Longhenry/Olson Debate on Baptism

Ethan Longhenry's Second Affirmative

Proposition:
The Scriptures teach that immersion in water for the remission of sin is necessary for salvation.
Affirm: Ethan R. Longhenry
Deny: Lloyd A. Olson

Let us now examine Mr. Olson's response to the first affirmative
and compare it with the Scriptures.

Mr. Olson has apparently taken issue with the definition of the
terms provided in the first affirmative. Let us look at his
misgivings.

Mr Olson:
A 100% survey of "remission of sin" and "forgiveness of sin"
shows they come in the following contexts: the Great Commission,
Israel's national repentance to prepare for Jesus, and a result
of saving faith - alone.

ELDV It will of course be Mr. Olson's task to actually prove that
saving faith "alone" is actually what the Scriptures teach, since
one will fail to find that word used in such contexts. The New
Testament primarily speaks of remission/forgiveness of sin in
terms of Jesus' death upon the cross, and, as Acts 2:38
demonstrates, the reason for immersion in water.

Mr Olson:
Remission of sins in Luke 24:47 is generic. The parallel Matt
28:19 shows baptism (baptizw: a participle) is dependent upon
discipleship (matheteuw: the main verb). Thus, remission of sins
comes when one is made a disciple - not by water baptism.

ELDV We will discuss this later.

Mr Olson:
2. Prepare Israel for Jesus. John, Jesus and Peter (Matt 3:2,
4:17; Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, Acts 2:38) preached baptism and
repentance to prepare national Israel for their Messiah and His
Kingdom. Even James at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:16) still
looked for this Kingdom. Paul shows that this baptism and
repentance doesn't save (Acts 19:4).

ELDV Here Mr. Olson apparently equates the discussion of
immersion in water for the remission of sin even in the book of
Acts with the preparation of Israel. He does this despite the
fact that Peter preaches the need for immersion after their
Messiah had been crucified and resurrected, and does so in
inauguration of the Kingdom; this same message he also preaches
to the Gentiles in Acts 10.

I further fail to see how James is "looking for this Kingdom" in
Acts 15. As opposed to isolating Acts 15:16, let us read it in
context, Acts 15:14-18:

Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take
out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of
the prophets; as it is written, "After these things I will
return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is
fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set
it up: That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all
the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, Saith the Lord, who
maketh these things known from of old."

James here cites Amos 9:11-12 to demonstrate that when Simon
Peter preached the Gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10, he was in
fact fulfilling the word of the prophets to Israel. This passage
does not indicate that James is seeking the Kingdom; far from it-
- it in fact demonstrates that the Kingdom is now here and
present, and that the Gospel of Christ is its message.

Mr Olson:
3. Saving Faith. Every other verse relates the "remission of
sins" to saving personal faith in Jesus without any mention of
water baptism. In Luke 1:77, knowledge of Jesus brings salvation.
Remission of sins is before baptism (Acts 10:43) by faith in
Jesus (Act 13:38-9, 26:18; Rom 3:25; Eph 1:7,13,14; Col 1:4,14).
Forgiveness of sins is through Jesus' circumcision by a baptism
made WITHOUT HANDS (Col 2:7, 11). In Heb 10:18, Jesus' death
bought remission of sin stopping any further need of self-
righteous obedience or sacramental rite as it secures eternal
life. Remission of sins is by faith - alone; in Jesus - alone.

ELDV This debate is not, of course, about the "faith only"
doctrine, as it is about the Scriptural necessity of immersion in
water for the remission of sin. I find it not too surprising
that Mr. Olson relegates Acts 2:38 to category #2 and not
category #3, since its presence completely negates the force of
the argument of category #3.

It is not denied that the Word does speak of
remission/forgiveness of sins in these passages, but not in the
way that is perhaps being construed.

Luke 1:77 To give knowledge of salvation unto his people In the
remission of their sins,

I am sure that Mr. Olson would not advocate that knowledge alone
saves--Jesus gives knowledge of the way of salvation.

Acts 10:43, of course, is an interesting case:

To him bear all the prophets witness, that through his name every
one that believeth on him shall receive remission of sins.

This, Mr. Olson says, is "proof" that remission of sins is before
baptism, despite the fact that Acts 10:43 does not actually
provide the explanation as to the process by which every one who
believes on Christ shall receive the remission of sins.

There is also Acts 13:38-39, Acts 26:18, Romans 3:25, Ephesians
1:7, 13-14, and Colossians 1:4, 14:

"Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this man
is proclaimed unto you remission of sins: and by him every one
that believeth is justified from all things, from which ye could
not be justified by the law of Moses."

"to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light
and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive
remission of sins and an inheritance among them that are
sanctified by faith in me."

whom God set forth to be a propitiation, through faith, in his
blood, to show his righteousness because of the passing over of
the sins done aforetime, in the forbearance of God.

in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness
of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace...in whom
ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your
salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with
the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our
inheritance, unto the redemption of God's own possession, unto
the praise of his glory.

having heard of your faith in Christ Jesus, and of the love which
ye have toward all the saints...[the Son], in whom we have our
redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.

I post all of these verses to show one very important truth:
while they all speak about remission/forgiveness of sin, and all
speak about how those who come to faith in Christ Jesus will
receive the remission/forgiveness of sin, none of them provide
the actual process by which that remission/forgiveness is
received. The Scriptures do have one verse that shows how:

And Peter said unto them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your
sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."

The matter of Colossians 2 requires its own set of comments. A
fuller context-- Colossians 2:6-12:

As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in him,
rooted and builded up in him, and established in your faith, even
as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. Take heed lest
there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made
full, who is the head of all principality and power: in whom ye
were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in
the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of
Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were
also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who
raised him from the dead.

Extrapolating the idea that baptism is Christ's circumcision
without hands meaning that baptism is not done by hands stretches
this passage beyond any comprehension. Yes, Paul equates baptism
here as a type of circumcision--it's a metaphor. Baptism is not
literally circumcision, but baptism performs for the Christian
many of the same functions as circumcision did in the Israelite
covenant (notably, entrance into the covenant, distinction of
identity). It violates any proper understanding of metaphors to
take the metaphor's target domain out, insert that metaphor's
source domain in, and equate the two statements. Paul's message
is NOT that baptism does not take place with hands-- it
manifestly requires someone to do it-- but that the appeal
inherent in baptism, the spiritual significance of baptism, the
remission of sin, is the cutting off of the "man of sin" that is
done without any hands.

And, finally, Hebrews 10:18:

Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for
sin.

What's the Hebrew author's conclusion to these matters? Hebrews
10:19-22 (and also what follows):

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place
by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a
new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;
and having a great priest over the house of God; let us draw near
with a true heart in fullness of faith, having our hearts
sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed
with pure water,

Because of these things, WE ought to draw near, and, what do you
know, a reference to baptism. Somehow Mr. Olson's "commentary"
on Hebrews 10:18 does not seem to mesh with the actual
conclusions of the Hebrew author.

Mr. Olson later said:
Likewise, the "remission of sins" that brings salvation is
nowhere in Scripture associated with water baptism. ELDV has
taken the definition of "remission of sins" as given to national
Israel and has violently thrust it upon the Great Commission and
generic saving faith passages. Common sense rules of linguistics
must be followed to rightly divide God's Word.

ELDV Again, this statement is only true because Mr. Olson has
chosen to deny the force of Acts 2:38. We will, of course,
handle such things in due time.

Mr. Olson then defines salvation, beginning with his presentation
of my belief:
ELDV's salvation begins with INITIAL justification by faith in
Jesus. To this, water baptism and other human works of enduring
faithfulness are required to produce a certain (ill-defined)
level of perfection. Salvation is a conditional PROCESS in which
the believer must become self-righteous.[fn1]. FINAL
justification will only be awarded to the saint who achieve and
maintain the (ill-defined) level of perfection.

ELDV I do not have any significant objection to what Mr. Olson
has said here, although I would add that one only can be
blameless through the constant forgiveness of sin in Christ Jesus
(1 John 1:9).

Mr Olson:
ELDV wrongly makes justification depend on sanctification for who
can reach the (ill-defined) level of perfection - even with
divine assistance? Scripture affirms that the human heart is so
desperately wicked that it is beyond knowing (Jer 17:9). All –
every one - of our righteous deeds are as filthy rags (Isa 64:6).
Indeed, even in our best of states, we are still nothing but
vanity (Psa 39:5). Let's not be fooled! In any obedience scheme –
any one sin is the equivalent of breaking the entire law (James
2:10). The entire race is dead in sin (Eph 2:1, 5) in desperate
need of an EXTERNAL source of salvation. ELDV's human-centered
salvation is an unwitting avenue to death.

ELDV Does anyone doubt that we are in need of external source of
salvation? No one will deny that human beings have sin, although
I do protest you taking prophetic language and absolutizing
hyperbole. Regardless, no one is arguing that we are saved on
the basis of our works alone, or that we could be saved without
the grace of God demonstrated through the giving of His Son. The
issue at hand is immersion in water for the remission of sin—
the process by which we receive that salvation. And, by all
accounts, and is being shown here, that does require man in some
form.

Mr Olson:
In contrast, the Bible is Christ-centered. Christ's life of
righteousness and obedience is the basis for right standing with
God. Faith is the instrument - not the measure - that enables
God's declaration of righteousness. Justification is an EVENT
completed at the moment of faith in Jesus. At that moment, God
imputes Christ's righteousness to sinners (2 Cor. 5:21), declares
them just and perfect (Rom. 4:5), translates them into heaven
(Col. 2:13), forgives all their sins (Col 2:14), and adopts them
into His covenantal family. Justification and sanctification are
related; yet distinct. While sanctification is important;
justification is primal. Sanctification rightly depends on
justification.

ELDV I believe that Mr. Olson has placed emphasis on
theologically refined terms that may not have been so
theologically refined in the New Testament. There is much that
requires objection in this portion.

"Justification"

The word used in the New Testament, translated as
"justification", is dikaiosis, defined by Thayer's as follows:

1) the act of God declaring men free from guilt and acceptable to
him 2) abjuring to be righteous, justification

So, behind any theological speculation, the point of
justification is the point at which men are declared free from
guilt and are acceptable to Him.

Now, if the New Testament, as we are showing, demands immersion
in water for the remission of sin, and as it does in many a
place, require obedience (1 Peter 1:22, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9,
etc.) it is manifest that justification is as much as an event as
obedient living in Christ, or salvation itself, can be called an
"event". Yes, there is, as Mr. Olson says, "initial
justification," where God transfers a soul from death to the
Kingdom (Colossians 2:13-- not the translation of a soul to
Heaven, as Mr. Olson would allege, but into the Kingdom of
Christ, which is both on earth and in Heaven), through obedient
faith manifested in belief, confession, repentance, and baptism.

This, of course, leads to "sanctification," which is the Greek
word hagiasmos, defined by Thayer's as follows:

1) consecration, purification 2) the effect of consecration 2a)
sanctification of heart and life

With this definition, I fail to see how Mr. Olson's system of
dependency measures up to the Scriptures. One is justified by
being sanctified, and sanctification leads to justification.
Losing the theologically loaded terms, one is declared righteous
by God by being consecrated and purified, and one who is
consecrated and purified is acceptable to God. The two are
rather inseparable, as the Scriptures themselves attest in 1
Corinthians 1:30:

He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our
wisdom and our righteousness [justification, eldv] and
sanctification and redemption.

2 Corinthians 5:21 and imputation of righteousness.

Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we
might become the righteousness of God in him.

It requires much theological extrapolation to demand that this
verse teaches that God imputes Christ's righteousness to us. We
can be made righteous in Christ, and can thus be righteous in
Christ, and this does not require any such "imputation". I would
argue more strongly about this point, but this is a debate topic
in and of itself and not profitable at this time.

Furthermore, unless Mr. Olson demonstrates how any of this is
directly relevant to the proposition at hand, it is no longer
necessary to suffer such tangents.

I have no desire to answer the ad hominem that Mr. Olson has
stated; it will be sufficient for me to demonstrate that he is
guilty of what he would charge me.

Let us now look at the particular arguments Mr. Olson has made
against the Scriptural arguments presented.

Mr Olson:
MATT 28: GREEK CONFUSION. ELDV fails to use even first year
Greek. The main verb is "make disciples" (matheteusate) while
"baptizing" (baptizontes) is a participle. All participles are
directly dependent upon the main verb. Thus, "make disciples"
(justification) comes first and baptism (sanctification) comes
AFTER justification - not BEFORE. Note how proper exegesis
supports the Reformation harmony of justification with sanctification.

ELDV No one denies that baptizontes is a participle, nor is it
denied that it is dependent on the main verb form.

What is denied, however, is your presumption that the
participle's dependency demands the action of the participle to
come after the action of the main verb.

In Matthew 28:18-20, Jesus has a main verb ("make disciples") and
two dependent participles ("baptizing...teaching"). It is
extremely important to note that both of those participles are in
the PRESENT tense.

Being in the present tense, they are most likely SIMULTANEOUS
with the main verb form.

The question that Mr. Olson has not asked himself when analyzing
this passage is how present participles relate to their main
verbal form.

There are three possible ways:

1. Means 2. Manner 3. Result

Means and manner are very similar. Means and manner demonstrate
how something come about, while result, logically, demonstrates
something to be the result of something else.

So, we have to ask ourselves: is Jesus saying that the Apostles
will make disciples by means of baptizing them and teaching them
or will the Apostles make disciples, and the result will be that
they will baptize them and teach them? This determination must
be made on the basis of context, and the context really supports
the former: after all, it makes far less sense to make disciples
and THEN teach them than it does to make disciples BY teaching
them. The only contextually reasonable belief is to say that
Jesus makes the command to "make disciples" and then describes
how that will be done: baptizing them and teaching them.
Furthermore, this is precisely the way in which disciples were
made in the New Testament: the Apostles went out and preached to
them, they believed and were baptized, and then they were taught
(cf. Acts 2).

Therefore, unless Mr. Olson can give some compelling reason why
we should believe that the present participles of Matthew 28:18-
20 should be considered as the result and not the means of the
main verb, Matthew 28:18-20 stands as a demonstration of the need
for immersion in water for the remission of sin.

Mr Olson:
MARK 16:16: DUBIOUS FOUNDATION. The first problem with using this
passage is that verses 9-20 are not found in the most reliable
Greek manuscript traditions.[fn2] ELDV builds a system on verses
which don't show up in the Greek manuscripts until the third
century. ELDV has presented a hoax that has been perpetrated upon
Christendom.

ELDV Mr. Olson may be surprised to hear this, but I do grant that
an argument can be made that Mark 16:9-20 is not original. Mr.
Olson, however, overstates his case. Many of the "most reliable
Greek manuscripts" do actually contain the passage; the textual
evidence for Mark 16:9-20, while not including aleph and B, is
nevertheless rather strong. Secondly, we don't really have many
manuscripts from before the third century; not only that,
Irenaeus, writing in the late second century, does attest to Mark
16:9-20 (Adv. Haer. II. 20; Adv. Haer III. 11), and does so
without a doubt.

Even if Mark 16:9-20 are spurious, it certainly does no injury to
the necessity of immersion in water for the remission of sin.
Plenty of other verses support it.

Mr Olson:
Even if one accepts the fraudulent verses, they are abused by the
negative fallacy error. A better way to understand Mark 16 is as
follows. Whoever wins the Super Bowl and celebrates shall be
champions; but whoever doesn't win they shall not be champions.
No celebration does not imply no victory! One can be champion
without celebration.

While baptism seems to be linked with faith for salvation, the
denial of faith by itself (Mark 16:16b) is enough to condemn a
person to an eternity in hell. John 3:18 also severs the link
between faith and water baptism. In fact, given John's single
purpose of instructing what must be done in order to inherit
eternal life (20:31), it is noteworthy that he only mentions
faith in Jesus' name and purposely avoids linking water baptism
to salvation anywhere in his gospel or epistles.

While believing (justification) and baptism (sanctification)
certainly lead to salvation, only believing is required for
sanctification depends on justification. The negative fallacy
error amplifies ELDV's confusion of justification and
sanctification with respect to salvation.

ELDV Of course, it is Mr. Olson bringing in the theological
speculations of "justification" and "sanctification" concerning
which we have already spoken, and not the NT words themselves,
that seem to be at issue here. Regardless, the line of reasoning
here is not sufficient. To assert that John 3:18 means that any
who merely "believe" will not be condemned runs terribly afoul of
Matthew 7:21-23 and James 2:19. It is manifest that by belief
Jesus speaks in metonymy, referring to those who live in
obedience to Christ, and not merely professors of religion.

I find it amazing to believe that Mr. Olson can read into the
mind of John! I wish I could have the ability to say so
confidently that John "purposely avoids" linking water baptism to
salvation. Of course, the statement is flat wrong, since John
has Jesus say in John 3:5:

Jesus answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be
born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of
God!"

Anyway, for Mr. Olson's "adaptation" of the previous logical
demonstration to be true, he would have to demonstrate from the
Scriptures that faith without baptism can provide the means by
which remission of sin can be gained and therefore one can be
found acceptable to God; we shall see if he will do so.

Mr Olson continued:
ACTS 2:38: ISRAEL. ELDV completely ignores the context of this
verse. In Acts 1:6, the disciples asked, "Lord, wilt thou at this
time RESTORE AGAIN the kingdom to Israel?" In Acts 3:19, Peter's
second sermon, he preaches, "Repent ye therefore, and be
converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the TIMES OF
REFRESHING shall come from the presence of the Lord."

ELDV We will dissect Mr. Olson's false premises one by one.

To begin with, Acts 1:6-8:

They therefore, when they were come together, asked him, saying,
"Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" And
he said unto them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons,
which the Father hath set within His own authority. But ye shall
receive power, when the Holy Spirit is come upon you: and ye
shall be my witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea and
Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."

It is of critical importance to note that this event occurred
BEFORE the Spirit descended upon the Apostles, before the
testimony of John 15:26. When one analyzes the Gospels, one is
immediately struck by how the disciples are good Second Temple
Jews, believing that their Messiah was going to restore the
political fortunes of Israel and rule from Jerusalem. The
question of the disciples demonstrates that they somehow think
that Jesus' resurrection will lead to this event. Jesus,
however, demonstrates strongly that this hope is misguided (John
6:15, John 18:36).

Does Jesus really answer their question? He says that it is not
for them to know such things, and we know that the conclusion of
this matter will be 70 CE-- and there will be no restoration of
the Kingdom to Israel then for certain. He also confirms that
they will receive power from the Holy Spirit. Therefore, what
they recognize after the Spirit descends on them is by necessity
more enlightened than what is said before.

So then we turn to Acts 3:19, where Peter speaks of these "times
of refreshing". Acts 3:19-21:

"Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be
blotted out, that so there may come seasons of refreshing from
the presence of the Lord; and that he may send the Christ who
hath been appointed for you, even Jesus: whom the heaven must
receive until the times of restoration of all things, whereof God
spake by the mouth of His holy prophets that have been from of
old."

In order for Mr. Olson's thesis to work, Peter here must be
talking about the same hope as in Acts 1:6, yet the objects of
each are different (kingdom/all things), and Mr. Olson's
interpretation makes a complete mess of the rest of the New
Testament message about the final Judgment and the universality
of Jesus. If Peter is preaching a Jewish Gospel to the Jews, we
have a hard time with passages like Galatians 1:6-9 and Galatians
2:6-`0, where the Gospel message is no different when preached to
Jew or Gentile.

Mr Olson continued:
If Peter is looking for the restoration of national Israel BEFORE
and AFTER Acts 2, then he is IN Acts 2. With proper context in
mind Peter first shows his fellow countrymen that they have
crucified their Messiah (2:23). Jesus rose from the dead, will
return, and will execute Messianic vengeance upon His enemies
(2:35; Psa 110:1-2; Isa 61:1-2;l; Jer 46:10). He reminds them
that they crucified the One (2:36) Who is both "Lord and Christ."
Repent and be baptized (2:38). Save yourselves "from this
UNTOWARD GENERATION" (2:40).

It is deceptive manipulation to misrepresent the great weight of
scripture by a verse intended only for first century Jews looking
for national restoration and wishing to avoid God's wrath on
their UNTOWARD GENERATION before judgment falls in AD 70. Common
sense context shows that Acts 2:38 is not a normative principle
today.

ELDV Mr. Olson seems unafraid to unabashedly place the gospels of
Paul and Peter in complete conflict, despite Paul's insistence to
the contrary.

The facts of the matter are these:

1. Physical Israel is never, in truth, promised physical
restoration. All prophetic promises point to the spiritual
Kingdom of Christ (Colossians 1:13, Romans 15:4, 2 Peter 1:19).
2. Peter does not speak of the physical restoration of Israel in
Acts 3:19-21. That must be presumed into the text. 3. If Mr.
Olson is true, then Peter is a liar, since the kingdom was never
restored to Israel; Israel, for all intents and purposes, was
destroyed. The only restoration we can have is in Christ, and any
future restoration is spoken relates to the Judgment. 4.
Likewise, if Mr. Olson is true, then Paul is a liar, because his
gospel is not the same as the gospel preached, despite what he
says in Galatians 2:6-10. 5. Beyond all of this, rejecting
baptism here does not explain away Cornelius et al being baptized
despite not looking for national restoration of Israel, the
Philippian jailer, the household of Stephanas, and many, many
others (Acts 10:47, Acts 16:31-33, 1 Corinthians 1:16-18).

Mr. Olson's fantastic theories linking passages contextually
miles apart in complete contradiction to the sum of Scriptural
truths have been shown as false. Acts 2:38, part of the initial
preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom of Christ, is no less
relevant today than it was in the first century.

Mr Olson:
ACTS 8:34-37: THE GRILLING ELDV ignores Philip's grilling. We
know from 1 Cor 1:14-17 that baptism is not part of the gospel
message. So, it is evident that Philip preached more than the
gospel. Philip would not allow water baptism unless he had a
confirmation that the Eunuch had already been baptized by God's
Spirit. Philip only baptized him AFTER his profession of faith in
Jesus. Faith is the first step of justification; water of
sanctification.

ELDV It is amazing how Mr. Olson assumes his proof and then
expects the rest of us to merely accept it on his word.

Does Paul say in 1 Corinthians 1:14-17 that baptism is not part
of the Gospel message?

I thank God that I baptized none of you, save Crispus and Gaius;
lest any man should say that ye were baptized into my name. And I
baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not
whether I baptized any other. For Christ sent me not to baptize,
but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of words, lest the cross
of Christ should be made void.

The reason for the problem is given in verse 15: "lest any man
should say that ye were baptized into my name." Mr. Olson will
be hard pressed to reject baptism here when Paul admits to
baptizing the household of Stephanas. Paul is said to baptize the
disciples of John in Acts 19:1-6. The issue is not whether
baptism is the proper response to the Gospel and therefore an
necessary concept to preach on when discussing the Gospel-- the
issue is that people confuse the message with the messenger, and
Paul strove to avoid that.

Regardless, for Mr. Olson's argument to be valid, he will have to
prove the statement that "Philip would not allow water baptism
unless he had a confirmation that the eunuch had already been
baptized in God's Spirit." Where does Acts 8 say this? Where
does any passage require the baptism of God's Spirit before
immersion in water for the remission of sin? Secondly, Mr. Olson
is at a loss to explain how the eunuch asks about being immersed
in water, seeing a pool of water, BEFORE the "grilling" of which
Mr. Olson speaks. I do not "ignore" his grilling, but confine it
to its proper place. While Philip preached Jesus to the eunuch,
they came by water, and the eunuch requested immersion in water.
These irrelevant distractions do not circumvent the initial
question: why would the eunuch make that request unless Philip
had preached about the need for immersion in water when preaching
"Jesus"?

Mr Olson:
ACTS 10:47: TEMPORAL SEQUENCE ELDV ignores the easy to see
temporal sequence. Peter preached the remission of sins
(justification) by simple faith in Jesus' name (v43). While he
was yet speaking, God's Spirit descended on those who heard and
believed (v44). Only after the dramatic visible proof of the
Spirit's saving presence did Peter make a move to baptize with
water (v47). Peter emphasizes that these Gentiles were saved in
exactly the same way as the apostles (v48). The Spirit's baptism
(justification) comes BEFORE water baptism (sanctification).

ELDV Mr. Olson makes the assumption that the presence of the Holy
Spirit demonstrates salvation. We will get to that assumption in
a moment.

Does Peter say that Cornelius and his men were "saved" in the
same way as they? Acts 11:15-17:

And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on
us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how
he said, "John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be
baptized in the Holy Spirit." If then God gave unto them the like
gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus
Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God?

Peter says no such thing. Peter says that they received the
"like gift". Mr. Olson infers from such that Peter speaks of
being saved....based on his previous assumption.

Mr. Olson has not provided any Scripture documenting the
necessity of salvation because of the presence of the Spirit.
The fact of the matter is that the Spirit's presence does not
necessitate salvation. Caiaphas had the Spirit (John 11:49-52;
cf. 2 Peter 1:19-21); would we say that he was saved? The Spirit
of God can come upon a person for the sake of God's will being
done on earth-- even if that person is not saved. It is manifest
from the signs in the beginning of Acts 10 to Peter, and the
justification Peter must make forth in Acts 11, that the Spirit
descending on Cornelius and his men was the demonstration for God
that the Gentiles were to receive the Gospel and also received
salvation. On account of seeing this sign, Peter demands I that
Cornelius and his men be immersed in water. Why would it be so
necessary-- and the first thought of Peter-- if they were already
saved...unless they had not yet received the remission of their
sin?

Mr Olson:
ROMANS 6:3-7: BOOK CONTEXT ELDV ignores the first five chapters.
God condemns human obedience (Rom 1:19-3:19). Only Christ's
righteous satisfies God (Rom 3:20-31). Abraham is the example of
justification by faith apart from sacraments (Rom 4).
Justification by faith (Rom 5). Only after these does Paul
mention baptism. Since the word "water" is not used anywhere in
the chapter or the entire book, this baptism must be seen as the
Spirit's saving baptism that comes at the moment of faith. Works
of obedience (sanctification) only start in Chapter 8. ELDV
violates the inspired contextual sequence.

ELDV Since Mr. Olson cannot really deny the substance of what
Paul says in Romans 6:3-7, he must turn to the beginning of the
book for his arguments, and of course mischaracterize Paul's
argument.

I find it odd that God would condemn human obedience in Romans
1:9-3:19 yet say that it is Paul's purpose to bring forth the
obedience of the nations in Romans 1:5. I also fail to see how
Paul argues for Abraham's justification of faith apart from works
in Romans 4 yet James in James 2:14-26 speaks of Abraham's
justification by faith in works.

Mr. Olson does not try to reconcile the Scriptures, yet it is a
simple process to do. Paul's condemnation is a condemnation of
all previous religions' systems of orthopraxy or
conceptualization of salvation by heredity and lawkeeping.
Paul's declaration is that we cannot possibly be justified on the
basis of our works since there is sin against us. Nowhere,
however, does Paul deny that we should be obedient-- Romans 6:1
should certainly attest to that. The process of being made right
with God requires God's grace, and cannot be done by ourselves
alone...yet we have to have the faith; we have to be the ones to
accept His grace. Furthermore, I fail to see what Mr. Olson
would do with the rest of chapter 6; after all, Paul says that WE
should present our instruments of God for the sake of
righteousness (Romans 6:13).

We will speak more below about the number of baptisms in the
Scripture. For now, it should be sufficient to note that Mr.
Olson has no substantive rebuttal to Romans 6:3-7 itself.

Mr Olson:
Gal 3:26-27: SPIRITUAL LANGUAGE Can one physically put on Christ
in baptism? If you can see the baptism, then it is only temporal
(2 Cor 4:18). Only the unseen Spirit's baptism (1 Cor 12:13) is
eternal. ELDV wrongly redefined spiritual as physical.

ELDV Mr. Olson asks the wrong question. A better question to ask
is whether spiritual consequences can occur as a result of a
physical action...and the answer to that is a resounding yes. We
partake of the Lord's Supper-- the bread and the fruit of the
vine-- representing the Lord's body and blood, and in doing so we
share in the spiritual communion of the saints and spiritually
proclaim His death. Surely you would not argue that since the
Lord's Supper is a spiritual feast that there is no need for
bread nor the fruit of the vine. Since the question is
misdirected, the rebuttal is manifestly misdirected.

Mr Olson:
COL 2:12: GOD's OPERATION. ELDV uses less than half of the
context. The right thing to do is to use the entire context. Let
Scripture explain itself! Context begins in v7 where believers
are permanently rooted and established by faith. Believers are
permanently complete in Jesus (v10).

ELDV ignores the 2:11a reference to circumcision done WITHOUT
HANDS. He misses the 2:11b reference to Christ's spiritual
circumcision. In 2:12, he misses that saving baptism is God's
operation. The spiritual symbolism continues in verse 13. Paul,
in Roman 2:25-29, also contrasts symbolic righteousness of
physical circumcision with real heart circumcision made WITHOUT
HANDS. ELDV misses the contextual flow that links vv11-13 and
describes them as a temporal event.

ELDV This has all been spoken of before, and your mixing of a
metaphor's target and source domains do not represent proper
exegesis.

Mr Olson:
I PETER 3:19-21: OT CONTEXT. ELDV fails to use OT context.
Context (Gen 6:8-9; 7:1) shows Noah had ALREADY found grace in
God's sight. Noah was ALREADY just, perfect and righteous. The
whole Flood Saga to which Peter referred happened 120 years AFTER
Noah's justification. Water baptism is associated with
sanctification - not justification. Should our baptisms also wait
120 years after justification? Justification comes first, only
then sanctification.

ELDV Is it that I have failed to use Old Testament context, or is
it that you've missed Peter's point?

that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,
not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ;

To assert that Peter's use of the example of Noah requires us to
import everything said about Noah in Genesis is nonsensical and
unnecessary; that would be like saying that Paul's use of
Elijah's response to God in Romans 11:2-4 requires us to bring in
the entire context of 1 Kings 19 to bear on Paul's discussion, or
everything God said and did with Abraham to Romans 4. Peter
thoroughly contradicts Mr. Olson's premise because Mr. Olson does
not seem to want to understand Peter. Peter says that in the
ark, eight souls were saved through water. Why did the eight get
to be the ones saved through water? Yes, God determined Noah to
be just, one who walks with God. But Peter's discussion and
emphasis is on the fact that when everyone else died, those eight
were saved, and that in an ark on top of the water. When all
perished under the water, the eight were saved above water.
Peter takes this lesson-- he does not import any other lesson of
the OT narrative, simply this one-- and declares that its
antitype now saves. As eight souls were saved above water, so
now souls are saved by being immersed in water. Importing
anything else is simply that-- your importation, with no real
basis in Peter's point.

It should be manifest that Mr. Olson's rebuttal is thoroughly
insufficient to stand against the Scriptures provided. More
often than not, Mr. Olson tries to escape from the clear message
of the Scriptures by dogmatically clinging to certain bits
without any regard to reconciling them with the whole.

To conclude this affirmative, I find it necessary to speak about
the nature of the one baptism, immersion in water, and the
immersion in the Holy Spirit.

First of all, this is an important Scripture; Ephesians 4:4-6:

There is one body, and one Spirit, even as also ye were called in
one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in
all.

As assuredly, then, as we have one Body, one Spirit, and one
Lord, there is but one baptism.

To what baptism, then, does Paul refer? Immersion in water or
immersion in the Spirit?

Let us look at the examples of the use of the terminology of
"immersion in the Spirit":

and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to
depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father,
which, said he, ye heard from me: For John indeed baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days
hence. Acts 1:4-5

This is, of course, fulfilled in Acts 2, when God pours out the
Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.

This, of course, refers to the previous events of Acts 10:44-46,
when God poured out His Spirit on Cornelius and his men.

At no other time is "immersion in the Spirit" actually dispensed
in the New Testament.

These events have similar characteristics:

1. They were both previously predicted (cf. above, in John and
Amos). 2. God was the acting agent. 3. Both were done as
demonstrations-- Acts 2, to provide witness to the truth in Jesus
Christ to the Jews on Pentecost; Acts 10, to provide witness to
Peter and the other believers that Gentiles were to receive the
Gospel. 4. Both were thoroughly extraordinary events, presaged by
signs and wonders. 5. Neither are the normative means by which
the gift of the Holy Spirit is transferred-- the normative means
is the "laying on of hands", as described below.

Having seen that, let us now look to explicit references to
immersion in water:

And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and
the eunuch saith, "Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to
be baptized?" And Philip said, "If thou believest with all thy
heart, thou mayest." And he answered and said, "I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he commanded the chariot to
stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip
and the eunuch, and he baptized him.Acts 8:36-38

"Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized,
who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" And he
commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then
prayed they him to tarry certain days. Acts 10:47-48

Now, these are the explicit references to immersion in water.
There are a multitude of passages that do not actually mention
water-- yet they must refer to immersion in water and not
immersion in the Holy Spirit. Those immersed in the Holy Spirit
by God are in possession of the Holy Spirit and its gifts...and
yet we constantly see examples of people being "baptized" and
then hands are laid upon them so that they could receive the Holy
Spirit. The only way that these passages make any sense is to
see that they are first immersed in water and then hands are laid
upon them to receive the Holy Spirit. This is manifestly the
case in Acts 8:12-17, Acts 9:17-19, and Acts 19:1-6.

These are the passages that incontrovertibly speak of either
immersion in water or immersion in the Holy Spirit. These are
the passages which we must use to judge the nature of the "one
baptism" of Ephesians 4:4, and from that determination we will
receive the proper perspective on the rest of the uses of the
term baptism in the New Testament. It ought to be manifest that
while the immersion in the Holy Spirit is limited in the New
Testament to two examples, both of which are miraculous and for
the purpose of signs to the people, and the latter example even
includes explicit immersion in water, the baptism most often seen
in the New Testament, spoken of throughout the timeframe of the
New Testament, and the action in which believers share a part is
immersion in water. It is manifest, then, that the baptism of
which Paul speaks in Ephesians 4:4 is immersion in water.

Does this mean that baptism is bereft of the Spirit? By no
means! Immersion in water for the remission of sin is a physical
act that represents the spiritual appeal to God for cleansing.
Its spiritual consequences are vast: entrance into the Kingdom,
death of the man of sin, resurrection in newness of life. These
are the same spiritual consequences of faith, since baptism by
necessity is a part of an obedient faith.

The proposition as stands,

The Scriptures teach that immersion in water for the remission of
sin is necessary for salvation,

is defended and reaffirmed.

Ethan (ELDV)