fell before baptism → showing salvation had already occurred.
• Peter used the “keys” to affirm inclusion, not to dispense forgiveness.
• Water baptism was obedience and identification, not the cause of remission.

“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43​

​

That’s the verse Peter himself spoke right before the Spirit fell.
It was belief, not water, that brought forgiveness — and the Spirit confirmed it.

Grace and Peace

 

[LightBearer316]

I hope everyone on this forum takes the time to read Acts chapter 10 in its entirety for themselves — it speaks clearly when we let Scripture interpret Scripture.

 

[LightBearer316]

The desperate reasonings of Calvignosticism

That kind of response isn’t constructive at all — it’s a dismissive label, not a biblical argument. The term “Calvignosticism” isn’t a real theological category — it’s more of a made-up insult combining Calvinism and Gnosticism.
It’s a rhetorical smear, not a doctrinal argument.
It doesn’t engage the issue (in my case, baptism and salvation). It’s just an attempt to mock or discredit my position by labeling it with a hybrid insult.

It also isn't a good look to be honest, ChrsitRoseFromTheDead.

Brother, name-calling doesn’t move the discussion forward. Let’s stay with Scripture.

Ephesians 2:8–9 says plainly,

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”​

No amount of redefining changes that truth — salvation is by grace through faith, not by any outward act.
Baptism is vital for obedience and testimony, but it follows salvation; it doesn’t create it.

Let’s keep the focus on what God’s Word actually says, not on labels or systems and name-calling.

Grace and Peace

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

That kind of response isn’t constructive at all — it’s a dismissive label, not a biblical argument. The term “Calvignosticism” isn’t a real theological category — it’s more of a made-up insult combining Calvinism and Gnosticism.
It’s a rhetorical smear, not a doctrinal argument.
It doesn’t engage the issue (in my case, baptism and salvation). It’s just an attempt to mock or discredit my position by labeling it with a hybrid insult.

It also isn't a good look to be honest, ChrsitRoseFromTheDead.

Brother, name-calling doesn’t move the discussion forward. Let’s stay with Scripture.

Ephesians 2:8–9 says plainly,

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast.”​

No amount of redefining changes that truth — salvation is by grace through faith, not by any outward act.
Baptism is vital for obedience and testimony, but it follows salvation; it doesn’t create it.

Let’s keep the focus on what God’s Word actually says, not on labels or systems and name-calling.

Grace and Peace

I'm not using that term to discredit your position. I think I am doing very well with scripture. My remark was based on what I perceived to be the kind of contradictory and confused reasoning that people who embrace the teachings of Calvin exhibit. Perhaps I was wrong to think you think that way, but I don't think so. Calvignosticism is a perfect portmanteau to capture the essence of Calvinism IMO.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

This is actually a good opportunity to clarify the heart of the issue — because your reply reveals a confusion between two different kinds of baptism (Spirit vs. water) and a misunderstanding of Peter’s role.

Brother, I agree that Cornelius’ Spirit baptism was indeed a sign — but not a sign for Peter to add a ritual requirement.
It was a sign from God that Gentiles had already been accepted by faith, before any water touched them.

“Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?” — Acts 10:47​

Peter’s words don’t make water the means of forgiveness — they show water as the confirmation of forgiveness already received.
If the Holy Spirit had already fallen on them, then their sins were already remitted. The Spirit never indwells the unforgiven.

That’s why Peter later explained it this way in Acts 11:17–18:

“Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, what was I, that I could withstand God? … Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.”​

Notice — faith and repentance unto life came first. The gift of the Spirit confirmed it. Water baptism followed as outward testimony.

About Peter and the “Keys of the Kingdom”

Yes, Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom” (Matthew 16:19) — but keys open doors, they don’t wash sins.
Peter used those keys three times:

1. To the Jews (Acts 2)
2. To the Samaritans (Acts 8, through confirmation by Peter and John)
3. To the Gentiles (Acts 10)

Each time, he opened a new “door” of gospel access — but he didn’t create a new method of salvation. The same pattern follows:
Faith → Spirit → Water — never reversed.

Water vs. Spirit Baptism

You’re right that the baptism of the Spirit empowered the disciples (Acts 1:8), but in Cornelius’ case, it also served as a sign of full acceptance.
Peter explicitly recognized that the Spirit’s outpouring on Gentiles proved that salvation was already theirs.

If water were the instrument of remission, Peter would have said, “Let’s baptize them so they can receive forgiveness.”
Instead, he said, “Can we withhold water from those who have already received the Spirit?”
That’s a completely different order — and one the text makes unambiguous.

Basically:

• The Spirit fell before baptism → showing salvation had already occurred.
• Peter used the “keys” to affirm inclusion, not to dispense forgiveness.
• Water baptism was obedience and identification, not the cause of remission.

“To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43​

​

That’s the verse Peter himself spoke right before the Spirit fell.
It was belief, not water, that brought forgiveness — and the Spirit confirmed it.

Grace and Peace

Explain how Peter could remit or hold sins and what relation that has to possessing the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If that doesn't mean administering the rite of water baptism into forgiveness of sins what does it mean?

 

[GWH]

So what do you do if you’re saved and later realize you weren’t baptized?

You're in deep

 

[LightBearer316]

Explain how Peter could remit or hold sins and what relation that has to possessing the keys to the kingdom of heaven. If that doesn't mean administering the rite of water baptism into forgiveness of sins what does it mean?

Brother, that’s an important question — and it gets right to the heart of what Jesus meant by giving Peter “the keys of the kingdom.”

Let’s start with the verse itself:

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”​

— Matthew 16:19 (KJV)​

Keys Represent Authority to Open Access — Not to Forgive Sins Personally

Keys open doors. Jesus entrusted Peter with the authority to open the door of the kingdom to new groups — Jews (Acts 2), Samaritans (Acts 8), and Gentiles (Acts 10).

But nowhere does Scripture say Peter personally remitted sins by his own act. Only Christ holds that power:

“Who can forgive sins but God alone?” — Mark 2:7​

“Through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43​

Peter’s role was declarative, not sacramental: he proclaimed forgiveness through Christ, not administered it through ritual.

“Remitting or Retaining Sins” Refers to Declaring the Gospel’s Terms

In John 20:23, Jesus told all the apostles:

“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”​

This authority is representative — to announce forgiveness to those who believe and repentance to those who reject it.
When Peter preached at Pentecost, he didn’t say, “I forgive you”; he said:

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins...” — Acts 2:38​

The remission wasn’t in Peter’s hands, nor in the water — it was in the name of Jesus Christ, by repentance and faith.

The Keys Were Used Through Preaching, Not Ritual Power

Peter “used the keys” each time he proclaimed the gospel to a new audience and God confirmed it by giving the Holy Spirit:

• Acts 2 – Jews: Spirit falls, many believe and are baptized.
• Acts 8 – Samaritans: confirmed by Peter and John’s laying on of hands.
• Acts 10 – Gentiles: Spirit falls before water, proving acceptance by faith.

That’s how Peter “opened the kingdom.”
He didn’t dispense forgiveness; he declared the way into it.

The Rite of Baptism Bears Witness — It Doesn’t Cause Remission

Baptism is the public seal of inward faith, not the instrument of forgiveness.
Peter himself clarifies this later:

“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.” — 1 Peter 3:21​

So baptism testifies to salvation already received — it doesn’t create it.
Basically:

• Peter’s “keys” opened gospel access, not a pipeline of ritual forgiveness.
• He remitted sins declaratively by preaching Christ, not administratively through water.
• The remission itself comes by faith in Christ’s finished work — confirmed by the Spirit, symbolized by water.

Grace and peace —
Salvation is always by grace through faith, and the Spirit’s indwelling confirms it — not the ceremony that follows.

 

[LightBearer316]

I'm not using that term to discredit your position. I think I am doing very well with scripture. My remark was based on what I perceived to be the kind of contradictory and confused reasoning that people who embrace the teachings of Calvin exhibit. Perhaps I was wrong to think you think that way, but I don't think so. Calvignosticism is a perfect portmanteau to capture the essence of Calvinism IMO.

Brother, I appreciate your clarification — thank you for saying that.

I’m not offended by the term itself so much as by what it represents: it shifts the discussion away from Scripture and into labeling, which doesn’t help either of us grow in truth. Whether Calvinism or any other system, our goal should always be to test everything by the Word of God, not by man-made categories.

We both agree that salvation is “by grace through faith… not of works” (Ephesians 2:8-9). That’s the foundation we stand on. My concern is simply that baptism — as important and commanded as it is — must remain in its rightful place as a response of obedience, not a prerequisite for forgiveness.

Let’s keep reasoning together from Scripture, not systems. The Bereans were called noble because they “searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). That’s the spirit I want to keep in this conversation.

Grace and peace, brother.