Search results

The distinction you’re making between “Genitive of Source” and “Genitive of Production” actually supports the core of what I said. Wallace himself notes that the Genitive of Production is similar to a Genitive of Source — both emphasize origin or relationship, not identity. My point isn’t that...

Appreciate your detailed reply. Yes — I actually do have Wallace’s Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, and I’m familiar with his treatment of the genitive constructions. The point I made about εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως in Romans 1:5 KJV and 16:26 KJV isn’t based merely on Wallace’s categorization, but...

This exchange reflects the baptismal regeneration error—the belief that forgiveness of sins is granted only after baptism, rather than through faith in Christ alone. It misreads Acts 2:38 by isolating it from the broader New Testament witness, where salvation is consistently shown to come by...

The issue isn’t whether genuine faith acts — we agree it does. The question is what causes salvation. Scripture draws a consistent line: faith is the root, works are the fruit (Eph 2:8-10 KJV; Titus 3:5-8 KJV). When James says “faith without works is dead,” he’s not redefining salvation — he’s...

Don’t waste any more time and save your peace by putting Blue155 on ignore. He uses a system where he copies and pastes answers into a system [very similar to AI] and the system automatically generates answers for him to just blindly copy and paste. He uses it very irresponsible, and you cannot...

That’s actually a good example of how Scripture distinguishes between unity of being and distinction of persons. When Genesis 1:26 says, “Let us make man in our image,” the plural shows internal distinction within the Godhead — not three gods, but one God who is tri-personal. Notice in verse 27...

@studier, You’re still conflating grammatical possibility with exegetical necessity. Wallace’s note lists several potential genitive readings precisely because the construction isn’t rigid — but none of them equate faith and obedience. That’s why he includes the appositional genitive as one...

You’re missing the key point, and your own quotation actually confirms it. Wallace doesn’t “endorse” the genitive of production — he calls it rare and notes it’s similar to a genitive of source. That’s precisely the point: he’s describing relationship and origin, not identity or equivalence...

@Beckworth, you’re confusing the symbol with the substance. :ROFL: Romans 6 isn’t about water creating union with Christ — it’s describing what that union represents. Paul is explaining that when a believer trusts Christ, he’s spiritually baptized into His death and resurrection (compare 1...

@Blue155, you post repeats the same error — confusing water baptism (the outward act) with the inward reality of being cleansed by Christ’s blood through faith. No one here rejects what Acts 2:38 or Acts 22:16 KJV actually say — we reject the way you’re misreading them. In Acts 22:16, Ananias...

No that was YOU and your friend studier that got busted using AI and here is the proof. https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/acts-2-38-comparison-evangelical-vs-oneness-baptismal-regeneration-view.220967/page-55#post-5617213

@Beckworth Honestly, every time you post this kind of argument, you just end up making yourself look foolish. You see if water baptism were the condition that saves, Paul never could have said, “Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel” — 1 Corinthians 1:17 KJV. Grace and Peace...

That post from Beckworth cleverly mixes partial truths (grace and obedience) with a false equivalence between Old Testament ritual obedience and New Testament salvation by faith. The examples of Naaman and the blind man don’t prove baptism is a condition of salvation — they show that faith...

That’s another very surface-level take — Beckworth is reducing Romans 6:3–5 KJV to “union by water,” which is exactly what Paul wasn’t teaching. That’s not what Romans 6 is saying. Paul isn’t talking about water baptism causing union with Christ, but about believers being identified with His...

That post from Beckworth is a classic baptismal regeneration proof-text, but it rips Romans 6:3–5 out of context. Paul’s focus there isn’t on water baptism, but on spiritual union — the believer’s identification with Christ’s death and resurrection through faith. Romans 6 isn’t defining how we...

You’re selectively reading Wallace again. Quoting the NET Bible notes doesn’t help your point—it actually shows how unsettled this issue is linguistically, not the certainty you’re claiming. Wallace lists several possible genitive options precisely because, grammatically, none of them collapse...

You’re reaching again. The Wallace note you’re quoting (“perhaps”) doesn’t affirm your interpretation — it simply acknowledges a possible genitive-of-production reading. Wallace himself explicitly says it’s rare and not the natural default. That “perhaps” tells you everything — it’s a...

You can read it right in the post — TrustandObey cut my statement in half to change its meaning. That’s what I was addressing. If you’re genuinely asking “why,” it’s simple: context matters. Misquoting someone’s words to flip their meaning isn’t honest discussion; it’s a distortion. Grace and...

TrustandObey intentionally clipped my quote to remove the context that made my statement accurate and biblical. This reveals how deceptive he really is. Yet even with TrustandObey more like never trust, we can go back to the original post and expose his deceptions. Nice try, but you clipped...