Some one is posting comment spam to my blog and linking to your site.

Bob.

[Editor: link removed for comment spam.]

I think the following scriptures are even clearer but the one you posted was a good scripture also.

And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
–1Joh 2:3-4

Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him. Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
–1Joh 3:6-8

In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.
–1Joh 3:10

We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
–1Joh 3:14-15

If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
–1Joh 4:20

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
–1Joh 5:18

Thanks!

Bob.

Although I do believe I brought up some additional points in my last post that are important to understand, I am powerless to do anything on this blog since you are the final editor. I felt our discussion was civil and I thank you for it.

I edited your last post and removed content that was not new but a repeat of what ever you had already said. I feel like I have make all points that the Lord wants me to make and I think we should close our discussion with the points in your last point. I don’t feel like it with benefit either of use to discuss this point further. Thank you for bringing up your points.

Yes, I do believe the New Covenant started with the death of Christ. Therefore the event of Cornelius began under the new covenant. I don’t see the stretch you are referring to. The Scriptures are quite clear.

As for my statement about not putting God in a box. I was simply stating what the early Christians believed about one martyred for Christ who had NO opportunity for baptism. This primarily happened with Roman soldiers who were commanded to kill Christians and upon seeing the Christians unwavering faith in Christ, refused to kill them. This meant their death on the spot as well. True, this is not found in Scripture.

I agree that the terms ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ conversion are not found in the Bible. I use these only to show good people like yourself that godly sorrow and repentance is not the complete picture of salvation.

[Edited by Bob Mutch]

I would hold that the law and the prophets were until John and then the kingdom of God was preached and men pressed into it. But so that we don’t digress on that point I am willing to move from the thief on the cross to Cornelius. You state that “this event did happen under the New Testament”. I am not sure if I understand you on this point. You do believe the new covenant started with the death of Christ don’t you? (Heb 9:16-17). So if the New covenant started with the death of Christ than clearly the event of Cornelius happened under the new covenant time?

The next issue I would disagree with is that Peter had to finish preaching before Cornelius could be saved. I think you are stretching there. Next the idea that when Cornelius had the Holy Spirit come on him and he spoke with the gift of languages but he was still not saved is a long stretch also.

Do you believe that people can receive the gifts of the Spirit and still be unregenerate?

Also the idea of not “put[ting] God in a box” becomes a cure all for every thing. You can use this to take care of any thing you want. You can have God making exceptions where ever you want him to and I don’t agree with that.

If there is an example of some one being born again with out baptism then all can be born again with out baptism.

I think it is clear to all unbiased people that Cornelius was saved post-baptism.

Seeing how Cornelius was saved post-baptism then baptism is not a requirement for salvation but an answer of a good conscience toward God (1Pe 3:21).

As far as your language “outer conversation” and “inner conversation” these are terms that we don’t find in the new testament and I don’t see any scripture to support such a teaching.

You ask what is wrong with teaching that baptism is proof of salvation. That should be very clear. Anybody without godly sorrow or repentance can get baptized (and for some that would be seen as salvation). But no one can get saved with out godly sorrow and repentance. Hence the true proof is godly sorrow and repentance.

I agree–we must always go to the Scriptures first. The early church fathers are helpful with some of the more ambiguous issues of the Bible, in seeing how they understood these very issues.

With all due Christian love and respect I don’t think the examples you bring up in Scripture are examples of being saved outside of New Testament baptism. Let me explain:

1. Thief on the cross–Jesus did forgive this man’s sins and said he would be with Him in paradise. I have no disagreement here. But, this man lived and died under the Old Testament. There was no New Testament in existence because Jesus had not died yet. A testament or will only goes into effect upon the death the the person it is from. Also Jesus is God, while he was on the earth he forgave sin as he saw fit. He instituted baptism as a way to enter into Him after his death. So this scenario does not truly count as a person who should have been baptized into Christ.

2. Cornelius and his household. This event did happen under the New Testament. I don’t think they were saved when the Holy Spirit was poured out on them, Here’s why: In Acts 11 Peter recounts the Cornelius event in Jerusalem. Verses 14 and 15 tell a key fact: ‘and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all of your household. And as I BEGAN TO SPEAK, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as he did upon us at the beginning.’ Peter hadn’t finished his message of salvation, he had just begun when Cornelius’ household received the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Verse 14 makes it clear that salvation would come through the words of Peter not on some other event.

It needs to be understood also that Cornelius and his household signify the ‘ushering in’ of the Kingdom for gentiles. Up to this point the church was composed of Jews and Jewish converts. God allowed the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the speaking in tongues for Cornelius’ household to show Peter the Gospel is for all. This was the same baptism of the Holy Spirit found among the apostles in Acts 2 when the Jesus Kingdom was first ushered in.

Interestingly, Peter gives the message of salvation in both Acts 2 and Acts 10. Jesus did tell Peter that he would have the keys to the Kingdom. We see it fulfilled for Jews and for gentiles in these two Chapters. Acts 2:38 makes it clear ‘Repent (inner conversion) and each of you be baptized (outer conversion) in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. Forgiveness of sins is normally through both of these conversions occurring.

With that said I refuse to put God in a box. God is God and can still choose to save anyone he desires. I gave a couple of examples of people that the early Christians believed could be saved without baptism. But the two examples I cited were people who could not experience both the inner and outer conversion.

I post this because it is not right to label ‘baptismal regeneration’ as an unbiblical teaching. It is the teaching of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Century church. It is part of the conversion process. It is not just something you do out of obedience. It is being baptized into Christ (Romans 6:1-4).
Your statement:

‘Baptismal Regeneration — teaches you are saved when you are baptized and you can’t be saved without water baptism. This teaching can cause people to trust in baptism as proof of salvation, and can leave those that have been converted – but not baptized – doubting their conversion.’

I ask what’s wrong with trusting in baptism as proof of salvation? If you have godly sorrow, have repented and have been baptized you have followed the course of conversion in the New Testament. And if a person has been ‘converted’ (inner conversion) but not baptized(outer conversion) they should be doubtful of their salvation unless they have had no opportunity to get baptized e.g. martyred for their faith upon repentance with no chance of getting baptized.

Written in Christian love and with deep respect for your walk in the Lord,

Will we all like to quite the early church fathers when they support our view we will all have to admit there are a number of teachings that the early church fathers teach that we don’t hold to. This is the case as many of the early church fathers of the first three centuries teach different things. Therefore we can only conclude that what the early church teaches is not binding. If it was we would have to accept all that they teach and that is not even dealing with the issue of their differences.

Therefore we much go to the scriptures.

I would hold that if we can find examples in the Bible of those that were saved without water baptism that we must conclude that it is possible also now to be saved with out baptism.

I do hold that if you know that you need to be baptized and you refuse to obey that that is sin and if you don’t repent of that disobedience and walk in the light you will be lost. Also I would hold that when a person is saved they need to be baptized right away. The congregation I currently attend just two a few weeks ago held a baptism at the river the same day the man got saved.

So when we look to the scriptures we find the man or the cross got saved with out baptism (Lk 23″42-43) and also those of Cornelius were saved, and had the gift of the Holy Spirit poured out on them, and they spake by the gift of languages (Act 10:45-47).

Thanks for having this site. I enjoy your articles!

You bring up some valid unbiblical teachings in this article, however, Baptismal Regeneration is not one of them. True we need to experience an ‘inner conversion’ i.e. godly sorrow and repentance. But we must also partake of the ‘outer conversion’ i.e. baptism in water to experience forgiveness of sins. The following scriptures make this clear:
Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5, IPeter3:21, Acts 2:38. This is the teaching of the first century church.

The ante-Nicene church frequently referred to the act of water baptism as ‘grace’. I’ll quote from Clement of Alexandria in his ‘Instructor’ Book 1 chapter 6 which discusses baptism:

“This work is variously called grace, and illumination, and perfection, and washing. Washing by which we cleanse away our sins. Grace, by which the penalties of our sins are cancelled. And illumination, by which that holy light of salvation is beheld, that is, by which we see God clearly.”

In fact, the early church writers write in unanimity about the importance of baptism in the salvation process. True, the early Christians believed that infants were ’saved’ without baptism because they had no way to repent or even understand sin. And many early Christians believed there was a ‘baptism in blood’ that saved those who came to faith and were quickly martyred before having a chance of being baptized, but the normal path to conversion in the early church included being buried with Christ in the waters of baptism to arise to a new life. Please show me from the Bible and Early Church record if this is not the case.

I know this is an unpopular view in our ‘modern times’ but this is the teaching of the first, second, and third century church i.e. there needs to be an inner and outer conversion.

Welcome to visit my Site.
Allan Svensson, Sweden

Why does the revival tarry? It is because God’s
people tarry to obey the powerful command of
the Lord in Rev. 18:4. This is the most powerful
revival message of the Lord to his people in our time.

Thank you for your comments. I have dealt with most of these views more extensively in other posts and posted supported them there with scriptural quotes. After the short explanation in a number of the teachings you will note that I have a link to more reading. If you check those out you will notice that I have used scriptures there to show where these teachings are wrong. Thanks for pointing that out as I should write a post on the teachings that I have listed there and don’t have a full article on.