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

[Lamar]

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

My oh my! Mark 16:16 is a simple two clause compound sentence! Is English not your first language?

This is one of the most painful examples of the extent followers of faith alone regeneration theology will go to protect their bias.

Mailmandan is purposely twisting simple grammar in order to negate the words of Jesus.

He is actually claiming that the second clause of Mark 16:16 makes void the first clause, this is beyond absurd. Not only does grammar not work this way but his attempt exposes his willful blindness.

I am sure that mailmandan does not use this silly reasoning in his everyday life.

Does the "omission" of any word in any compound sentence void any clause in any part of the sentence?
Of course not.

The the omission of "renounces" in the first clause of Proverbs 28:13 invalidate the need to renounce sins?

Proverbs 28:13
Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper,
but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.​

 

[mailmandan]

My oh my! Mark 16:16 is a simple two clause compound sentence! Is English not your first language?

Actually, English is my first language and the second clause clarifies the first - ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. Now while this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they shall be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized.

Now in order for this verse to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary, “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned,” yet neither of these statements is found in the verse.

Jesus has given both the positive condition of belief (whoever believes shall be saved) and the negative condition of unbelief (whoever does not believe will be condemned). Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that belief is the absolute requirement for salvation, which aligns with what Jesus said in (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26)

This is one of the most painful examples of the extent followers of faith alone regeneration theology will go to protect their bias.

This is actually a painful example of the extent that followers of baptismal regeneration theology will go to protect their bias. Isolate one half of one verse, then build doctrine on it, while ignoring the second half of the verse along with multiple other passages of scripture which do not line up with their eisegesis - "flawed hermeneutics."

Mailmandan is purposely twisting simple grammar in order to negate the words of Jesus.

I'm actually considering the whole verse and not simply the first half of the verse and properly harmonizing scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.
Simple grammar tells us that its the lack of belief which causes condemnation and not the lack of baptism. When will you believe?

He is actually claiming that the second clause of Mark 16:16 makes void the first clause, this is beyond absurd. Not only does grammar not work this way but his attempt exposes his willful blindness.

I never said makes void. That is a straw man argument. I said clarifies. If he who believes shall be saved then he who believes and is baptized shall be saved as well. However, who does the Bible says will be condemned in Mark 16:16(b); John 3:18?

I am sure that mailmandan does not use this silly reasoning in his everyday life

There is nothing silly about not building doctrine on only half of one verse or Biblical hermeneutics.

Does the "omission" of any word in any compound sentence void any clause in any part of the sentence?
Of course not.

Read my lips. CLARIFIES. Not void.

NoNoNoThe the omission of "renounces" in the first clause of Proverbs 28:13 invalidate the need to renounce sins?

Proverbs 28:13​

Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper,​

but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.​

Bad example. Here is an analogy to help you understand. "He who takes his medication and washes it down with water will be made well but he who does not take his medication will remain sick." Of course, it logically follows that we wash down our medication with water, yet if no water is available and we take it dry (been there, done that) we will still be made well BECAUSE OF THE MEDICATION (and not because of the water). It's the same with baptism.

Now it logically follows that we get baptized after we believe, but if you are on your death bed and cannot get water baptized before your death, you will still be saved because you BELIEVE which is in harmony with Mark 16:16(b) ..but he who does not believe will be condemned and is also in harmony with ( John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26)

***NOWHERE does the Bible say, "water baptized or condemned."***

 

[CS1]

My oh my! Mark 16:16 is a simple two clause compound sentence! Is English not your first language?

This is one of the most painful examples of the extent followers of faith alone regeneration theology will go to protect their bias.

Mailmandan is purposely twisting simple grammar in order to negate the words of Jesus.

He is actually claiming that the second clause of Mark 16:16 makes void the first clause, this is beyond absurd. Not only does grammar not work this way but his attempt exposes his willful blindness.

I am sure that mailmandan does not use this silly reasoning in his everyday life.

Does the "omission" of any word in any compound sentence void any clause in any part of the sentence?
Of course not.

The the omission of "renounces" in the first clause of Proverbs 28:13 invalidate the need to renounce sins?

Proverbs 28:13​

Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper,​

but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.​

No he is not. You just have a bias and are a ill-informed cessationists. That is why you attack those but provide no biblical refute.

 

[studier]

Actually, English is my first language and the second clause clarifies the first - ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. Now while this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they shall be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized.

Now in order for this verse to teach that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, a third statement would be necessary, “He who believes and is not baptized will be condemned” or “He who is not baptized will be condemned,” yet neither of these statements is found in the verse.

Jesus has given both the positive condition of belief (whoever believes shall be saved) and the negative condition of unbelief (whoever does not believe will be condemned). Therefore, we can say with absolute certainty that belief is the absolute requirement for salvation, which aligns with what Jesus said in (John 3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26)

Is anyone here willing to actually check their thinking? Your English may be fine but your logic is not.

Jesus establishes a compound requirement 1 (Believing) + 2 (Baptism) = 3 (Salvation):

1 + 2 = 3 - as soon as we negate either 1 or 2 we have no 3

Negating 1 makes negating 2 of no importance

Negating 2 makes negating 1 insufficient for this equation.

Only 1 + 2 = 3 pursuant to the compound set Jesus defined.

You really should seek making your argument from other verses.

 

[FlyingDove]

Is anyone here willing to actually check their thinking? Your English may be fine but your logic is not.

Jesus establishes a compound requirement 1 (Believing) + 2 (Baptism) = 3 (Salvation):

1 + 2 = 3 - as soon as we negate either 1 or 2 we have no 3

Negating 1 makes negating 2 of no importance

Negating 2 makes negating 1 insufficient for this equation.

Only 1 + 2 = 3 pursuant to the compound set Jesus defined.

You really should seek making your argument from other verses.

You're treating grammar like algebra, that's not how language works. Jesus wasn't writing a math equation. He was speaking in normal human language. You've imposed a formula on the text that the text itself does not support.

You assume: Belief + Baptism = Salvation & then insist that removing either destroys salvation. But that's not exegesis, that's math‑mapping & it produces absurd results in every other passage of Scripture.

Everyone who SEES the Son & believes may have eternal life. Your formula would require: Seeing + Believing = Eternal Life, dooming every blind person. Your method fails instantly because it confuses correlation with causation.

Your ""compound requirement"" also contradicts the apostolic witness: Acts 10, — Gentiles receive the Holy Spirit before baptism, Acts 15, hearts purified by faith, not rituals, Gal 3, Holy Spirit received by hearing of faith, Rom 4, justified apart from works, Eph 1, hear > believe > receive, Eph 2, saved not of works, Titus 3, saved not by works of righteousness. If salvation required faith + baptism, then every one of these passages is wrong.

Your math analogy doesn't clarify the text; it replaces it.

 

[studier]

You're treating grammar like algebra, that's not how language works. Jesus wasn't writing a math equation. He was speaking in normal human language. You've imposed a formula on the text that the text itself does not support.

Did you know that math is a language?

Did you know that the use of symbols in logic is quite usual?

I could have used other examples, but chose to simplify it to the very basics with something most everybody could understand.

The logic of the verse is quite simple. Many are not taught to think and speak logically. They quite normally think and argue from deeply engrained fallacious methods.

The logic of Jesus' statement works quite well and is not difficult to follow. It's just abused to suit systematic theories. I had something else to add about His focus on believing which is also based in logical reasoning re: theology, but I was pretty sure someone such as yourself would pop in to defy the basics, so withheld.

I saw no need to go further in your post, so didn't and am not doing so.

 

[FlyingDove]

Did you know that math is a language?

Did you know that the use of symbols in logic is quite usual?

I could have used other examples, but chose to simplify it to the very basics with something most everybody could understand.

The logic of the verse is quite simple. Many are not taught to think and speak logically. They quite normally think and argue from deeply engrained fallacious methods.

The logic of Jesus' statement works quite well and is not difficult to follow. It's just abused to suit systematic theories. I had something else to add about His focus on believing which is also based in logical reasoning re: theology, but I was pretty sure someone such as yourself would pop in to defy the basics, so withheld.

I saw no need to go further in your post, so didn't and am not doing so.

1st, you didn't address Acts 10, Acts 15, Gal 3, Rom 4, Eph 1, Eph 2, Titus 3 because this text doesn't fit your math exercise. They contradict the very formula you're trying to impose on the text & everyone that reads it.

2ndly, I found the Mk 16:16 verse you built your UNIVERSAL math‑equation doctrine on. It's built the same sand as your UNIVERSAL Acts 2:38 formula.

Mark 16:16 & Acts 2:38 were both spoken while Israel was still under the Jewish‑only Mosaic covenant seals. Your UNIVERSAL
salvation formula is forged during a covenant that didn't apply beyond Israel.

Once the gospel actually does go UNIVERSAL (Jew & Gentile) in Acts 10, God Himself overturns the very formula you're trying to UNIVERSALIZE. Mark 16:16 & Acts 2:38 were spoken while Israel was still operating within Jewish‑only Mosaic covenant boundaries, before Gentiles were included in the promise (Acts 10:28; Acts 11:1–3; Acts 11:19). In that pre‑Acts‑10 context, water baptism functioned as a Jewish covenant marker, not a universal salvation mechanism.

But the moment God opens the door to the Gentiles, the pattern changes: the Holy Spirit falls on them BEFORE WATER BAPTISM (Acts 10:44–48), Peter testifies that God ""GAVE them the Holy Spirit just as He did to us"" & ""purified their hearts by FAITH"" (Acts 11:15–17; Acts 15:8–9) Paul later explains that the Holy Spirit is received ""by the hearing of faith"" rather than by works or rituals (Gal 3:2–5), we are ""justified by faith apart from works"" (Rom 3:28) & that salvation is ""not of works"" (Eph 2:8–9).

The message becomes unmistakably clear: Jesus baptism of His FOREVER (Jn14:16) indwelling, salvation SEALING (Eph 1:13-14, 4:30, 2 Cor 1:22, 5:5) GIFT of the Holy Spirit comes through faith, not through ritual, ceremony, or covenant works & this shift reveals the PERMANENT, UNIVERSAL pattern: hear > believe > saved/sealed > then water baptized (Eph 1:13; Acts 16:31–33).

The moment in Acts 10 when God saves Gentiles before water baptism, purifies their hearts by FAITH & GIVES the GIVES then the Holy Spirit by FAITH ALONE. Proves your little Mark 16:16 math‑equation was never UNIVERSAL to begin with!

 

[studier]

1st, you didn't address

Correct. I'm not chasing you around Scripture. Nothing in Scripture changes the logic of Mark16:16. It's a very simple statement that Jesus made.

If you want to agree with the simple logic there and then explain how and why and when that simple statement may have been later rendered invalid, then that might be a meaningful discussion.

Until then, I've no interest. I'm just not in the business of changing what a verse says so it fits my camp's theology.

 

[Lamar]

***NOWHERE does the Bible say, "water baptized or condemned."***

***NOWHERE does the Bible say, "faith alone and saved."***

 

[CS1]

***NOWHERE does the Bible say, "faith alone and saved."***

I agree we are saved by Grace through Faith is what the word of GOD says.

 

[mailmandan]

***NOWHERE does the Bible say, "faith alone and saved."***

Saved through faith in Jesus Christ "alone" for salvation. (Romans 3:24-26; 4:5-6; 5:1; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8,9) What part of "God imputes righteousness apart from works" and "saved through faith, not works" don't you understand? Saved through faith and works is the opposite of saved through faith, not works. Simple. Hence, faith alone.

 

[TruthDefender]

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized will be saved (general cases without making a qualification for the unusual case of someone who believes but is not baptized) but he who does not believe will be condemned. The omission of baptized with "does not believe" shows that Jesus does not make baptism absolutely necessary for salvation. Condemnation rests on unbelief and not on a lack of baptism. *NOWHERE does the Bible say, "baptized or condemned."

If water baptism was absolutely required for salvation, then we would expect Jesus to mention it in the following verses. (3:15,16,18; 5:24; 6:29,40,47; 11:25,26) Yet what is the ONE requirement that Jesus mentions NINE different times in each of these complete statements *BELIEVES. *What happened to baptism *Hermeneutics.

*If he who believes shall be saved then he who believes and is baptized shall be saved as well. Yet who will be condemned?

John 3:18 - He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who (is not water baptized? - NO) does not believe is condemned already, because he has not (been water baptized? - NO) because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.


In regard to the word "water" in John 3:5, have you considered living water? Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and He connects living water with eternal life. In John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing.

Now if "water" is defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again. So, to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.

The word "water" is also used in scripture as an emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, and we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the washing of regeneration. (Titus 3:5)


In Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.

In Acts 10:43, we read ..whoever believes in Him receives remission of sins. Again, these Gentiles received the gift of the Holy Spirit - Acts 10:45 - when they believed on the Lord Jesus Christ - Acts 11:17 - (compare with Acts 16:31 - Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved) BEFORE water baptism - Acts 10:47. This is referred to as repentance unto life - Acts 11:18.

So, the only Biblical conclusion when properly harmonizing scripture with scripture is faith in Jesus Christ "implied in genuine repentance" (rather than water baptism) brings the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Luke 24:47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31; 10:43-47; 11:17-18; 13:38-39; 15:7-9; 16:31; 26:18) *Perfect Harmony*

So you only take part of His word? Got it.

 

[mailmandan]

So you only take part of His word? Got it.

You don't got it. I take all of His word, then properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.

 

[TruthDefender]

You don't got it. I take all of His word, then properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.

I’m pretty sure I’ve got it! Lol
Like I said, you only take part of the Scripture….


-"Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about 3000 souls were added to them. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers."
Acts 2:41-42 NKJV

O-"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
Ephesians 4:4-6 NKJV

-"In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead."
Colossians 2:11-12 NKJV

-"There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him."
I Peter 3:21-22 NKJV

 

[TrustandObey]

I take all of His word, then properly harmonize scripture with scripture before reaching my conclusion on doctrine.

In other words,

You take all of His word, then filter it through faith alone regeneration theology before reaching your conclusion on doctrine.


Your twisting of such a simple verse as Mark 16:16 is damning evidence of your filter.

Your inability to not see the lack of any definitive in the verses you site in post #2491 exposes your weak theology.

Your willingness to disregard basic logic is shameful.

You are much like Naaman, prideful and stubborn.

 

[TrustandObey]

I agree we are saved by Grace through Faith is what the word of GOD says.

Don't take this personal but do you understand the difference between a open-ended phrase and a definitive phrase?

This seems to be a source of confusion among followers of faith alone regeneration theology.

 

[TrustandObey]

Saved through faith in Jesus Christ "alone" for salvation. (Romans 3:24-26; 4:5-6; 5:1; 11:6; Ephesians 2:8,9) What part of "God imputes righteousness apart from works" and "saved through faith, not works" don't you understand? Saved through faith and works is the opposite of saved through faith, not works. Simple. Hence, faith alone.

Your insistence on labeling water baptism as a work of human merit and not as a work of God is appalling. Romans 6:4 & Col. 2:12

I suggest you rethink this notion.

You may find yourself without a wedding garment.

 

[TrustandObey]

Did you know that math is a language?

Did you know that the use of symbols in logic is quite usual?

No, he most certainly does not know this.

 

[TrustandObey]

***NOWHERE does the Bible say, "faith alone and saved."***

A better way of saying it is:

***NOWHERE does the Bible say, "faith alone or condemned."***

 

[TrustandObey]

Actually, English is my first language and the second clause clarifies the first - ..but he who does not believe will be condemned. Now while this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized (they shall be saved), it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized.

There is such much wrong in these two sentences it is hard to begin.

1. The second clause is not "clarifying" anything, it is about condemnation and what causes it.
2. "this verse tells us something about believers who have been baptized"? That "something" is the work of God (Romans 6:4)!
3. "it does not say anything about believers who have not been baptized". Why should this clause mention anything about the condemnation of unbaptized nonbelievers? Of course a unbeliever will not be baptized!
4. The subject of this verse is about salvation but you seem to be fixated on condemnation.
5. "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" is a stand alone axiom, as well as "he who does not believe will be condemned". Neither one needs to be "clarified" by the other. Unless of course if you are defending a certain theology.

Mark 16:16 is a simple verse. It should not have to be defended but alas people like you will twist even the simplest scripture.