Longhenry/Olson Debate on Baptism

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

Affirm: Ethan R. Longhenry (ELDV) 
Deny: Lloyd A. Olson (LAO)

JUSTIFICATION. Throughout this debate ELDV has shown frightening 
ignorance of justification. To be used correctly, justification 
must be understood wrt both tenses and voices. With respect to 
tenses, justification is past tense as it relates to historic 
faith, present tense as it relates to overcoming the power of 
sin, and future tense as it relates to reigning with Christ. With 
respect to voices, the active voice shows God's activity while 
the passive voice shows human inactivity.

While faith is active as it accepts God's free gift of eternal 
life through faith in Jesus, in the total picture it is passive 
as it only accepts eternal life without any further human act, 
merit, act or deed. While justification takes an active decision 
to believe in Jesus, ELDV would twist this minimal LOOK of faith 
(John 3) in Jesus into a full fledged system of obedient faith. 
He voices this tragic misunderstanding as he says that the OT 
saints "were required to obey the Law of Moses and to make 
sacrifices to be saved." To this I respond: GOD FORBID! Heb 9:13 
clearly shows that the blood of bulls belongs to sanctification – 
not justification.

Heb 10:4 further denies that any sacrifice could take away sins. 
Since there is but ONE FAITH, OT salvation comes in the exact 
same manner as NT salvation - - by faith in the Jesus (the 
Promised Seed for OT saints). This is Abraham's example of 
justification by faith apart from works or sacrament (Rom 4).

ELDV denies Bible and appeals to his human-centered rhetoric of 
death. His consistent apologetic cleverly redefines faith to 
support his human-centered process of justification and stands in 
austere opposition to biblical teaching. As a result of wrongly 
making justification depend on faithfulness (sanctification), 
ELDV wrongly forces his errant theology upon any sanctification 
verse that suits his fancy and uses it as a so-called proof of 
his process justification by faithful obedience.

As justification does not mix with sanctification, so also grace 
does not mix with works (Rom 11:6). If salvation is by works, 
then it isn't by grace. This contrast of 
justification/sanctification and grace/works is recast in this 
debate via a terminology shift; namely, a Christ-centered system 
does not mix with a human-centered system. If justification 
depends on human activity: (1) faith is voided, (2) God's 
promises are nullified, and (3) the Cross is canceled (Rom 4:14; 
I Cor 1:17c). Sadly, ELDV apparently does not realize that his 
human-centered system denies the very Christ he thinks it 
preaches.

JAMES 2:24 ELDV's abhorrent abuse of the nuances of tenses and 
voices wrt justification shows up vividly in James 2:24. This is 
the only active tense use of justification. Has ELDV never asked 
why this is the only such verse? No! He has never asked the 
question because he unwittingly puts denomination creeds above an 
honest study of God's Word! As a result his apologetic grabs this 
one verse out of context and pits it against the great weight of 
scripture. The Bible must not be pitted against itself.

So, how does one make sense of this solitary active reference to 
justification? What is the harmony that allows all parts of 
scripture to be true? CONTEXT, as always, provides the salient 
feature! The overarching context is a letter written to already 
saved believers. The immediate context shows Abrahams 
justification by faith (Gen 15) some 20 years before the 
demonstration of justification by sanctified obedience (Gen 22). 
This is James' thrust. He wants believers already justified by 
faith before God to vindicate their faith through works before 
others. ELDV will not accept the context of "before God" that 
contrasts with "before others." Justification before God is by 
faith (Rom 5:1). Justification before others is by works of 
obedience. Context shows that the justification of Gen 22 is 
better understood as the vindication of justification through 
sanctification.

ELDV could do nothing throughout this entire debate other than 
reiterate denominational dogma. His only position is that faith 
is combined with works in the various Heb 11 examples. Yes, this 
is true – but not for the reasons ELDV proposes. His explanation 
comes from the confusion of blending sanctification into 
justification as a system of works to which no one could ever 
comply. This is a system of death for all deeds – even our best 
righteous deeds – are filthy rags (Isa 64:6). The biblical 
harmony shows that faith (justification) plus works 
(sanctification) is the overall life picture of the believer. The 
classic refutation of ELDV's blending is Samson. How could a 
suicidal rebel totally rejected by his nation and his God ever be 
in heaven? When did he ever have a chance to repent? He died with 
suicide and murder on his hands. Yet, incredibly, he is in the 
Hall of Faith. Samson demolishes the human-centered self-
righteous system that cries for impossible perfection.

James and Paul are in harmony as long as justification and 
sanctification are properly understood. Paul emphasizes 
justification before God; James justification before others. 
Justification and sanctification must be kept as parallel, yet 
distinct, concepts.

1 Cor 1:30 In this third affirmation, ELDV bewails a supposed 
redefinition of terms. Since his system blends justification and 
sanctification, he has obtusely interpreted the Bible through the 
single filter of the present tense. His refutation of 1 Cor 1:30 
exemplifies this appalling method. He merely notes that 
sanctification comes before justification thereby trying to prove 
a temporal relation where none exists. He clearly shows lack of 
basic Greek knowledge by failing to examine tenses. 1 Cor 1:30 
utilized past tenses with regard to God's activity. So also does 
he misunderstand 1 Cor 6:11 where all verbs are in the past 
tense. These teach EVENT justification and EVENT sanctification.

This blindness to simple Greek tenses and voices – that is also 
infected by the error of process justification – simply cannot 
handle a verse like Heb 10:10. Here, the permanent ongoing result 
of historic sanctification through the body of Jesus Christ is 
"once for all." This special emphasis is the rare perfect tense. 
In addition, sanctification is described as a completed EVENT in 
direct opposition to ELDV's process system. Not only is the EVENT 
historic, it is ongoing!

An important difference occurs in Heb 10:14. Here, the believer 
is perfected forever before God (justification). Not only does 
the author use the perfect tense showing the continuing results 
of this historic EVENT, he further emphasizes this with the 
adverbial modifier "for ever." The second half of this verse 
utilizes present tense sanctification (before others). So even 
while believers are stumbling in sin, they are perfected for 
ever. The parallel yet distinct aspect of justification and 
sanctification allows total biblical harmony. In contrast, ELDV's 
process justification simply cannot stand this historic 
definition of EVENT sanctification.

In contrast to first year use of Greek, ELDV would redefine 
sanctification without regard to tenses. He defines all 
sanctification verses as a process of present human activity 
leading to justification. This tragic theological blindness is 
contrasted by the Bible which shows at least three definitions of 
sanctification: the process of consecration, the process of 
conforming the believer into the image of Christ and the EVENT of 
God's setting aside the believer unto Himself for holy use. It is 
this last definition of which ELDV has shown palpable 
misunderstanding.

At the singular moment of historic saving faith, God both imputes 
Christ's righteousness to the sinner (justification) and sets 
them aside to Himself through adoption (sanctification). EDLV's 
misrepresentation of sanctification is a direct result of his 
confusion over justification. While justification and 
sanctification are inseparably related, they are yet distinct and 
must not be confused. Evidently, he has never done a simple 
lexical study of the word sanctification. He routinely fails to 
distinguish between the tenses or the voices (activity) in any 
passage. Instead of sound foundational Bible work, he relies on 
denominational indoctrination.

MATTHEW 28:18-20. This is the first branch of ELDV's linguistics 
violation of "remission of sins" where he takes the Acts 2:38 
contextual definition and forces it upon every other biblical 
context. In this passage ELDV has attempted to substantiate his 
violation of linguistics by appealing to the grammatical 
possibility that participles can relate to the main verb as a 
means, manner or result. He willfully denies that context 
dictates the right relationship. His theological dependence on 
water baptism forces him to interpret this relationship between 
verb and participle as "a means."

When presented with biblical evidences showing a large (Noah) or 
total (OT Saints) temporal separation between "making disciples" 
and water baptism, ELDV dismissed the wealth of biblical evidence 
as a "theological extrapolation." Where the Bible makes water 
baptism the RESULT of justification, he confuses the issue by 
insisting that "teaching" is now the means of justification.

The real sense of teaching and baptizing is that they come after 
justification as acts of sanctification – just like sacrifices in 
the Mosaic Law. Dependence on obedience brought death; faith in 
the Promised Seed (Jesus) brought eternal life.

His last denial could do nothing more than offer up another 
aspect of sanctification as proof of water baptism justification. 
Scripture cogently shows that the correct understanding of the 
Great Commission is that water baptism is the RESULT of already 
existing saving faith.

COL 2: WITHOUT HANDS This the second branch derived from the 
discussion of "remission of sins." In his second affirmative, 
ELDV tried to defend baptism as a type of saving circumcision. In 
contrast, Romans 4 presents Abraham as example of justification 
without circumcision.  In Rom 2:25-31, Paul shows that the real 
saving circumcision is of the heart. Anything seen is temporal (2 
Cor 4:18) while the unseen is eternal. Water baptism is temporal 
and does not save. Spirit baptism is eternal and immerses one 
into Christ (1 Cor 12:13). There is but ONE BAPTISM – the 
Spirit's! Water baptism is merely a rite of sanctification done 
after the Spirit's saving baptism as shown so clearly in 
Cornelius (Acts 10). ELDV appealed to a teaching that was soundly 
repudiated by the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) and Paul in Romans 
and Galatians. 

In his third affirmation, ELDV could only hide behind the appeal 
of baptism as a metaphor. It isn't literally circumcision but has 
the same functions. Sadly, this is but a restatement of his 
earlier arguments that was soundly refuted by showing that no one 
was ever saved by circumcision. Abraham is the fitting example 
for all that justification is by faith apart from circumcision, 
works or sacraments.

ELDV violates his own rules of metaphors when he acknowledges 
that the context of Col 2:11 is the spiritual circumcision of 
Christ, yet he thrusts this eternal image of Christ's 
circumcision and God's operation upon physical, human, water 
baptism. This is also seen in his interpretation of Rom 6:3-7. 
There is no support for his errant assumption beyond 
denominational rhetoric. All OT saints and Abraham in particular 
are examples of immersion into Christ without water baptism. It 
is hard to proceed beyond such exact imagery except by a human-
centered urge for self-righteousness.

ACTS 2:38: ISRAEL This is the third branch derived from the 
discussion of "remission of sins." ELDV openly denies all 
relevant biblical contexts of this passage.

Surrounding context begins in Acts 1:6 where the disciples want 
to know if Jesus will "restore" (apokatistanw) Israel's kingdom. 
Jesus did NOT rebuke them! They were right – except for the 
element of time. Likewise, in Acts 3:19-21, Peter preaches 
repentance regarding the "times of refreshing" and the "times of 
restitution of all things." Here, we see the noun form 
(apokatastasis) of the verb used in 1:6. ELDV dismissed this 
unmistakable parallel language since I had used a journal 
reference. This is hypocrisy for ELDV used a secular reference to 
a Greek manual in his affirmation. The journal reference 
documented the parallel between Acts 3 and Deut 30. The parallel 
between 1:6 and 3:19-21 and the reference to Deut 30 stands even 
without a journal reference.

The immediate context is Peter's sermon to national Israelites 
who have crucified their Messiah. Peter quotes from several OT 
passages. Joel 2:28-32 is a reference to Jesus' return to rescue 
national Israel in the "day of the Lord." Psalm 16:8-11 is a 
reference to Jesus not being left in corruption. Psalm 110 shows 
that the exalted Lord will rule from Zion and make His enemies 
His footstool. This same LORD will come to bring judgment on that 
UNTOWARD GENERATION. Everything of Peter's message refers to 
national Israel – judgment, salvation and blessings. ELDV denies 
these clear OT implications for national Israel and redefines 
them as a universal principle.

In the far context, Peter links Israel's national repentance to 
their Messiah (Acts 5:28-31). Stephen equates Israel's national 
deliverance via Jesus to Moses' leadership (Acts 7:37). Peter 
links the message of Jesus to Israel in his message to Cornelius 
(Acts 10:36). Jesus is linked with the baptism of repentance to 
all the people of Israel (Acts 13:23-25). James prays for the 
restoration of Israel and David's earthly tabernacle (Acts 15:16-
17; cf Amos 9:11-15). Paul preaches Israel's restoration (Rom 9-
11). This is serious biblical support for the restoration of 
national Israel. Yet ELDV makes a cavalier dismissal of God's 
Word because his theology "knows" that Israel will not be 
restored. He thus closes his eyes and ears to contextual truths 
and embraces the error of humanism.

ELDV responses have denied God's Word because he "knows" that 
God's covenant with Jerusalem ended in 70 CE (Heb 8:13). However, 
the very passage he quotes for support shows that the old 
covenant has NOT died. It says that the Mosaic covenant is old 
and ready to vanish away. ELDV has twisted scripture to force it 
to conform to his wayward theology. God's Word exhorts us to 
establish (Rom 3:31) the good, holy and perfect law (Rom 7:12) 
because it can be rightly used (1 Tim 1:8) to provide spiritual 
guidance. 

ELDV would deny the eternality of God's covenants (Gen 9:16; 15 
other such references in scripture) in order to make scripture 
support his denominational error. Immediate context, near 
context, and far contexts all give unparalleled and dramatic 
support for the restoration of national Israel.

ACTS 10: CORNELIUS ELDV has failed to respond to the clear 
temporal relationship taught in this passage. Spirit baptism by 
faith in Jesus' name (10:43) occurred before Peter's move for 
water baptism (10:47). His second affirmation failed to address 
the sequence by asking for documentation of "the necessity of 
salvation because of the presence of the Spirit." Yet, when 
presented with a dozen scriptural evidences in my second denial, 
his final response was a languid dismissal as my attempt to "get 
around the question." Yet, he provided no "teaching" of the 
correct meaning of the sequence. Instead, he again asks why they 
needed to be baptized "if they were already saved?"

Clearly, the debate has done ELDV no good. He has once again 
forced his blind-to-context Acts 2:38 definition of remission of 
sins for national Israel upon every other context. He overlooks 
that Cornelius is not an Israelite. Therefore, Peter does not 
urge baptism for national repentance upon this Gentile. This 
Gentile/Israelite dimension helps us understand why Paul (an 
Hebrew) was water baptized AFTER he was commissioned as an 
apostle to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17-18). Water baptism has 
nothing to do with personal salvation; everything to do with 
Israel's restoration.

In his third affirmation, he again appeals to the invalidated 
"means" argument. Water baptism is the means in which the Spirit 
immerses one into Christ. This was shown faulty in the discussion 
of the Great Commission. OT saints were never baptized 
whatsoever. Yet, they were saved. Since there is but ONE FAITH, 
and since Abraham was the example of faith for all, water baptism 
is not part of the saving gospel message of faith in Jesus. 
ELDV's appeal to means is denied by the sequence of events. He 
needs to have water come first as a means for Spirit baptism. But 
Acts 10 clearly shows the opposite thus annihilating any such 
foolishness.

Other than an easily dismissed appeal to "means," ELDV has done 
nothing to show how the temporal sequence does not bulldoze his 
position.

REMISSION OF SINS All branches of discussion relating to the 
remission of sins demonstrate that one must not grab any one 
contextual definition and force it upon another context. ELDV's 
theology would use the ACTS 2:38 definition of "remission of 
sins" in context of national Israel and violently force it upon 
every other context. He unwittingly would make everyone become an 
Israelite before AD 70 in order to get saved. Hence, from every 
aspect of investigation, his system leads to death. We must 
rightly divide God's Word and not violate basic rules of 
linguistics in the process.

ACTS 8:34-37 PHILIP's GRILLING Philip would not let the Eunuch 
get water baptized until a confirmation of faith in Jesus Christ. 
I showed that baptism has no part in Paul's gospel presentation 
anywhere and has a specific denial of such in 1 Cor. ELDV first 
tried to resolve this by suggesting that the denial was 
associated with the message-messenger problem. But Paul handled 
this a second time in 1 Cor 4 without any such denial. ELDV then 
tried to defuse this simple truth by asking, "Why did Paul 
baptize anyone?" But this last question only further demonstrates 
his stumbling over the distinction between justification and 
sanctification. Baptism has no part of justification by faith in 
Jesus Christ. Paul declared that one is saved by believing (1 Cor 
1:21) and that he wanted to know nothing except Christ and Him 
crucified (1 Cor 2:2).

ELDV has done nothing to overturn the fact that Philip was 
looking for existing faith. Only when the gospel message 
converted the Eunuch did Philip water baptize him as a sign of 
one's already existing faith and as a sign of one's new life in 
Christ. There is but one baptism: the Spirit's. ELDV's human-
centered system would replace the Spirit's baptism with water 
baptism.

1 PETER 3: NOAH ELDV does not like the fact that the whole Flood 
Saga occurred after Noah was found just and perfect (Gen 6:8-9) 
and righteous (Gen 7:1). He cries that it is not fair to impose 
the entire context where it is not merited and dismisses the 
clear teaching of context as "theological extrapolations." 

The Bible teaches that ALL of Noah's saga happens AFTER 
justification. This isn't a question of interpretation. The Flood 
had nothing to do with Noah's justification. 

The saga through the flood waters demonstrated the severing of 
ALREADY SAVED Noah's ties to the old world of corruption and 
judgment as it ushered him into the new world of life. When Noah 
disembarked from the Ark, he built an altar to God as an appeal 
of a cleansed conscience to live the new life under God's control 
and direction. Likewise, water baptism is to be used as an AFTER 
justification appeal to God based upon an ALREADY saved 
conscience.

As . . Noah built an altar to God (Gen 8:20) . . . . as an appeal 
of an ALREADY saved conscience . . . . . . to live for God in the 
new world.

So also . . believers go through water baptism . . . . as an 
appeal of an ALREADY saved conscience . . . . . . to live for God 
in the new life.

The parallels can not be clearer. It is verified by 1 Peter 3:21 
where Peter himself says that water baptism is "the answer of a 
good conscience toward God." Water baptism does not make the good 
conscience.

This clear parallel can only be denied by a human-centered 
insistence upon self-righteousness. ELDV's cavalier dismissal has 
only highlighted the inability of human-centeredness to depend 
fully upon Christ. His refutation is merely: "Mr. Olson's 
arguments have no merit." With no scriptural references it is his 
arguments that are deemed worthless. 1 Peter 3 must be understood 
against its OT context. To deny this is the equivalent of taking 
a knife to God's Word – something ELDV has done frequently.

JOHN 3:5 ELDV originally used John 3:5 to deny my assertion that 
John 3:15-18 severed the link between faith and water baptism. 
His third affirmation drew the parallels between John 3:3 and 
John 3:5. However, he ignored that the Greek word for the English 
"again" is anwthen (from above). His human-centered theology 
desperately wants this to mean born from below through water 
baptism. So he ignores Jesus teaching of verse 6 where physical 
birth in contrasted with spiritual birth. The new birth is from 
above and is opposite to physical birth. ELDV redefines 
everything to fit his theology.

Jesus followed up this teaching with His illustration of the new 
birth being like the wind – unseen and eternal. This is just like 
the 2 Cor 4:18 reference that ELDV says is irrelevant. 

Jesus' third illustration was the Israelites LOOK to the brazen 
serpent. ELDV responds that "they still had to look." This is 
true but does not change the emphasis that the LOOK was not 
accompanied by any work of faith. The LOOK was not accompanied by 
sacrifices or sacraments. Jesus extrapolated that simple LOOK of 
faith to "whosoever believeth." Believing is an internal event of 
looking to Jesus without any external act or sacrament. ELDV's 
third affirmation does nothing more than emphasize the lack of 
sacrament associated with this LOOK of faith.

All ELDV could do is retort that I have imposed my meaning upon 
the text. What is there to impose? All three illustrations say 
the same thing. The new birth is from above (not physical), 
unseen (hence eternal), and happens by a LOOK of faith. This is 
what ELDV called "a rather poor form of exegesis." Context must 
be the basis of theology; not theology being the basis of 
interpretation.

ROMANS 6:3-7 Context dictates several items that deny ELDV's 
human-centered water baptism. The most obvious is that the word 
"water" is not used anywhere in the chapter or the entire book. 
Yet ELDV says this is theological speculation and he accuses me 
of redirecting to context! Amazing! Context must form the basis 
of exegesis – not one's presuppositions. 

Context shows that justification is not by human-obedience. All 
who try this method will be condemned (Rom 3:19). ELDV would make 
human- obedience the basis of his system of death. 

Context also shows that Christ's righteousness is the only basis 
for justification (Rom 3:25-31). ELDV would make human obedience 
an addition to faith and deny the sufficiency of Christ's 
righteousness.

Context also shows that justification comes by faith apart from 
sacraments or works (Abraham in Rom 4). ELDV would make 
justification depend on faithful obedience and the sacrament of 
water baptism.

Context shows that justification is by faith (Rom 5:1). ELDV 
would add water baptism.

Context does not use the word "water." ELDV insists that water is 
there.

Which side uses Bible? Which side forces theology upon the 
context?

MARK 16:16 DUBIOUS FOUNDATION The only manuscript evidence for 
this verse comes from a Greek manuscript date to the third 
century. I noted that all Greek manuscripts before the third 
century do not have the spurious ending. It is lacking from the 
Old Latin Codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Sysriac, about 100 
Armenian MSS, and the two oldest Georgian MSS. ELDV dodges behind 
a side show of 100%. He defends this only by saying I've 
overstated my case. He appeals to the various pieces of papyri 
evidence which also do not have this passage. He says that while 
they do not have such an ending, this is proof not 100% of the 
documents have the errant passage. What kind of convoluted logic 
is that? This is a pure fanciful pipe dream on his part. We must 
speak only where we have evidence. The evidence dictates that 
100% of all manuscripts to include the pieces of papyri before 
the third century do no have the spurious passage. If they don't 
have it, they don't have it! Yet ELDV wishes to make this one of 
the main pillars of his theology. 

But even when it is used, the spurious passage is abused by the 
negative fallacy error. Even Mark 16:16b shows that the denial of 
faith by itself 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. ELDV's argument here was so thoroughly 
demolished by my second denial that he did not address it 
whatsoever in his third affirmation.

Hence, by lack of any response, Mark 16:16 is a spurious passage 
without manuscript support. It also fails to support ELDV's 
proposition through the abuse of the negative fallacy error. Mark 
16:16 does not support his unbiblical proposition.

CONCLUSION. Every one of EDLV's so-called proofs has been shown, 
reshown and shown again to be built upon a human-centered, self-
righteous philosophy. The worst aspect of this is that he 
unwittingly denies the Christ he claims to worship.

Either the cross is sufficient or it is not. When ELDV adds the 
fickle feeble foibles of human obedience to the Cross, he 
invalidates faith, nullifies God's promises, and cancels the 
Cross (Rom 4:14; I Cor 1:17c). His water-baptism-saves 
proposition was first exposed and discredited, then refuted and 
invalidated, and is now again disproven and deposed. This Christ-
denying human-centered self-righteous proposition must be 
rejected today with the same vigor that the Reformers rejected 
this same system in the sixteenth century.

Outside of Jesus, there is no other way given under heaven among 
men whereby we must be saved (Acts 4:12). LAO