In an article, Does Baptism Save (Scriptural Study Refuting Baptismal Regeneration), Dan Corner (author of The Believer’s Conditional Security) attempts to refute baptismal regeneration by claiming that Cornelius was saved prior to water baptism.
Firstly, with respect to the apostle Peter’s theology of water baptism, it is clear, notwithstanding Corner’s desperate eisegesis in this article, that Acts 2:38 (cf. 1 Pet 3:21) that Peter taught baptismal regeneration. One should compare and contrast his comments with the exegesis I provided in the following article:
Here, I exegete both Acts 2:38 and 1 Pet 3:21, showing that the only exegetically sound reading of these passages supports baptismal regeneration. To see responses to other claims against baptismal regeneration, see John Greer vs. the biblical doctrine of baptismal regeneration where I refute John Greer, the current moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster on Rom 6:1-4; 1 Cor 1:17 and other pertinent passages.
With respect to his comments on Acts, note that one scholar noted on Acts 10:45 ("And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost")
45) Before Luke continues the narrative proper he records the amazement of the six Jewish Christians who had come from Joppa with Peter. They are dumb-founded “because the gift of the Holy Spirit is being poured out also upon the Gentiles.” The Greek retains the present tense “is being poured out” of the direct discourse of these Jewish believers; but it includes more than this one instance of outpouring and states that as a general thing, as this striking case shows, the Gentiles were receiving “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” i. e., were by God himself being placed on a par with all believers from Judaism. That was the astounding thing. It was God and God alone and most directly who gave “the gift.” At this time he preferred to dispense with the laying on of hands (8:17); he did not even wait until these Gentiles had been baptized. That is a minor point. At Pentecost the 3,000 received the Spirit charismatically neither before nor after their baptism. The Pentecostal charisma was never repeated in the congregation at Jerusalem. There were signs and miracles many but no speaking with tongues.
Confusion has resulted by failing to notice that “the gift of the Holy Spirit” referred to at this point is the same gift that was bestowed at the time of Pentecost, a charisma, and only a charisma and not the gift of the Spirit, and certainly not the gift of sudden total sanctification. All those who spoke with tongues at the time of Pentecost were already saved, and none of those who were saved that day received the Spirit miraculously and spoke with tongues. All those who heard Peter in the house of Cornelius had faith and were saved before the Spirit came and gave them the ability to speak with tongues. The same is true with regard to the Samaritans, 8:15–17. This falling of the Spirit upon people, this charismatic gift of the Spirit, is entirely separate from the Spirit’s reception by faith for salvation and by baptism for regeneration and renewing (Tit. 3:5).
When this is understood, Luke’s account will not be referred to in order to deprive baptism of its saving power as though the Spirit comes apart from and without baptism, and as though baptism is only an empty symbol and sign. Peter did not regard baptism thus in the present instance. Since these Jewish Christians called the charismatic gift of the Spirit a pouring out, some say it was “the baptism of the Spirit,” or “that these Gentiles were baptized with the Spirit.” That may pass but only as long as this “baptism” is viewed as charismatic and as nothing more. (R.C.H. Lenski, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles [Minneapolis, Minn.: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961], 430-32; emphasis added)
While much more could be said about Corner’s attempt to refute water baptism being salvific, such as his weak comments about John 3 (see my article on John 3:1-7 in response to another attempt to downplay water baptism being salvific), it is clear that Corner is guilty of a lot of eisegesis in his article. The biblical witness is explicit: baptismal regeneration is a true, biblical doctrine, and those who preach otherwise are preaching a false gospel (cf. Gal 1:6-9).
