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

[studier]

2. Greek participles don’t override Jesus’ own interpretation

Yes, πιστεύσας (“having believed”) and βαπτισθείς (“having been baptized”) appear together in the first clause.

But your argument collapses when you look at the contrast clause — the actual interpretive key of the verse.

False claim, Non-Sequitur, False Equivalence.

The claim that my argument “collapses” at the contrast clause is false. The second clause identifies the cause of condemnation (unbelief) but does not override the first clause, which explicitly links salvation to believing and being baptized.

More fallacies.

 

[studier]

Greek grammarians (including Robertson, whom you cited) all agree:
the negative clause clarifies which part is essential.

Unsupported Appeal to Authority.

Robertson was only cited for his work in Harmony of the Gospels, not as a grammatical authority here. This statement provides no citations, no links, and no evidence that grammarians actually support the claim. This makes his appeal to authority effectively worthless.

More fallacies

This is a continuing and repeated pattern of making claim to unsubstantiated scholarly authorities.

 

[studier]

If both belief and baptism were required, the parallel would be:

“He that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned.”
But Jesus did not say that.

You cannot build doctrine from the first half of the sentence while ignoring the explanatory second half.

False Equivalence and Non-Sequitur

The second clause does not need to mirror the first clause. It highlights the cause of condemnation (unbelief) and does not negate the explicit conditions for salvation stated in the first clause.

More fallacies.

 

[studier]

If both belief and baptism were required, the parallel would be:

“He that believeth not or is not baptized shall be damned.”
But Jesus did not say that.

Strawman and continuing Argument from Silence, Non-Sequitur, False Equivalence

You cannot build doctrine from the first half of the sentence while ignoring the explanatory second half.

The doctrine of Mark16:16, as the verse itself states and applies, is clear - salvation is explicitly linked to believing and being baptized, and condemnation is explicitly linked to not believing—no more and no less.

More and continuing fallacies.

 

[studier]

3. Paul’s statements about baptism destroy baptismal-regeneration theology

You listed places where Paul was present at baptisms.
Great — so what?

None of those passages say baptism saves.

But Paul explicitly says:
“Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel.”

— 1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV

If baptism were part of the saving act, Paul would have written the opposite.

You cannot separate the gospel from the thing that (allegedly) saves.

Paul literally thanks God he baptized almost none of them (1 Cor. 1:14–16 KJV).
That is impossible if baptism is a salvation requirement.

This is why your attempt to soften Paul’s words (“he was only avoiding factions”) does not work.

Paul does not say:

“I thank God I didn’t baptize many of you because of factions.”
He says:

“I thank God I baptized none of you lest you should say I baptized in my own name.”
The issue wasn't baptismal unity — it was the fact that baptism has zero salvific power, which is why he could safely step back from doing much of it.

Red Herring, Non-Sequitur, Irrelevant Appeal to Authority.

Your response focuses entirely on Paul’s practice and theology, which shifts the discussion away from what I responded to. I addressed what you're doing with Mark16:16 which explicitly states: salvation is linked to believing and being baptized, and condemnation to not believing. Paul’s actions do not alter the grammar. logic, or meaning of Mark16:16. I may address your points and any fallacies in your argument about Paul later, but for now I have simply shown that Paul’s practice and statements cannot be used to reinterpret Mark16:16.

 

[Me_Clay]

Red Herring, Non-Sequitur, Irrelevant Appeal to Authority.

Your response focuses entirely on Paul’s practice and theology, which shifts the discussion away from what I responded to. I addressed what you're doing with Mark16:16 which explicitly states: salvation is linked to believing and being baptized, and condemnation to not believing. Paul’s actions do not alter the grammar. logic, or meaning of Mark16:16. I may address your points and any fallacies in your argument about Paul later, but for now I have simply shown that Paul’s practice and statements cannot be used to reinterpret Mark16:16.

Studies, what're trying to say?

 

[studier]

4. Paul repeatedly separates salvation from baptism

Paul connects salvation to faith, not ritual:

• “To him that believeth… his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Rom. 4:5 KJV)
• “You are all sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:26 KJV)
• “For by grace are ye saved through faith… not of works.” (Eph. 2:8–9 KJV)

If Paul believed salvation occurs at baptism, he contradicted himself over a dozen times.

And Paul is the apostle who received the Gospel directly from Christ (Gal. 1:11–12 KJV).

This continues the shift away from Mark 16:16. My response concerns what Mark16:16 explicitly says: salvation is linked to believing and being baptized, and condemnation to not believing. Paul’s emphasis on faith elsewhere does not change the grammar, logic, or meaning of Mark16:16, and cannot be used to reinterpret or override Jesus’ words spoke there, which align with His Great Commission.

Once we're done with Mark16:16, I may discuss Paul and baptism with you.

Same fallacies as stated in my previous post.

 

[studier]

@LightBearer316

All remaining points shift focus to Paul and other texts rather than addressing Mark16:16, which my original posts were discussing. The doctrine of baptism was not my focus. Once the discussion on what Mark16:16 says and does not say is concluded, I may respond to the points raised regarding baptismal doctrine. My ongoing concern is that these discussions involve extensive fallacious argumentation and repeated appeals to unsupported scholarly authorities, despite my several requests for citations or links, that then take extensive work to prove false. Then such proof is ignored and the pattern resurfaces.

 

[studier]

Studies, what're trying to say?

My original purpose and one I'm attempting - albeit not always succeeding at - to remain focused on is interpretation and misinterpretation of Scripture. Earlier in this thread and as part of its title, the language and statement of Acts2:38 was being misrepresented. Now and for some time, the grammar and logic of Mark16:16 is also being altered.

You asked me some time back re: baptism, which has not been my focus here, so I politely (I hope) bowed-out of that discussion (so far).

In my view what underlies this thread is mainly an attempt to assert a very common these days system of theology typically known as "faith-alone" which some of us view as a distortion of Scripture - most certainly as it's being presented here.

It is seen by some of us as the basis for doing what we're seeing take place here - it needs "faith" to be essentially undefined or defined very narrowly and simplistically to the point of negating things the Bible attaches and makes part of Genuine Faith, and it asserts that everything other than believing, that the Bible in certain areas places before things like forgiveness, or being saved, is a human work of merit and thus opposed to God's Grace.

It's for this reason that we're seeing verses like Acts2:38 erroneous retranslated and the relatively simple grammar and logic of Mark16:16 changed - they clearly put things other than undefined believing before forgiveness and being saved - and they are part of Scripture.

The task is really not that difficult conceptually - lay out your case without altering Scripture and be prepared for discussion and disagreement at whatever level may come back to you.

To be clear, I've yet to even discuss Biblical Baptism other than to respond to statements I view as being used to erroneously alter Mark16:16 and some other verses and concepts of Scripture.

Hope this helps to some degree. Thanks for asking. I actually had you on my mind earlier before I began dealing with this latest exchange. I also hope it was in some way helpful when I told you that I am baptized and have baptized others.

 

[Me_Clay]

My original purpose and one I'm attempting - albeit not always succeeding at - to remain focused on is interpretation and misinterpretation of Scripture. Earlier in this thread and as part of its title, the language and statement of Acts2:38 was being misrepresented. Now and for some time, the grammar and logic of Mark16:16 is also being altered.

You asked me some time back re: baptism, which has not been my focus here, so I politely (I hope) bowed-out of that discussion (so far).

In my view what underlies this thread is mainly an attempt to assert a very common these days system of theology typically known as "faith-alone" which some of us view as a distortion of Scripture - most certainly as it's being presented here.

It is seen by some of us as the basis for doing what we're seeing take place here - it needs "faith" to be essentially undefined or defined very narrowly and simplistically to the point of negating things the Bible attaches and makes part of Genuine Faith, and it asserts that everything other than believing, that the Bible in certain areas places before things like forgiveness, or being saved, is a human work of merit and thus opposed to God's Grace.

It's for this reason that we're seeing verses like Acts2:38 erroneous retranslated and the relatively simple grammar and logic of Mark16:16 changed - they clearly put things other than undefined believing before forgiveness and being saved - and they are part of Scripture.

The task is really not that difficult conceptually - lay out your case without altering Scripture and be prepared for discussion and disagreement at whatever level may come back to you.

To be clear, I've yet to even discuss Biblical Baptism other than to respond to statements I view as being used to erroneously alter Mark16:16 and some other verses and concepts of Scripture.

Hope this helps to some degree. Thanks for asking. I actually had you on my mind earlier before I began dealing with this latest exchange. I also hope it was in some way helpful when I told you that I am baptized and have baptized others.

Baptism is not a justification for salvation. Do you agree?

 

[studier]

Baptism is not a justification for salvation. Do you agree?

I'm discussing Scriptures. I agree with what properly translated and grammatically and logically interpreted Acts2:38 says and what Mark16:16 says and with what all Scripture and doctrine "rightly divided (handled accurately)" says and means at the time it was written based upon the author's intended meaning, and then how it fits accurately with all Scripture.

I also recognize that any well-intentioned research into a topic like baptism will reveal disagreements going back many centuries and continuing to this day.

Would you like to discuss the main Scriptures I've been addressing?

 

[Me_Clay]

I'm discussing Scriptures. I agree with what properly translated and grammatically and logically interpreted Acts2:38 says and what Mark16:16 says and with what all Scripture and doctrine "rightly divided (handled accurately)" says and means at the time it was written based upon the author's intended meaning, and then how it fits accurately with all Scripture.

I also recognize that any well-intentioned research into a topic like baptism will reveal disagreements going back many centuries and continuing to this day.

Would you like to discuss the main Scriptures I've been addressing?

I am keen to discuss with you. Please start

 

[studier]

I am keen to discuss with you. Please start

If you know how to use the search function, I've addressed these 2 Scriptures fairly extensively on this thread as have a few others. The advanced search function provides some extra parameters. If you get to specific questions, let me know.

 

[Lamar]

1. The thief on the cross was not baptized; yet he was assured of being in Paradise with Christ (Luke 23:43 KJV).

This is an assumption. No one knows if the thief on the cross was or was not baptized for the remission of sins. Even if he was not baptized Jesus forgave the sins of others during His earthly ministry besides the thief.

2. The Gentiles in Caesarea were baptized after they were saved (Acts 10:44–48 KJV).

There is no mention of if the gentiles were saved or not before their baptism. This is more assumption. If you believe that a person is saved at some point of belief then you must accept that every gentile there believed to the point of salvation at the same time.

IOW, the tongues were a sign that the gentiles believed not a sign that the gentiles were saved.

3. Jesus Himself did not baptize (John 4:1, 2 KJV)—a strange omission if baptism were necessary for salvation.

The earthly ministry of both John the Baptist and Jesus were one of water baptism. Jesus Himself was water baptized.

4. Paul thanked God that he baptized very few of the Corinthians (1 Cor. 1:14–16 KJV)—an impossible thanksgiving if baptism were essential for salvation.

This means nothing. Paul baptized few in all likelihood for the same reason Jesus baptized none. The pride of man.

5. Approximately 150 passages in the NT state that salvation is by faith alone. No verse or few verses could contradict this overwhelming testimony.

This is a straight out lie. There are no passages that state such a thing. Which is why you did not cite one. But there are many passages that state the need of some form of obedience tied to salvation. Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, 1st Peter 3:21, Luke 13:3, Acts 10:35, James 1:21-25 etc.

To even think that obedience to the Lord is not needed for salvation is silly...really really silly.

6. Baptism is connected with death and burial in the NT, not with spiritual birth. What then does verse 16 mean? I believe it mentions baptism as the expected outward expression of belief. Baptism is not a condition of salvation, but an outward proclamation that the person has been saved.

This is an example of willful blindness.

Your whole defense is nothing more than a search for loopholes.

 

[Lamar]

This continues the shift away from Mark 16:16. My response concerns what Mark16:16 explicitly says: salvation is linked to believing and being baptized, and condemnation to not believing. Paul’s emphasis on faith elsewhere does not change the grammar, logic, or meaning of Mark16:16, and cannot be used to reinterpret or override Jesus’ words spoke there, which align with His Great Commission.

Once we're done with Mark16:16, I may discuss Paul and baptism with you.

Same fallacies as stated in my previous post.

This guy is all over the place.

On purpose.

 

[Blue155]

Tertullian “ [But] a viper of the [Gnostic] Cainite heresy, lately conversant in this quarter, has carried away a great number with her most venomous doctrine, making it her first aim to destroy baptism—which is quite in accordance with nature, for vipers and.asps . . .”

 

[studier]

To even think that obedience to the Lord is not needed for salvation is silly...really really silly.

@hornetguy has this quote at the bottom of his posts:

No man is really saved unless he is in his heart obedient to Christ. C.H. Spurgeon​

IMO, this pretty much sums it all up - it's one of the best & most accurate statements concerning Genuine Faith I think there is. Add Love which ties directly to it. Close the Book. All done.

 

[studier]

This guy is all over the place.

On purpose.

Honestly wish I could disagree.

 

[studier]

@Me_Clay if you - or anyone - would like what seems to be a good resource covering the arguments about Acts2:38, Mark16:16, and the topic of baptism being discussed in this thread (plus much more about baptism and the Scriptures concerning it) I've begun reading this work (linked) and am finding his work on language issues and what the Scriptures simply and accurately say, to be well researched and stated. Also, as should be done, he cites all resources, which are many.

 

[Me_Clay]

@Me_Clay if you - or anyone - would like what seems to be a good resource covering the arguments about Acts2:38, Mark16:16, and the topic of baptism being discussed in this thread (plus much more about baptism and the Scriptures concerning it) I've begun reading this work (linked) and am finding his work on language issues and what the Scriptures simply and accurately say, to be well researched and stated. Also, as should be done, he cites all resources, which are many.

The only book of my bible commentary is the Holy Bible. BTW, the link doesn't open....