Longhenry/Olson Debate on Baptism

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures teach that immersion in water for the remission of 
sin is necessary for salvation.

Affirm:  Ethan Longhenry
Deny:  Lloyd Olson

Let us re-consider the original passages quoted and Mr. Olson's 
second set of objections.

1. Matthew 28:18-20.

Concerning Matthew 28:18-20, Mr. Olson said:

Where is your scripture to support your unsubstantiated opinion? 
Formal Bible debates require Bible verses or peer-reviewed 
articles. Since you have not used either, your response is 
rescinded.


ELDV It should first be noted that Mr. Olson presented his own 
unsubstantiated opinion about the nature of the relationship 
between the main verb and its dependent prepositions.  Mr. Olson 
himself cited no Scripture or peer-reviewed articles to 
substantiate his statement that "Thus, "make disciples" 
(justification) comes first and baptism (sanctification) comes 
AFTER justification - not BEFORE."  Since no such substantiation 
was given, Mr. Olson's objection could just as easily been 
directed at himself.

Regardless, Daniel Wallace in his work "The Basics of New 
Testament Syntax," on pages 272-279, goes through the potential 
uses of the present dependent verbal participles as I have 
outlined in my second affirmative.  Since Mr. Olson manifestly 
did not come up with any better way of understanding the relation 
of "baptizing...teaching" to "making disciples," the argument in 
truth stands.

Mr. Olson continued: 
Scripture clearly shows temporal separation. Cornelius shows a 
short time span. The Spirit's saving baptism comes before non-
saving water baptism. Jesus (Who needed no salvation) waited 30 
years for His baptism. The purpose was to announce the beginning 
of His public ministry. Already saved Noah waited at 120-590 
years after being justified for his water baptism. Clearly, water 
baptism is NOT for justification and is an act of sanctification.

Scripture gives millions of OT saints where salvation did not 
include water baptism. Paul uses Abraham as an example of 
justification by faith alone (Rom 4:3,5) regardless of sacrament 
(9-11) or testament (16, 23-24). Jesus used the murmuring 
Israelites (Num 21) who only had to LOOK at the serpent. They 
didn't have to offer sacrifices, repent or get circumcised. Peter 
used Noah who was ALREADY saved before The Flood. Since there is 
only ONE FAITH (Eph 4:5), the lack of water baptism completely 
denies any need for any such sacrament for justification.

Water baptism IS separated from justification by time and 
activity.  It is NOT the means to make a disciple (like Jesus). 
Water baptism is the result of saving faith that marks the 
beginning of new life in Christ (like Noah).


ELDV This represents theological extrapolation based on Mr. 
Olson's unsubstantiated theory that "make disciples" = the act of 
being saved, and then a further assumption that immersion in 
water has a place only later in that scheme.  Mr. Olson does 
nothing to explain the second dependent verbal participle—
"teaching them...," and makes no effort to explain the complete 
oddity of first making disciples and then, as a result, teaching 
them.

I could just as easily say that the process of Peter teaching and 
baptizing Cornelius makes up the process known as "making 
disciples."  Furthermore, Ephesians 4:5 is not a statement 
affirming that there are no covenant boundaries between us and 
the Israelites and Noah et al; far from it!  Mr. Olson would not 
even use his own logic vis a vis the salvation of saints in the 
Old Testament-- after all, they were required to obey the Law of 
Moses and to make sacrifices to be saved.  Will Mr. Olson impose 
these demands on Christians?  I doubt it.

The fact of the matter is that Mr. Olson has brought in many 
irrelevant matters that have nothing to do with the particular 
grammatical issues of Matthew 28:18-20.  Grammatical issues are 
to be resolved within the passage. Until Mr. Olson can make some 
sense out of making disciples and then teaching them, as opposed 
to making disciples BY teaching them, this is no substantive 
argument against the grammatical understanding of the passage as 
presented in the second affirmative.

2. Mark 16:16.

In the second affirmative, I did concede that there could be good 
arguments against the validity of Mark 16:9-20, but affirmed that 
Mr. Olson overstated his case.  He responded:

The manuscript record reveals that the reading which appears in 
the majority of MSS is absent from the two oldest MSS (Aleph and 
B), from the Old Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac, 
about one hundred Armenian MSS, and the two oldest Georgian MSS. 
[fn1]

The case is NOT overstated. 100% of Greek copies before the third 
century do not have the spurious ending. The spurious ending is 
absence in the copies in four language groups. Manuscripts with 
this error are related to one Greek manuscript dated to the third 
century.


ELDV There is no question about the first paragraph.  On Mr. 
Olson's second paragraph, however, he is certainly mistaken, and 
I challenge him to substantiate his claim that "100% of Greek 
copies before the third century do not have the spurious 
reading."  In "The Text of the New Testament," by Kurt and 
Barbara Aland, 2nd edition, Chart 5A, all of the papyri of the NT 
text are listed according to what they contain.  In no papyri do 
we have any part of Mark 16 to make the judgment of the sort that 
Mr. Olson makes.  In fact, according to Aland's book, there are 
no copies at all before the third century that contain the last 
chapters of Mark so as to allow for the judgment to be made.  So 
yes, in one sense, he is right: no manuscript before 300 does 
have the reading...since no manuscript before 300 has the last 
chapters of Mark in any form!  The argument is not honest.

Mr. Olson makes no comment about the reference made to Irenaeus 
in the second affirmative; even if there is no textual evidence 
for the passage before 300, Irenaeus' citation and discussion of 
the passage demands that it be at least as old as he is-- 180 CE-
- and possibly older.  It remains true that Mr. Olson overstates 
his case.

3. Acts 2:38 (and, by extension, Acts 3: and Acts 15:

Mr. Olson said:
ELDV uses Gal 1 & 2 in confusion. When one denies the sufficiency 
of Christ's Cross in justification, there are usually other fall 
outs as well. This secondary fallout denies God's faithfulness to 
His covenantal promises given to Israel. It denies that God can 
do two things at one: one on a national level with Israel and one 
on an individual level with all who would believe in Jesus. Peter 
wasn't preaching a different gospel of salvation.  He emphasized 
the need to repent of national blindness regarding Jesus their 
Messiah Whom they crucified. Jesus will return with vengeance on 
that UNTOWARD GENERATION. It is an attribute to the power of the 
gospel message that even with an emphasis that wasn't salvific 
that people still get saved.


ELDV When you can't get around a passage, obfuscate.

But from those who were reputed to be somewhat (whatsoever they 
were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth not man's person)-
- they, I say, who were of repute imparted nothing to me: but 
contrariwise, when they saw that I had been intrusted with the 
gospel of the uncircumcision, even as Peter with the gospel of 
the circumcision (for he that wrought for Peter unto the 
apostleship of the circumcision wrought for me also unto the 
Gentiles); and when they perceived the grace that was given unto 
me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be 
pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, 
that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the 
circumcision; only they would that we should remember the poor; 
which very thing I was also zealous to do.  Galatians 2:6-10 ASV

I really do not see in the Bible a difference in "gospels."  
There is one Gospel.

I marvel that ye are so quickly removing from him that called you 
in the grace of Christ unto a different gospel; which is not 
another gospel only there are some that trouble you, and would 
pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from 
heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which 
we preached unto you, let him be anathema. As we have said 
before, so say I now again, if any man preacheth unto you any 
gospel other than that which ye received, let him be anathema. 
Galatians 1:6-9 ASV

Furthermore, I do not see where Peter's message in Acts 2 really 
says anything that would prove Mr. Olson's statements.

For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that 
are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto 
him. And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, 
saying, Save yourselves from this crooked generation.  Acts 2:39-
40 ASV

The message of promise is given here for many generations, long 
after Jerusalem would be destroyed and the covenant with Israel 
would end. Romans 11 further demonstrates that God broke off 
unfaithful branches from the tree (i.e., Israelites denying 
Christ), and grafted the Gentiles in.  I do not see at all how 
the message of Acts 2 in any way differs from the Gospel preached 
by Paul and others.

Mr. Olson: 
Regarding Acts 3, Christ's coming is viewed positively. First, 
the verb "restore" of 1:6 reappears as the noun "restoration" in 
3:21. This parallel language indicates a parallel in subject 
content. [fn2] In both places the restoration of national Israel 
is the topic. They "bookend" Acts 2.


ELDV Mr. Olson cites a commentary to "prove" his point, but all 
he has proven is an opinion.  There is nothing inherently in the 
text that demands us to understand Acts 1:6 and Acts 3:21 in 
unison.  Mr. Olson has apparently not argued against the fact 
that the question of Acts 1:6 was not legitimated by Christ nor 
does it play out in history to have happened in the way that the 
Apostles at that time thought.  The restoration of national 
Israel cannot possibly be the topic of Acts 3:21, because 
national Israel has not been restored nor will be restored.  That 
covenant manifestly ended in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 
CE (cf. Hebrews 8:13).

Mr. Olson: 
Second, these blessings are those spoken of by the prophets since 
the world began (3:21). Moses pointed to Jesus being raised up 
(22).  Peter appeals to God's eternal covenant (25) and blessing 
(26).  Isa 54: promises national dominion, prosperity and 
security. Isa 56:14-19 promises restoration. Ezek 17, 34, 37 
discusses revival of the Davidic Empire. Deut 30[fn3], Jer 31-33 
and Ezek 36 show God will regather Israel before the new 
covenant. Zech 3, 6, 9, 12 mentions Israel's restoration and 
messianic hope. Haggai 2 shows how YHWH will break the power of 
foreign nations and wealth coming to Jerusalem. God will gather 
and purify His scattered people (Zeph 3:8-9). Amos 9:14-15 
promises that after Israel is scattered and disciplined that God 
will plant them again. Huge segments of many OT books are devoted 
to Israel's national restoration. In the NT, Paul preaches for 
the "hope of Israel" (Acts 28:20). God will again restore Israel 
(Rom 9-11) and make a new covenant with them (Heb 8:8). 
Revelation mentions a significant remnant during the Tribulation. 
ELDV apparently has overlooked much of his Bible.


ELDV To give a thorough exegesis and refutation of the above is not only 
far beyond the time and space of this affirmative, it is also massively off 
the topic.  It will be enough to point out Hebrews 8:8 and the statements from 
Hebrews 8:13 and Hebrews 9:15ff.  The "new covenant" of Jeremiah IS the covenant 
made in the blood of Christ, an event that occurred well nigh 2000 years ago.  
There is no future expectation of a new covenant; the new covenant is here and 
it is now.  That which is interpreted-- not promised, but interpreted-- to refer to
national Israel in fact points to spiritual Israel, the Kingdom of Heaven, the church.

Mr. Olson:
Paul and Peter don't contrast. God's plan for national Israel has 
nothing to do with an individual's requirement to believe on the 
Lord Jesus. Evidently ELDV doesn't think God can do two things at 
once. Peter's exhortation was for national repentance to hurry 
the promised restoration of national Israel. This has nothing to 
do with individual salvation.


ELDV The above statement of Mr. Olson is manifestly in error 
since there is no promise for the restoration of national 
Israel.  It had been decreed long before Acts 2-- notably, in 
Matthew 24:1-36, Mark 13, and Luke 21-- that Jerusalem would be 
destroyed along with its Temple, and the system of sacrifice 
demanded by the Law of Moses would be no more.  There could be no 
greater demonstration of the end of the covenant between God and 
Israel than the manifest impossibility of Israelites to continue 
to obey its law.  How could national Israel then be restored?  
Why would Peter be preaching this message in an isolated context 
in the first century when in the twenty-first century this 
restoration has not yet occurred, and especially with the end 
beforehand predicted and coming soon?

Peter, in Acts 2, inaugurates the message of the Kingdom.  This 
was prophecied aforetime by Joel.  There is no difference in this 
message and the message of Paul.  As Peter calls for baptism 
here, so he speaks of baptism in 1 Peter 3.  Immersion in water 
is manifestly a part of the preaching and actions of Paul (cf. 
Acts 19:1-6, 1 Corinthians 1:17-18). Mr. Olson has failed in any 
attempt to remove the relevance of Acts 2 to the Christian today.

Mr. Olson:
ELDV refutes Acts 2 by appealing to Acts 15 and the secondary 
appeal to Amos 9. His Amos 9 appeal only referenced the first 
half of the passage. The very next verses emphasize Israel's 
return (Amos 9:13-15). Even ELDV's refutation denies his own 
proposition. Even 20 some years after the Resurrection, the 
apostles are still looking for the restoration of national 
Israel. How is it that a Bible preacher only sees two verses out 
of a paragraph?


ELDV I did not appeal to Amos 9.  I appealed to what James quoted 
from Amos 9.

The passage again:

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."  Wherefore my judgment 
is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to 
God; Acts 15:14-19 ASV

This is the part of the passage James cites.  Mr. Olson will need 
to justify why we should impose Amos 9:13-15 on this passage when 
James did not feel compelled to do so.  Does Mr. Olson do this 
same thing with other passages? When Matthew cites Isaiah 7:14 in 
Matthew 1:23, does Mr. Olson also impose the rest of the context, 
Isaiah 7:15-17, and demand the interpretation that within a few 
years of Jesus' birth that the Romans remove the leaders of 
Damascus and Samaria, and that the king of Assyria would come 
against Israel?  Not likely.  Why would he then impose more of 
the passage than that which James cites?  It is Amos 9:11-12 
which James believes predicts that God was going to include the 
Gentiles into the fold, and we cannot infer from his use of that 
passage in that way that he was expecting some national 
restoration because of Mr. Olson's interpretation of the verses 
that follow in Amos-- and have nothing to do with James at all!

It is manifest, then, that it is mere imposition and no fact regarding the Apostles' expectation of restoration of national 
Israel, and one not borne out by the Scriptures in the least.

4. Acts 8:34-37

Mr. Olson said:
LAO's 2nd Denial: One can correct the message - messenger problem 
without denying baptism in the gospel message. One cannot dismiss 
the denial by an appeal to an unrelated event. Paul was 
commissioned (apostello) that Gentiles might receive remission of 
sins by faith (Acts 26:17-18). There is no mention of water 
baptism in this commission. Paul's gospel message follows his own 
justification experience: by faith before Ananias. Paul 
repeatedly retold his gospel message without one word of water 
baptism. His denial of water baptism matches his insistence that 
salvation is by the foolishness of preaching to all who believe 
(1 Cor 1:21).


ELDV If this is the case, why does Paul speak about immersing the 
household of Stephanas, Crispus, and Gaius (1 Corinthians 1:14-
16)?  It seems odd that the same man who would deny water baptism 
would be baptizing people.  The lack of mention of water does not 
mean that it does not refer to immersion in water; in fact, the 
fact that Paul speaks about having baptized people indicates that 
he is, in fact, speaking of water baptism, since never in the 
Scriptures do men baptize other persons in the Holy Spirit.

Mr. Olson also engages in the fallacy of exclusion, inferring 
that the lack of explicit mention of something requires its lack 
of existence.  I could talk about how there is no mention of 
belief or repentance in Acts 26:17-18, but their lack of mention 
does not mean that belief and repentance are not part of "turning 
people from darkness to light."  The fact that immersion in water 
was a part of Paul's message many a time confirms that Paul 
indeed preached about the need for baptism and had people 
baptized, even if he himself did not do the baptizing (cf. Acts 
19:1-6, 1 Corinthians 1:14-18).

Mr. Olson:
Why did Philip preach about baptism? One is not restricted in any 
means in the presentation of the gospel message. The Eunuch was 
reading a prophetic passage to begin with. Who knows where the 
conversation went? Philip's grilling matches Paul's denouncement 
of water baptism salvation.


ELDV That baptism is predicated on belief no one denies.  That 
baptism is predicated on belief requires that baptism is not a 
part of the events leading to salvation, however, has not been 
proven and is merely assumed. Mr. Olson tacitly accepts the 
argument as stated in the affirmative: the Gospel message of 
Philip included immersion in water, and therefore the Gospel 
message will include immersion in water.

5. Romans 6:3-7

Mr. Olson:
LAO's 2nd Denial: I don't need much of a rebuttal here. ELDV did 
not challenge the contextual sequence of justification by faith; 
then sanctification. His comments are sideshows. The context of 
Rom 1:9-3:19 deals with human attempts to please God on the basis 
of self- righteousness which differs significantly from God's 
purpose in Rom 1:5 for Christ-centered obedience. Human-centered 
righteousness is denied; Christ-centered obedience is praised. 
ELDV once more mechanically grabs a sanctification verse and 
reinterprets it as justification. He stumbles so because he does 
not truly understand either justification or sanctification.


ELDV It's interesting to see that Mr. Olson must continually 
apply the theological speculations of justification and 
sanctification upon these passages without any merit whatsoever.  
Mr. Olson has charged me to find passages linking baptism and 
other such things to justification; well, as I stated in the 
second affirmative, so I say again: the language of Mr. Olson 
about justification and sanctification and the message of the 
Scriptures about these things are far apart, the former being a 
product of intense theological speculation over 500 years.  The 
New Testament does not nearly place the emphasis on the words 
"justification" and "sanctification" as Mr. Olson does.  They are 
by necessity intertwined: one can only be made holy when one is 
made righteous, and one can only be made righteous when one is 
made holy.  If one is transferred from darkness to light, he is 
manifestly separated from darkness.  We will speak more about 
such matters later.

As Mr. Olson's first denial did nothing to actually deny the 
content of Romans 6:3-7, but merely attempted to redirect to the 
context, so Mr. Olson continues with this same idea here.  He has 
ceased the inflammatory rhetoric of Paul rejecting the need for 
obedience, which is good, since Mr. Olson has manifestly seen 
from Romans 1:5 that Paul does desire the obedience of the 
nations.  In fact, his statements about Romans 1:9-3:19 vs. 1:5 I 
completely agree with.  They, in fact, completely undermine his 
argument, because Paul is manifestly speaking about "Christ-
centered obedience" in Romans 6.

Mr. Olson:
In James 2:14-26, ELDV ignores all possible contexts. The 
overarching context is already saved believers. He urges them to 
provide works worthy of their standing in Christ. It is an error 
to make spiritual growth of sanctification a requirement for 
justification. We expect the baby to talk + walk sometime after 
birth. We don't demand maturity as a requirement for birth. Proof 
of life happens AFTER birth.


ELDV Mr. Olson's problems seem more with his theological 
speculations on the nature of justification and sanctification 
than on what the Bible actually says.  James does not speak about 
spiritual growth of sanctification vs. justification.   James 2 
actually does demonstrate how inextricably tied proper faith and 
proper conduct truly are.

Mr. Olson:
The immediate context is Abraham's justification by faith (James 
2:23; Gen. 15:6) twenty years before Mt. Moriah (Gen. 22; James 
2:24). Abraham is an example of justification by faith (Rom 4:2-
3,13) apart from any obedience and sacrament (4:4-12). The 
promise is voided by faith + obedience (4:14). In 4:16, 
justification is by grace through faith. Justification was 
IMPUTED to Abraham (4:22) by passive faith; EVENT - not process.


ELDV The same passage cited by Paul is cited by James.  James 
provides a concrete demonstration of the faith of Abraham which 
"fulfills" the promise made earlier.  If faith without works is 
dead, and Abraham was justified by faith, that faith must have 
included works.  The faith is, indeed, an obedient faith.  Mr. 
Olson's last sentence is a complete and thorough contradiction of 
James 2:14-26, where a "passive" faith is decried as dead and 
worthless.  Justification was not "imputed" to Abraham as Mr. 
Olson would allege-- Abraham had faith, a manifestly obedient 
faith, and that faith was reckoned to him as righteousness.  
Without that obedient faith God would not have justified 
Abraham.  The combination of Romans 4 and James 2 works to 
thoroughly negate Mr. Olson's argument.

Mr. Olson:
James 2:23 with 24 shows the total picture. Justification by 
PASSIVE faith is the new birth; sanctification by ACTIVE faith is 
spiritual growth. The righteousness of works before men depends 
on the righteousness of faith before God. "Faith without works is 
dead" can only be used as a means for JUSTIFIED BELIEVERS to 
verify their justification before others. These two must not be 
confused. Error forces the sanctification part of Abraham's life 
to be a requirement for justification oblivious to Abraham's 
historic justification.


ELDV Thou seest that faith wrought with his works, and by works 
was faith made perfect; and the scripture was fulfilled which 
saith, And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him for 
righteousness; and he was called the friend of God. Ye see that 
by works a man is justified, and not only by faith. James 2:22-24 
ASV

I leave it to the reader to try to find "justification by passive 
faith", "sanctification by active faith," and the rest of that in 
that Scripture. You certainly will not find it within the words 
themselves; you will have to import them there.

Mr. Olson:
He mentioned that we have to accept God's grace by faith. ELDV 
would never make this statement if he truly knew the distinctions 
between justification and sanctification. His half truth ignores 
that biblical Greek portrays this act of faith exclusively in the 
PASSIVE voice. Faith in Jesus is not an activity of any sort. 
Jesus used the LOOK and LIVE illustration in John 3 to deny any 
human activity beyond PASSIVE faith. Failure to do a basic 
investigation into the voices of justification results in 
dramatic deficiencies. There are many sanctification verses that 
can be so abused.


ELDV I'm looking for references to "passive faith" in the Bible.  
Where would they be?  James 2:14-26 makes such a concept 
oxymoronic.  Nouns, of course, are neither active nor passive; 
verbs-- actions-- are either active or passive.  What is the verb 
form of "faith"?  Pisteuo, "to believe."  The verb is used 
constantly in the active voice to describe the action of a 
believer on the basis of receiving the message.  The one who 
believes, engaging in an active action, has faith, in terms of a 
noun.  I fail to see what "act of faith" on the part of the 
believer is spoken of in the passive voice save "be immersed," 
since one submits to baptism at the hands of another.

Mr. Olson has yet again attempted to argue around the passage, 
and has not truly answered against the material of Romans 6.

6. Colossians 2.

Mr. Olson:
First, Israel's covenant was a national covenant. New born males 
were included in general blessings simply by birth. While some 
hold that baptism is a type of circumcision, no child was ever 
saved by circumcision. ELDV's errant equation is so false that 
girls immediately see the problem. If salvation depends on 
circumcision, they will never be saved! EDLV appeals to a 
teaching that was soundly repudiated by the Jerusalem Council 
(Acts 15) and Paul in Romans and Galatians.


ELDV And where does Mr. Olson get the idea that I was saying any 
such thing?  This is what I had said:

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).

Where in any of this does Mr. Olson get the basis of his 
statements? Nowhere...he can only do so by literalizing that 
which I spoke in metaphorical terms and explicitly said I spoke 
in metaphorical terms.

Mr. Olson:
Second, Abraham is an example of all OT saints who were saved 
without circumcision long before the Mosaic covenant. His faith 
is a sufficient example for all who believe (Rom 4:11). If there 
is but ONE FAITH, then circumcision does not belong to any plan 
of redemption. Would ELDV suggest that there are multiple plans 
of redemption: one for us, one for Israelites and one for OT 
Gentiles when scripture dictates ONE FAITH?


ELDV Mr. Olson is manifestly attempting to assert that there is 
no real covenant distinction in the Bible.  Mr. Olson, in 
practice, probably believes no such thing, else he would be 
sacrificing animals on altars for atonement for his sin.  
Requiring Ephesians 4 to go beyond the context of the New 
Testament is a thoroughly unjustified premise that Mr. Olson will 
have to first prove.

And actually, there were different schemes of redemption, since 
the standard of judgment for the Israelites will be on the basis 
of their faithfulness to the Law of Moses, and Noah for the 
covenant under which he was amenable, and the we under the 
covenant through Christ.  To assert otherwise makes the 
Scriptures a complete mess!

Mr. Olson:
Third, Paul shows that saving circumcision is of the inward 
spirit (Rom 2:25-29). Anything that can be seen is temporal while 
the unseen things are eternal (2 Cor 4:18). If baptism (or 
circumcision) can be seen, then it does not save. The only saving 
baptism is done by God's Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) Who seals unto the 
Day of Redemption (Eph 4:30).


ELDV I was waiting for 1 Corinthians 12:13 to be brought into the 
discussion.

For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether 
Jews or Greeks, whether bond or free; and were all made to drink 
of one Spirit. 1 Corinthians 12:13 ASV

Where in here does the text demand that we must have been 
baptized BY the Spirit?  Paul says that we were immersed into one 
body in one Spirit-- that is, we were not immersed into different 
spirits, but are unified in Christ. The emphasis here is on the 
unity of all Christians by common faith and obedience, and the 
text does not presuppose that the Spirit was the one baptizing.

I am also waiting for the Biblical proof that "only things unseen 
are necessary for salvation."  I have yet to find any such 
statement in the New Testament...especially when I see things 
like 1 Peter 3:21 where baptism, a physical, visible action, now 
saves you.

Mr. Olson:
The definition of "remission of sins" depends on context. One 
cannot violate basic linguistics rules just because various 
denominations teach water baptism saves. Acts 2 is for Israelites 
alone. Col 2 demonstrates that saving baptism is done WITHOUT 
HANDS by the operation of God. The Great Commission is toward the 
whole world to make disciples by faith. Water baptism is 
commanded (Jesus), normal (Cornelius) but not required (Abraham) 
for justification.


ELDV Mr. Olson continues to thoroughly violate all rules of 
metaphors and how we understand them.  He continues to remove the 
target and inputs the source and then acts as if this proves his 
point.  The only thing that is done without hands in Colossians 
2:11 is the "circumcision without hands". What is circumcised is 
described in the text: ..in the putting off of the body of the 
flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; Colossians 2:11b ASV

..that circumcision of Christ defined in v. 12 as has having been 
buried with Christ in baptism, the utilization of the same 
metaphorical concept as in Romans 6:3-7. Through the event of 
baptism, one has this "circumcision" performed.

7. 1 Peter 3.

In all of Mr. Olson's second denial, he continues in the same 
problems as he did in his first denial: imposing the entire 
context of Genesis 6-9 where it is not merited, and then further 
imposing his theological extrapolations on justification and 
sanctification upon Noah.  Mr. Olson did not rationalize or 
justify why such things are done, and has allowed that to color 
his interpretation of the limited contrast of 1 Peter 3.  Simply 
put, when the context is limited to 1 Peter 3:20-21, Mr. Olson's 
arguments have no merit.

Now, regarding other issues:

The Nature of Remission of Sin

Mr. Olson so thoroughly mischaracterized the material presented 
that I am forced to repost it.

I had said:

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."

From this Mr. Olson extrapolates: ELDV's self-destruction is good 
enough for me! It is my pleasure to accept his view that the 
remission of sins through water baptism is not found in 
scripture! Rather than use the verses quoted, he returns to 
already invalidated error, twists it out of context, redefines it 
according to human-centeredness, and uses it to repudiate the 
greater weight of scripture. A proper refutation is not an appeal 
to material already repudiated. ELDV has failed to link salvific 
remission of sins to water baptism.


ELDV Not only did I "use the verses quoted," I explained their 
nature.  The link between immersion in water and the remission of 
sin was made manifest. Does anyone deny that it is the blood of 
Christ that allows for remission of sin?  No.  Acts 2:38 is the 
only passage, however, that demonstrates the MEANS BY WHICH a 
believer receives that remission of sin.  Mr. Olson's 
mischaracterization of the argument in no way lessens its force.  
Mr. Olson must still demonstrate another Scripture that 
explicitly shows how the believer receives the remission of sin 
for his argument to hold any water.

 Justification and Sanctification.

Mr. Olson:
Time after time ELDV ignores tense and voice, twists 
sanctification verses out of context, redefines them as a 
process, and blends them into justification. The 40 some uses of 
justification show without exception that salvific activity is 
associated with God alone. Humans are only passive with respect 
to justification. Present tense sanctification is human activity 
in spiritual growth. First year Greek would eliminate this 
stumbling.


ELDV Really now?

And such were some of you: but ye were washed, but ye were 
sanctified, but ye were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and in the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:11 ASV

And yes, "sanctified" in that verse is in the passive...and note 
that it precedes "justified" in its context.

Mr. Olson:
His reference to 1 Cor 1:30 ignores that justification and 
sanctification are strictly PAST tense. PAST tense sanctification 
is God's activity where He sets aside believers unto Himself. At 
the moment of faith, both justification and sanctification are 
historically settled. They are EVENTS.


ELDV So now we redefine sanctification on the basis of tense?  I 
thought you said above that "humans are only passive in respect 
to justification"; if that were the case, how can you say that 
"past tense sanctification is God's activity where He sets aside 
believers unto Himself"?  Is that not a passive use of 
sanctification?

Mr. Olson:
I CHALLENGE ELDV to show one instance of a present tense use of 
justification that links to water baptism, human activity or 
sanctification. I know ahead of time that he will fail - and his 
conditional process view of salvation with it. Ignorance of 
tenses and activity shows a frightening misunderstanding of both 
justification and sanctification.


ELDV How can anything be argued with Mr. Olson when the terms get 
redefined every time Scriptures are provided to demonstrate the 
error of his system? Look how narrow the parameters are!  
Sufficient documentation has been provided that speak of the 

salvation of the believer-- which, of course, in New Testament 
letters is spoken of in the past tense-- demonstrates 
justification and sanctification occur initially after one 
initially obeys the Gospel, and the process must be continued 
until death.  It is more relevant to get behind the theological 
terms and see their purpose-- "to make righteous" and "to make 
holy, separate."  When we get off the hangup with the individual 
words, and see their purpose, we can look throughout the 
Scriptures and see manifold evidence of our continual need to be 
righteous (Hebrews 10:26-31 is a good start), and that we must 
continue to be holy, separated from the world (e.g.,1 John 2:15-
17).

It is manifest that Mr. Olson has allowed theological 
speculations to get the better of his argumentation, and his 
continual emphasis on imposing these words and the structures he 
has imagined for them on all manner of verses is unjustified.  
The argument remains irrelevant in regards to the necessity of 
baptism.

John 3.

Mr. Olson:
In John 3, Jesus makes three attempts to teach that the new birth 
is "from above" (anwthen). Thus, the new birth is not associated 
with human activity. In 3:6, Jesus continues the contrast ELDV 
misses from just looking at v5.  Physical life is contrasted with 
eternal life. Physical life comes through the waters of birth; 
spiritual life comes by God's Spirit! Verse 7 supplies the 
bookend to verse 5 showing that the new birth is spiritual from 
above and not from human activity below. ELDV ignores the 
contrast and redefines it as water baptism.


ELDV Mr. Olson is assuming that there is a contrast in verse 5; 
Mr. Olson asserts, but cannot prove, that there is parallelism.  
It makes no sense for John 3:5 to refer to natural birth, because 
it would be a logical necessity. What, are there going to be 
people "not born of water" who can be "born of the Spirit"?

The parallelism that IS there that Mr. Olson misses can be seen 
in the following:

Jesus answered and said unto him, "Verily, verily, I say unto 
thee, Except one be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." 
John 3:3 ASV

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!" John 3:5 ASV

These two verses are precisely parallel.

v. 3: Verily, verily, I say unto thee v. 5: Verily, verily, I say 
unto thee

v. 3: Except one be born anew v. 5: Except one be born of water 
and the Spirit

v. 3: he cannot see the kingdom of God v. 5: he cannot enter into 
the kingdom of God

How is one "born anew"?  By being "born of the water and the 
Spirit," immersion in water for the remission of sin and the 
spiritual life that begins at that point.  John 3 in fact 
demonstrates the necessity of immersion of water in this process.

Mr. Olson:
Jesus' third illustration is the brazen serpent. When the 
murmuring Hebrews were disciplined with snakes, God had Moses 
build a brazen serpent on a pole. For salvation, all the people 
needed to do was LOOK at the brazen serpent. Jesus equates this 
look with "whosoever believeth" has everlasting life (John 3:16)! 
Here is but one of many verses that show faith without baptism 
results in eternal life. These three illustrations show 
justification is an EVENT from above. ELDV's wayward appeal to 
John 3:5 is really a support for God's activity in justification 
and a denial of conditional human- centered process 
justification.


ELDV The Israelites still had to look, did they not?  To look 
required them to have faith that God would thus save them, no?

And we continue to have here the fallacy of exclusion.  Mr. Olson 
says that, "Here is but one of many verses that show faith 
without baptism results in eternal life."  Really?  John 3:16 
literally states that faith without baptism results in eternal 
life?  I don't see that.  I see that you have imposed that 
meaning upon the text, and therefore in contradiction with many 
other Scriptures!

Mr. Olson demonstrates a rather poor form of exegesis continually 
by doing this.  Let us look at some passages.

And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be 
saved, thou and thy house." Acts 16:31 ASV

because if thou shalt confess with thy mouth Jesus as Lord, and 
shalt believe in thy heart that God raised him from the dead, 
thou shalt be saved: for with the heart man believeth unto 
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto 
salvation. Romans 10:9-10 ASV

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." Acts 
2:38 ASV

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; 1 Peter 3:21 ASV

"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that 
endureth to the end, the same shall be saved." Matthew 10:22 ASV

In these verses, we see different things mentioned in terms of 
salvation. When we interpret these verses, do we do so to the 
exclusion of the other? Shall we assert that only endurance is 
necessary, since nothing else is mentioned in Matthew 10:22?  Or 
perhaps only baptism, since that's what saves in 1 Peter 3:21?  
By no means.  We must interpret the Scriptures as the sum of 
God's truth, and statements of what saves should be considered in 
their sum, and not to the exclusion of one another.  To engage in 
practices of exclusion, as Mr. Olson has done, is to engage in 
forced Scriptural contradiction and a rejection of its truth.

Acts 10.

Mr. Olson:
LAO's 2nd Denial: Peter clearly says that all who believe in 
Jesus shall receive the remission of sins. Peter does not equate 
remission of sins with water baptism. ELDV runs from the clear 
temporal sequence by resorting to faulty interpretations of Mark 
16 and Acts 2 as the basis to repudiate the scriptural evidences 
to justification by faith. Since ELDV cannot deny the 
temporality, he scurries for a question. Apparently, he doesn't 
care which question - even if the answer to that question further 
demolishes his error.


ELDV Again, we refer to the above.  Peter clearly says in Acts 
2:38 that immersion in water is the means by which one receives 
the remission of sin, and since no contrary means is specified in 
Acts 10, Mr. Olson's argument against it is groundless.  Mr. 
Olson never answered the question, nor defended his imposition of 
salvation on the text at the point of the dispensation of the 
Holy Spirit.

Mr. Olson:
His question of salvation via the Spirit's presence ignores 
scriptures clarity. The new birth is "of the Spirit" (John 
3:5,7). The Spirit quickens and gives eternal life (John 6:63). 
The law of the Spirit of life frees (Rom 8:2). The lack of the 
Spirit denies eternal life (Rom 8:9). The Spirit is life (Rom 
8:10). The Spirit baptizes believers into Christ (1 Cor 12:13). 
The Spirit seals and provides the earnest of eternal life (2 Cor 
1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:13- 14). The Spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6). 
Believers receive the Spirit by faith - not by works (Gal 
3:2,14). The body without the Spirit is dead (Jam 2:26).  This is 
tremendous evidence that verifies that the Spirit's presence 
secures eternal life without baptism, works or anything else.


ELDV Mr. Olson does not answer the question; he attempts to get 
around it. Did the Spirit do any of the things mentioned to 
Caiaphas?  By no means. Mr. Olson has not actually answered the 
question, but seems to avoid it.

On the one baptism.

Mr. Olson:
Let's see: the body, the Spirit and the Lord are spiritual - but 
baptism is physical? EDLV's human-centered philosophy forces his 
inconsistency! The common sense teaches a consistent application 
to all aspects. In the Acts 1 and Acts 11 passages,"but" (from 
the Greek "de") is a contrast. John baptized in water; BUT you 
shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit. The first is physical, 
temporal, and non-salvific. The latter is spiritual, eternal, and 
salvific. EDLV's denies the obvious contrast and redefines the 
word.


ELDV Mr. Olson does not actually deal with the material 
presented.  It was thorougly demonstrated regarding the limited 
nature of the immersion in the Holy Spirit, and how it was 
predicted specifically for certain occasions. To whom is Jesus 
speaking in Acts 1?  The disciples.  Who received the immersion 
in the Holy Spirit?  The disciples.  In the next instance of the 
immersion of the Spirit, does Peter refer to the general action 
of God toward every believer?  No.  He hearkens back to how the 
Apostles received the Spirit.  These have been demonstrated to be 
outside the norm of New Testament baptism, and the one baptism of 
Ephesians 4 remains immersion in water.

Mr. Olson:
Most NT baptisms are water because they come after justification 
- not for justification. This is the biblical norm. EDLV 
repeatedly confuses justification and sanctification. He takes 
passages that speak of water baptism out of context and violently 
thrusts them upon Holy Spirit baptism passages. Has he never read 
1 Cor 12:13 where the Spirit baptizes all into Christ? Has he 
never understood the temporal sequence of Acts 10? Spirit baptism 
is ALWAYS before water baptism. Spirit baptism is present even 
when water baptism is absent (Adam, Job, Noah, Abraham, the 
paralytic, etc.). This is a terrible violation of basic 
linguistics.


ELDV Mr. Olson does not respond to the actual material provided.  
Great care went into explicitly showing where baptism was 
discussed and the when and how, and the demonstration that there 
is one baptism.  Mr. Olson here affirms what Paul denies.  To Mr. 
Olson, there are two baptisms.  To Paul, there is one baptism.  
Who shall we believe?  Mr. Olson and his theological 
speculations, or the Word of God with its clear message?

Conclusion

It has been my pleasure to affirm the proposition.  I remain 
convinced that the New Testament is very clear about immersion in 
water, and this debate has cemented the fact that the issue is 
less about baptism than the nature of salvation itself.  Mr. 
Olson has advocated a system of interpretation only 500 years 
old, borne out not by sound exegesis but as a reaction to the 
excesses of Roman Catholicism.  The continual message of the New 
Testament regarding the need for the believer to be both 
initially and continually obedient is lost upon those desiring to 
contrast themselves with Roman Catholicism by believing in "no-
work" salvation.

It should be manifest to all that it takes a lot of extrapolation 
from New Testament passages along with a blatant disregard for 
the harmony of God's Word to deny the need of immersion in water 
for salvation.  Its need is so clearly expressed in so many 
places, and to affirm otherwise causes far too much contradiction 
in the Word.  Mr. Olson has not even denied that immersion in 
water was done and that it in fact was normative-- and when we 
see that there is but one baptism, and the constant baptism of 
the Scriptures is that in water, there ought not be any confusion 
in our minds.

The proposition,

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

stands defended and proven.

Ethan R. Longhenry (ELDV)