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

[LightBearer316]

Sorry I responded to the wrong post I haven't been able to sleep tonight

I'm trying the cup of warm milk with some sugar in it trick.

 

[Wansvic]

Nonetheless, not a loss of salvation.

Although the idea that salvation can not be lost would be preferred, personally, I do not believe that's the case. There are scriptures that indicate otherwise. One's such as, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. What is there to fear if salvation is one and done; It is impossible to restore those who have fallen away. Heb.6:4-6; Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. Rev. 2:5; He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Rev. 2:7

The parables of the ten foolish and ten wise virgins, and the unprofitable servant reveal the reality as well. Matt. 25

 

[Wansvic]

I don't know why my identity was at the top of that post you quoted. I can't see that it was even to me.

A few observations about your post:

• Your reference to Luke6:46-49 was a good foundational one. It is only those who obey Him who truly have faith in Him which should help inform us that faith & obedience are functionally equivalent.
• Your reference to Heb6:1-2 with the phrase "repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God" should also help inform us about faith/obedience and works.
  • Those 2 phrases are parallelism. One cannot be doing dead works and be in faith toward God. Repentance from dead works in essence is faith toward God.
  • The writer of Hebrews doesn't share this overblown faith-alone nonsense. His language per him is foundational doctrine - the "elementaries".
  • Intrinsic to genuine faith are obedience and work (and other facets). Up until the point where we actually come to genuine faith and are newly created for good works, while yet in unbelief which is disobedience (Heb3:18-19; Rom10:16) we are doing dead works. There's really no way for us to do any merit-worthy works for salvation while in unbelief/disobedience.
  • At the point of genuine faith/obedience, we transition into the ability in Christ in Spirit to do good works which are intrinsic to our genuine faith-obedience.
• There's more, but good enough for now.

Sorry, the reply was to post 467.

 

[Wansvic]

The response from ChristRoseFromTheDead actually reflects a very common confusion; trying to sound balanced between “Trinity” and “Modalism,” but ending up describing something that doesn’t quite fit either biblical or historic Christian teaching.

You’re trying to express the mystery of God’s nature sincerely. But what you described; one being with “three eternal characteristics” like body, soul, and spirit; still misses what Scripture and historic Christianity teach.

The Bible doesn’t say God has parts or characteristics that function as Father, Son, and Spirit. It says these are three distinct persons (not three bodies or modes) who share the one divine essence.

• The Father loves the Son (John 17:24 KJV).
• The Son prays to the Father (John 17:1 KJV).
• The Spirit intercedes and teaches (Romans 8:26; John 14:26 KJV).

Those are not “characteristics” of one person — they are real relationships within the one true God.

The “body, soul, and spirit” analogy sounds appealing, but it’s actually closer to Modalism with extra steps, because it turns the persons of the Godhead into functions or aspects of a single person rather than co-equal, co-eternal persons in fellowship.

What Scripture reveals is deeper:

“There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” — 1 John 5:7 KJV​

That’s not three gods, nor one person with three faces — but one divine Being eternally existing as three distinct Persons, perfectly united in essence and purpose.

Grace and Peace.
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Scripture explanation:

"In Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9-12). This scripture reveals Jesus is not a separate person in the Godhead. But rather the Godhead dwells in Jesus.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1 Tim. 3:16).

Note, Jesus said He is the root AND the offspring of David. This reveals His dual nature of being both divine and human. As the root, He created David and as the offspring He was a human descendant of David. (Rev. 22:16)

Lastly, the scripture you yourself reference indicates the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost ARE one. (1 John 5:7) Confirming once again that IN Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead. (Col 2:9)

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Deut. 6:4
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: Isa. 45:5
I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. Isa. 43:11
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another. Isa. 42:8

 

[Wansvic]

I understand, in one sense, your description of a human being having body, soul, and spirit is accurate ( 1 Thessalonians 5:23 KJV). But that analogy applies only to created beings, not to the Creator Himself.

A man is a finite creature made up of parts that together form one person. God, however, is not composed of parts or divisions. He is simple (undivided) in essence and tri-personal in being.

“God is a Spirit” — John 4:24 KJV — not a composite of body, soul, and spirit.​

So while the human structure can help us grasp certain truths about unity, it breaks down when applied to the infinite God.
The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not components or faculties within one divine person — they are distinct Persons, eternally existing in perfect unity and fellowship (John 17:24 KJV; Matthew 28:19 KJV).

Using human composition as a model for the Godhead inevitably reduces God to the level of His creation, which Scripture never does.

Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

Grace and Peace.

What is the name? (Matt. 28:19) The apostles knew as revealed by their actions. (Acts 2:38, 8:12-18, 9:17-18, 10:43-48, 19:1-7, 22:16)

 

[Wansvic]

...

Baptism in Jesus’ Name only.
They reject baptism “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19 KJV) and insist that the true formula is baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38 KJV).

...

There is not a single instance where water baptism was administered using the phrase in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Why? The apostles knew obedience to Jesus' command required they use His name. See every detailed account of water baptism; Acts 2:38-42, 8:12-18, 10:47-48, 19:1-7, 22:16.

The use of the phrase is a man-made tradition corresponding with the formation of Trinity. And became an official mandate of the "church" around 325AD.

 

[Wansvic]

Even several early church fathers made clear distinctions between the symbolic act of baptism and the saving reality it represents.

John Chrysostom (4th century) wrote,

“It is not the water that makes one pure, but the change of life that purifies the soul.”​

(Homilies on John, 25:2)​

Likewise, Clement of Alexandria taught that believers “are washed from sins not by the physical water, but by the spiritual Word.” (Paedagogus 1.6)

Even where they held baptism in high esteem, these men consistently pointed back to faith and repentance as the true means by which one receives grace. The outward washing simply testified to the inner cleansing already wrought by the Holy Spirit (cf. Titus 3:5).

So from Scripture to early Christian testimony, the pattern is consistent:
Faith first — baptism follows.

Grace and peace

Regardless of what "church fathers" say about the topic. The word of God states obedience to the command of water baptism in the name of Jesus results in one's sin being remitted in association with Jesus' sacrifice. (Acts 2:38, 22:16)

 

[Wansvic]

At the end of the day, the issue isn’t grammar, ritual, or tradition — it’s the gospel itself.

Scripture is unmistakably consistent: salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone (Ephesians 2:8–9 KJV). Baptism, while deeply important and commanded, is the public confession of that inward faith — not the cause of forgiveness but the confirmation of it.

The Greek εἰς (eis) in Acts 2:38 can naturally carry a causal sense — “because of” or “in view of” — just as in Matthew 12:41. The crowd in Acts 2 had already been “pricked in their heart” (v.37), showing repentance before baptism. Their obedience was faith in action, not faith in water.

Throughout the New Testament we see the same pattern repeated:

• Belief first, then baptism (Acts 10:43–48; Acts 16:31–33; Galatians 3:26–27).
• Faith justifies, works testify (Romans 4:3–5; James 2:24).
• The Spirit regenerates, not ritual (Titus 3:5).

Early church fathers like Chrysostom and Clement affirmed that the outward washing symbolized an inward change already wrought by the Word and Spirit. The later development of baptismal regeneration reflected growing ritualism, not apostolic doctrine.

The harmony of Scripture stands:

“The just shall live by faith.” — Romans 1:17 KJV​

“Whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” — Acts 10:43 KJV​

So yes — baptism is precious, but Christ alone saves.
Faith is the root; obedience is the fruit.
The water testifies, but the blood redeems.

Grace and peace in Him who is the Author and Finisher of our faith.
Breaking it up into short, titled sections makes it far easier to read and quote in a forum thread. Don't thank me I couldn't sleep tonight.

Through faith.

And again you misquote Acts 10:43. The scripture specifically states through His name (Jesus' name) those who believe receive remission of sin.

"To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." A few verses after Peter made that statement, he gave the command to be water baptized in the name of the Lord. (Acts 10:47-48) Oh, and by the way, Peter did not command they use the phrase I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. But rather in the singular NAME of the Lord.

 

[TrustandObey]

Appreciate your passion, brother, but the lexical range of εἰς (eis) is broader than you’re acknowledging.

While its primary sense is “into” or “unto,” Greek lexicons (including BDAG, Thayer, and Robertson’s Word Pictures) all note that context can shift its meaning to “because of,” “with reference to,” or “in view of.”

For instance, Matthew 12:41 — “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah” — clearly uses eis in a causal or resultant sense. They didn’t repent in order to get Jonah’s preaching; they repented because of it. The same construction appears in Matthew 3:11, where John baptized eis metanoian (“unto repentance”), which doesn’t mean people were baptized to obtain repentance, but because they had repented.

So in Acts 2:38, “be baptized eis the remission of sins” can naturally mean “on account of” or “in view of” forgiveness — consistent with the many passages that make faith, not baptism, the instrument of justification (cf. Acts 10:43; Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8–9).

Even Greek grammarians like A.T. Robertson (in Word Pictures in the New Testament) and Nigel Turner (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament) acknowledge this permissible causal nuance. It’s not theology forcing the text — it’s recognizing that prepositions flex according to usage.

Context is key: Peter’s audience had already been “pricked in their heart” (Acts 2:37). Their repentance preceded baptism. Thus, the baptism was the outward response to an inward reality, not the means of obtaining it.

Grace and peace

Your argument is one based on "might and maybes". With this line of reasoning nothing in the Bible would be safe.

There are 1000's of Bible translations and all of them use eis in the future tense (for, so that) and never because of.

For every one of your "examples" of why eis should be taken as "because of" I will cite the thousands of Biblical scholars who put their reputations on the line and do not use "because of" in Acts 2:38.

All words can have different meanings but a theology cannot be based on "well maybe".

Faith Alone Regeneration Theology is a theology without an example. A theology based on inserting a definitive into verses i.e. alone or only and then using the altered verse to negate earlier passages.

This is not theology this is chaos.

In other words, you cannot alter Eph. 2:8-9 by shoehorning "alone" into the passage and making the verse an all-encompassing phrase that is used to explain away earlier texts.

 

[studier]

Appreciate your passion, brother, but the lexical range of εἰς (eis) is broader than you’re acknowledging.

While its primary sense is “into” or “unto,” Greek lexicons (including BDAG, Thayer, and Robertson’s Word Pictures) all note that context can shift its meaning to “because of,” “with reference to,” or “in view of.”

For instance, Matthew 12:41 — “They repented at (eis) the preaching of Jonah” — clearly uses eis in a causal or resultant sense. They didn’t repent in order to get Jonah’s preaching; they repented because of it. The same construction appears in Matthew 3:11, where John baptized eis metanoian (“unto repentance”), which doesn’t mean people were baptized to obtain repentance, but because they had repented.

So in Acts 2:38, “be baptized eis the remission of sins” can naturally mean “on account of” or “in view of” forgiveness — consistent with the many passages that make faith, not baptism, the instrument of justification (cf. Acts 10:43; Romans 3:28; Ephesians 2:8–9).

Even Greek grammarians like A.T. Robertson (in Word Pictures in the New Testament) and Nigel Turner (Grammatical Insights into the New Testament) acknowledge this permissible causal nuance. It’s not theology forcing the text — it’s recognizing that prepositions flex according to usage.

Context is key: Peter’s audience had already been “pricked in their heart” (Acts 2:37). Their repentance preceded baptism. Thus, the baptism was the outward response to an inward reality, not the means of obtaining it.

Grace and peace

This is bogus.

There are no translations of the Bible that uses eis to mean "because of". None, not one. Regardless of the time of publication, old or new.

There are no translations of the Bible in any language that uses eis to mean "because of". None, not one. Regardless of the language.

The notion of eis meaning "because of" is a long discredited attempt to prop up Faith Alone Regeneration Theology.

Compare Acts 2:38 to Luke 5:4

Both are written by the same person and use the same verbiage pattern.

Do you really believe that Peter cast his net "because of" the large catch of fish he already had?

There is no reason to believe that either of these verses means "because of", unless your theology demands it.

@TrustandObey - pardon my jumping in. At the moment I'm in support of your opening line above.

@LightBearer316 please provide links or paste excerpts and links showing "BDAG, Thayer, and Robertson’s Word Pictures" and Turner support the causal meaning of "eis"

 

[John146]

Although the idea that salvation can not be lost would be preferred, personally, I do not believe that's the case. There are scriptures that indicate otherwise. One's such as, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. What is there to fear if salvation is one and done; It is impossible to restore those who have fallen away. Heb.6:4-6; Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. Rev. 2:5; He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. Rev. 2:7

The parables of the ten foolish and ten wise virgins, and the unprofitable servant reveal the reality as well. Matt. 25

As one who believes in dispensations, I view Hebrews 6 as written to the Hebrew people in the time of Jacob's trouble. Their salvation is based upon enduring to the end. And what I mean by salvation is being ushered into the kingdom on earth promised to the nation of Israel.

Same for the passage in Revelation you posted. The plural "churches" is to 7 distinct churches scattered throughout Asia during the time of Jacob's trouble. In the church age, there is only one church, the body of Christ. The body of Christ will never have to eat from the tree of life because we have the righteousness of Jesus Christ forever.

 

[SomeDisciple]

This is bogus.

There are no translations of the Bible that uses eis to mean "because of". None, not one. Regardless of the time of publication, old or new.

There are no translations of the Bible in any language that uses eis to mean "because of". None, not one. Regardless of the language.

The notion of eis meaning "because of" is a long discredited attempt to prop up Faith Alone Regeneration Theology.

Compare Acts 2:38 to Luke 5:4

Both are written by the same person and use the same verbiage pattern.

Do you really believe that Peter cast his net "because of" the large catch of fish he already had?

There is no reason to believe that either of these verses means "because of", unless your theology demands it.

Pretty sure most versions do for Mark 1:38.

 

[studier]

Sorry, the reply was to post 467.

Yes, Thanks. I should have been clearer - I don't know why my ID was at the top of that #467 going nowhere.

 

[LightBearer316]

Scripture explanation:

"In Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9-12). This scripture reveals Jesus is not a separate person in the Godhead. But rather the Godhead dwells in Jesus.

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory." (1 Tim. 3:16).

Note, Jesus said He is the root AND the offspring of David. This reveals His dual nature of being both divine and human. As the root, He created David and as the offspring He was a human descendant of David. (Rev. 22:16)

Lastly, the scripture you yourself reference indicates the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost ARE one. (1 John 5:7) Confirming once again that IN Jesus dwells all the fulness of the Godhead. (Col 2:9)

Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: Deut. 6:4
I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: Isa. 45:5
I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. Isa. 43:11
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another. Isa. 42:8

That’s a classic Oneness / Modalist argument heresy, blending truth (Christ’s divinity and unity with the Father) with a denial of the distinct Persons within the Godhead. Scripture shows that Christ contains the fullness of the Godhead because He shares the divine essence — not because He is the entire Trinity by Himself.

I appreciate the Scriptures you quoted — all true, but we must handle them in harmony, not isolation. The fullness of the Godhead dwelling in Christ doesn’t mean Jesus is the Father and the Spirit; it means the one divine nature of God is fully present in Him.

Colossians 2:9 (KJV) says,

“For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”​

That verse speaks of essence, not identity collapse. The same divine fullness also belongs to the Father and the Spirit because they share one essence — not because they are one Person.​

If Colossians 2:9 KJV meant Jesus is all three Persons, then His prayers to the Father (John 17:1 KJV) and His promise to send “another Comforter” (John 14:16 KJV) would make no sense.
Jesus wasn’t pretending to talk to Himself; the Son was communing with the Father through the Spirit — three distinct Persons acting in perfect unity.

When Scripture says, “The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4 KJV), it’s affirming oneness of being, not singleness of Person. The Hebrew word ’echad for “one” often denotes a compound unity — like “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24 KJV) referring to two individuals joined as one.

The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, yet all are the same one God — co-equal, co-eternal, and inseparable in will and essence.
That’s why 1 John 5:7 KJV says, “These three are one,” not “these three are the same Person.”

God’s Word presents unity without confusion and distinction without division.
The mystery is profound — but not contradictory.

Grace and peace

 

[studier]

Pretty sure most versions do for Mark 1:38.

Correct verse?

 

[Blue155]

The Greek preposition εἰς (eis) appears frequently in the New Testament and is crucial in understanding key doctrines such as baptism, repentance, forgiveness, and salvation. Its primary meaning is prospective, indicating direction, entry, or purpose: “into,” “unto,” “to,” or “for.”

εἰς

Transliteration: eis

Pronunciation: ice

Part of Speech: preposition

Root Word (Etymology): A primary preposition

TDNT Reference: 2:420,211

Outline of Biblical Usage:

1 into, unto, to, towards, for, among

KJV Translation Count: 1,774x

The KJV translates Strongs G1519 in the following manner: into (573x), to (281x), unto(207x), for (140x), in (138x), on (58x), toward(29x), against (26x), miscellaneous (322x).

Translating it as “because of” is not only grammatically incorrect but leads to absurd conclusions in doctrinal contexts.

Consider some key examples:

Matthew 26:28 – “This is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for (eis) many for the remission of sins.”

If eis meant “because of”: Jesus died because sins were already forgiven—impossible.

Mark 1:4 / Luke 3:3 – John baptized for (eis) the remission of sins.

If eis meant “because of”: John baptized because sins were already forgiven—contradicting his own message.

Acts 2:38 – “Repent, and be baptized… for (eis) the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”

If eis meant “because of”: Baptism occurs after forgiveness—reversing the gospel order.

Romans 10:10 – Belief and confession are directed unto (eis) righteousness and salvation.

If eis meant “because of”: Belief occurs because of righteousness, confession because of salvation—reversing cause and effect.

Galatians 3:27; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 1 Peter 3:21 – Baptism brings one into (eis) union with Christ, into the body, and into salvation through His resurrection.

If eis meant “because of”: These actions would be meaningless, as believers would already possess the results.

Matthew 28:19 – Baptizing into (eis) the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

If eis meant “because of”: Baptism would be meaningless, as it would occur after entering God’s name/fellowship.

Romans 6:3–4; 1 Corinthians 10:2; John 3:5; Acts 8:16 – Baptism or birth is directed into (eis) union with Christ, Moses, the kingdom, or authority. If eis meant “because of”: These passages become nonsensical; entrance or union occurs after the event rather than as a result of it.

Example, John 3:5:

“Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into (εἰς) the kingdom of God.”

If eis meant “because of”: It would read as “enter because of having already entered,” which is logically impossible. Entry cannot occur because it already occurred—it’s the very thing the action aims to achieve.

Matthew 3:10

“Every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is cast into (εἰς) the fire.”

If eis mean because of: “The tree is cast because of the fire.”

This makes no sense. The fire is the destination, not the reason. The tree doesn’t act on the fire—it’s being judged toward the fire.

Luke 5:4

“Launch out into (εἰς) the deep, and let down your nets for (εἰς) a draught.”

If eis mean because of: “Launch out because of the deep; let down the nets because of the catch.”

Completely illogical. You launch the boat and lower nets to achieve a result, not because the result already exists.

Matthew 12:41

“The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah.”

If eis mean because of: “They repented because they were already saved at Jonah’s preaching.”

Impossible: they had not yet received salvation. Repentance is the action that aligns them with God’s mercy, not a response to mercy already granted.

Translating εἰς as “because of” reverses cause and effect, making obedience, belief, repentance, and judgment meaningless. In every example, εἰς points forward—to a goal, purpose, or result—not backward to something already completed.

By no means is this an exhaustive list of all the verses containing the Greek word εἰς (eis). These examples focus on key doctrinal contexts—salvation, baptism, repentance, and entry into Christ—but εἰς appears over 1,700 times in the New Testament, almost always pointing forward, toward a goal or result. Its consistent prospective usage underscores the absurdity of translating it as “because of.” In every case concerning how to be saved, actions such as believing, repenting, and being baptized are directed into God’s promises, not performed in response to blessings already received.

 

[studier]

That's quite a first post.

 

[SomeDisciple]

Correct verse?

Yeah, "for that is why i came out" (ESV), most translations have "for", which the context demonstrates means "because". "in order to receive" or "into" don't fit the context.

 

[LightBearer316]

Your argument is one based on "might and maybes". With this line of reasoning nothing in the Bible would be safe.

There are 1000's of Bible translations and all of them use eis in the future tense (for, so that) and never because of.

For every one of your "examples" of why eis should be taken as "because of" I will cite the thousands of Biblical scholars who put their reputations on the line and do not use "because of" in Acts 2:38.

All words can have different meanings but a theology cannot be based on "well maybe".

Faith Alone Regeneration Theology is a theology without an example. A theology based on inserting a definitive into verses i.e. alone or only and then using the altered verse to negate earlier passages.

This is not theology this is chaos.

In other words, you cannot alter Eph. 2:8-9 by shoehorning "alone" into the passage and making the verse an all-encompassing phrase that is used to explain away earlier texts.

With respect, this isn’t about “might and maybes.” It’s about how language actually works.

You said all translations render εἰς (eis) as “for” — that’s true, but “for” itself is an ambiguous English preposition. It can mean “in order to obtain” or “on account of,” depending on context.
When we study the Greek, we’re not changing Scripture — we’re clarifying its intended sense.

Greek lexicons like BDAG, Thayer, and grammarians such as A.T. Robertson and Nigel Turner document this causal usage of eis.
It’s not speculation; it’s recognized scholarship. The fact that eis is flexible doesn’t make Scripture uncertain — it means we must read it carefully, just as translators do with other polysemous words.

And notice: I didn’t insert “alone” into Ephesians 2:8–9 KJV — Paul did the excluding himself:
“Not of works, lest any man should boast.” — Ephesians 2:9 KJV
That’s not “shoehorning” — it’s following the text as written.

The danger isn’t in allowing eis to carry its contextual nuance, but in forcing every verse into a predetermined theology that requires baptism to be the instrument of forgiveness.

Faith is the cause; baptism is the confession.
One receives salvation, the other declares it.

Grace and peace
Acts 17:11 (KJV)
“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”

 

[LightBearer316]

I'm trying the cup of warm milk with some sugar in it trick.

I have to report back that it worked.