Longhenry/Olson Debate on Baptism

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Scriptures DO NOT teach that immersion in water for the remission of sin is necessary for salvation.
Affirm: Lloyd A. Olson (LAO)
Deny: Ethan R. Longhenry (ELDV)

I. JUSTIFICATION First, ELDV thinks that the raw biblical data 
presented was loaded by "the theological speculations of 
reformists." This is ludicrous! The data came straight from the 
biblical Greek. Furthermore, with the many powerful internet 
tools available, anyone can duplicate my lexical analysis without 
formal Greek training. How does a Bible preacher not fathom 
biblical Greek? Since the Bible refutes ELDV's system, he must do 
something to avoid a face to face encounter with the truth. So he 
cries "speculations of reformists." This is not a refutation of 
anything.

Second, ELDV incredulously thinks notation of tense is "a massive 
fallacy." I call this simple observation the basics of sound 
Bible investigation. ELDV further quips, "I have yet to see good 
evidence to see a difference in meaning between tenses." Every 
young child or first year student of any language knows the 
difference between "was saved" and "will be saved." ELDV's 
failure in biblical languages is frightening. His refusal to 
examine easy verifiable basics is incomprehensible. How can one 
have a genuine exchange with an ostrich?

Third, ELDV appeals to 1 John 1:9 as a so-called "rebuttal" of 
the distinctions between justification and sanctification. Does 
he not realize his own proof dictates that it is God Who is just? 
Would ELDV redefine God's activity as human activity? This also 
shows his utter antipathy towards CONTEXT. Likewise, he fails to 
see that the word "unrighteousness" is predicated upon 
"cleansing." Everything in his proof refutes his proof! Thus, 
after denying a detailed lexical analysis, ELDV yet clings to a 
mιlange of justification and sanctification in spite of the 
biblical evidences to justification as an EVENT. To support his 
error, ELDV has glibly redefined a sanctification verse as proof 
of justification and made humans to be God. Sacrilege!

Fourth, ELDV makes an unverifiable declaration that Paul speaks 
of being justified ("made righteous") in Christ in present, 
continual, progressive terms. This is an incomprehensible 
invention and monumental misrepresentation! There is NO SUCH 
PRESENT TENSE ACTIVE VOICE verse in the Bible. In fact, the raw 
biblical data explicitly denies human activity in justification 
(Luke 16:15) and emphatically declares that God alone is active 
in justification (Rom 3:26, 8:33; Gal 3:8). ELDV repeatedly 
confuses faith with justification and retreats to human-centered 
philosophy rather than embracing the truths of God's Word. 
Biblical faith is the instrument that appropriates God's active 
declaration of righteousness (Gen 15:6; Rom 4:3,5,9; Gal 3:6) – 
not the measure of faith by which we please God.

Fifth, ELDV has not learned from the first round the context for 
James. My second denial of his proposition gave irrefutable 
evidence that James 2:23-24 shows the believer's total life 
picture. Justification by the LOOK of faith is the new birth 
BEFORE GOD; 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 already justified believers to 
verify their justification BEFORE OTHERS. These two must not be 
confused. ELDV's error forces the sanctification part of 
Abraham's life to be a requirement for justification.

Sixth, ELDV confuses the human decision for Christ as the 
activity of obedient faith. Jesus used the murmuring Israelites 
as the example of saving faith as they only had to LOOK to the 
serpent in faith: no baptism, no circumcision, no sacrifices, 
nothing else! ELDV falls prey to a play on words between the LOOK 
of faith in justification and the activity of obedient faith in 
sanctification. Jesus Himself said that the only obedience 
required was faith in Him (John 6:29).

In truth, ELDV's lucubrations are a better description of his 
repeated avoidance of the truth, abuse of context, redefinition 
of words to suit his own theology and interminable confusion over 
justification. His first denial verifies these abject failures 
from start to end.

SANCTIFICATION On sanctification, ELDV has totally misrepresented 
my position. He has the audacity to suggest that my thesis denies 
human activity in the process of being made righteous. My first 
affirmative clearly stated "Believers are only active in PROCESS 
purification." Purposeful misrepresentation of an opponent's view 
is a reprehensible and unscholarly tactic. But this is only to be 
expected when one displays tedious confusion of justification and 
sanctification. 

Let's now look at ELDV's whimsical blather concerning John 6:29. 
He wants to show that "faith" in Greek is the basis for human 
activity in becoming righteous. Not only is this not supported in 
any verse for justification, his clumsy appeal actually 
demolishes his own argument. CONTEXT shows that the crowds asked 
Jesus a human-centered self-righteous question on what they might 
do to do the works of God (v28). Jesus provided the Christ-
centered response: believe on Him. Thank you, Ethan, for your 
unwitting support of faith alone! I cannot prevent your blindness 
to the easy contrast.

Finally, ELDV again unwittingly supports my position that 
justification and sanctification are intertwined and cannot be so 
easily separated. I never said that they were separate. I said 
that "justification is parallel with, yet distinct from 
sanctification." ELDV is so eager for self-righteousness that he 
cannot see that being made holy (1 Peter 1:16) is a vital aspect 
of sanctification. I don't deny water baptism – I hold that it is 
the act of consecration to God for spiritual service – just like 
Noah's altar was an appeal of an ALREADY CLEANSED conscience to 
God to live for Him in the new world (1 Pet 3:21).

COL 2 I defined water baptism as consecration that occurs AFTER 
the Spirit's baptism WITHOUT HUMAN HANDS (1 Cor 12:13, Col 2:11-
12). ELDV thinks he refutes this with the following befuddled 
demands: a. show how the Spirit's baptism occurred in every 
instance baptism is mentioned in the New Testament; b. 
demonstrate why the Greek preposition "en" in 1 Corinthians 12:13 
should be translated "by," and not "in"; c. demonstrate how Paul 
can speak of there being but one baptism yet Mr. Olson speaks of 
two (cf. Ephesians 4:5); d. demonstrate how Spirit baptism is the 
primary baptism despite all evidence pointing to water baptism; 
and e. why he [LAO] transgresses proper understanding of source 
and target domains of metaphors in Colossians 2.

However, (a) is flawed in that there are obvious places where 
water baptism is mentioned. ELDV errantly wants to force every 
occurrence of baptism to mean water baptism. This is obfuscation! 
He cannot refute the plain sense teaching that Col 2 refers to 
the spiritual realm: Christ's circumcision, God's operation, 
WITHOUT HUMAN HANDS. There are two baptisms: the Spirit's baptism 
is eternal, unseen and done without hands; water baptism is 
temporal, visible and requires hands. Thus, for justification, 
there is only ONE BAPTISM; for sanctification there is only ONE 
BAPTISM. ELDV displays continuous disorientation regarding 
justification and sanctification.

Likewise, (b) is fickle. If "by" is used for the "en," how can 
one be baptized "by" one body? What a laugher! If his rendition 
is true, one should hope to be baptized "by" a very tiny body. If 
one is ever baptized by a "big" body it might be fatal. ELDV's 
logic is absurd and has no bearing on the issue! It is a silly 
irrelevant sideshow. 

In the same way, (c) is futile. ELDV himself speaks of two 
baptisms. How can he criticize this? What we must note is that 
one of the two is spiritual, eternal, saving; the other is 
physical, temporal, symbolic (2 Cor 4:18). ELDV consistently and 
inappropriately uses an "either/or" hermeneutic. Correct division 
of God's Word has many crucial "both/and" concepts – such as the 
Trinity. Spirit baptism is the ONE SAVING BAPTISM. Water is 
merely a symbol of an already saved conscience – just like Noah's 
altar was an appeal of an already saved conscience to live for 
God in the new world. 

Similarly, (d) was disproved in my second denial where I 
presented fifteen evidences on the primacy of the Spirit's 
baptism. Did he not read them? Rather than make a mindless 
request, he needs to go to already established material and do 
some digging there. To add an exclamation, all one has to do is 
show Abraham's example for saints of either testament. Abraham's 
faith justifies without water or sacrament. Spirit baptism is 
primary; water baptism is optional!

In request (e), ELDV shows fondness for using source and target 
in metaphors. Merely speaking the charge that he has heard from 
someone else is not a valid proof. He has failed to demonstrate 
the incongruity. Until he can document which of the metaphor 
patterns is involved, his remark is nothing but a noisy cymbal. 
Until he can provide details of violated source and target, his 
remark is an empty cloud to a parched land.

Nothing ELDV has presented has refuted that water baptism is an 
act of consecration done after the Spirit's baptism WITHOUT 
HANDS. To refute my definition of sanctification ELDV needs to 
show verses where water baptism leads directly to justification. 
He has failed to accomplish this to date.

A. ETERNAL VS TEMPORAL Things seen are temporal; things unseen 
are eternal (2 Cor 4:18). Since water baptism is visible, it is 
temporal and not associated with eternal life.

ELDV goes to inappropriate extremes here as well. I never said 
that EVERYTHING visible was not associated with eternal life. I 
specifically drew the comparison to the differences between water 
and Spirit baptism. Since there is but ONE BAPTISM, we need a 
biblical discriminator. This shows that one baptism leads to 
eternal life (Spirit baptism) and one leads to rewards of 
obedience (water baptism). ELDV has nothing valid upon which to 
hang his rebuttal and so takes the argument to ludicrous extremes.

B1. DEPRAVITY ELDV remarks: If man cannot turn to God, why would 
Christ say, "Come unto me?" (Matt 11:28-30). He also appeals to 
Cornelius as a devout person.

ELDV misses the point - badly! We all can turn to God. We all 
need to be devout. His rebut is a total misunderstanding of 
depravity. This has nothing to do with water baptism salvation 
one way or the other. His empty proof does not refute the 
condemnation inherent in depravity. Depravity shows that self-
righteousness leads to death. God's wooing through Christ is the 
only WAY to eternal life. Sinners can turn to God through faith 
in Christ – alone! 

ELDV continues to misfire with Cornelius. His devoutness did not 
save him. His devoutness was part of the preliminary step leading 
to justification by faith alone in Christ alone. Devoutness is a 
good thing. But if one brings their devoutness to God as the 
basis for eternal life, they will receive only condemnation.

ELDV's arguments disintegrate. No self-righteous appeal to God 
will avail in eternal life. Jesus – not water baptism – is the 
WAY, the TRUTH and ETERNAL LIFE (John 14:6; 1 John 5:20). Water 
baptism righteousness is a sordid affront to Jesus' 
righteousness.

B2. CHRIST's RIGHTEOUSNESS ELDV tries to redefine the Romans 1:5 
"obedience to the faith" as justification. However, this is yet 
another confusion of sanctified obedience that is twisted into a 
tragic misrepresentation of justification. ELDV ridicules and 
ignores the lexical building blocks so desperately needed for 
studying God's Word.

He claims, "One must actively engage in faith." This is a 
terrible half truth – hence not profitable for anything. Active 
faith is required for human activity in purification. The LOOK of 
faith is required for passive justification by God's active 
declaration of righteousness. EDLV has it backwards – as always! 
Obedience is good – but only for sanctification. Anything else 
needs a denominational twist. Jesus said that the only obedience 
required for eternal life was to BELIEVE IN HIM (John 6:29).

In the example of Philip and the eunuch in Acts 8:34-39, ELDV was 
unable to demonstrate that immersion in water was required for 
justification. He could only bring the feeble remark that baptism 
in a desert is not a public place. Did ELDV not read that the 
Eunuch was a man of "great authority under Candace queen of the 
Ethiopians" (Acts 8:27)? Does ELDV think this leader made the 
trip alone? A man of this stature had a large entourage. His 
public baptism was all the more heightened by his prominent 
position. In addition, Paul resolutely denied the inclusion of 
water baptism in the gospel message (1 Cor 1:14,17). Scripture 
and common sense once again crush ELDV's non-existent argument.

B3. INSTRUMENTAL FAITH ELDV tries to redefine the faith required 
for justification as obedient faith. This is a very clever twist 
that is not supported by scripture. He asks, "what is faith?" 
Then, he denies that is a mere intellectual assent. Has he not 
read Heb 11 which says that faith is the substance of things hope 
for (11:1)? Faith is our understanding (11:3) not our works of 
faith. Faith must believe God (11:6).

ELDV beats the same worn out drum. He fails to note that 
sanctification comes AFTER justification. That the Bible urges 
obedient faith is NOT a proof that active faithful obedience is 
required for justification. The lexical analysis of justification 
has conclusively shown that justification is God's domain alone. 
Humans are only passively involved. Faith is the instrument that 
appropriates God's imputed righteousness. ELDV would twist this 
instrument of faith into a self-righteous system of works. In 
this, he is no different than the OT Pharisees who sought to 
justify themselves before God.

ELDV has failed to show one biblical example of someone saved by 
human activity. He can't for there is not one such verse that he 
can use. He must appeal to denominational rhetoric.

B4. OT SAINTS ELDV would refute Paul's clear example of Abraham 
by yet another faulty appeal to James that is easily refuted time 
after time by context.  See above in the discussion of the 
definition of "justification."

This time ELDV tries a new tactic. He points to Abraham's faith 
before Gen 15:6. However, like the Calvinist error, ELDV fails to 
note the distinction between God's sovereign election of Abraham 
as the father of a future nation and Abraham's personal 
justification. Abraham's obedience in Gen 12 did not justify him. 
His justification is not recorded until Gen 15:6. ELDV would like 
to rewrite God's Word to fit his errant presuppositions. Even 
Paul, in Rom 4, eschews Gen 12 and focuses strictly and solely 
upon Abraham's Gen 15 justification by faith alone.

Abraham was justified BEFORE GOD by his faith – alone. He 
vindicated his faith BEFORE OTHERS by his faithful obedience. 
ELDV is oblivious to this dramatic difference. 

B5. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ELDV hasn't denied that we are made 
righteous by faith! However, he holds that the nature of faith 
requires obedience and faith without any form of obedience is 
untenable. Since the faith we need is an obedient faith, he holds 
that it must conform to the message given -- and that message 
includes being immersed in water for the remission of sin.

I would have agreed except for ELDV's last clause. My premise is 
that salvation comprises justification in parallel with, yet 
distinct from sanctification. Here, ELDV fails to distinguish

the simple LOOK of faith to Jesus sufficient for justification 
and eternal life (John 3) - - from - - the obedience of 
sanctified faith that leads to rewards.

There is no place in scripture that conditions personal saving 
remission of sins upon water baptism. ELDV tried Acts 2:38 in the 
first half of the debate but was soundly reprimanded for violent 
abuse of CONTEXTS. All three contexts revolve solely around 
national Israel. It would make an easy debate to see ELDV 
continue that deviant tact.

Rom 5:1 shows that justification is by faith. Nothing else is 
given here or any other place that links either saving faith or 
justification to water baptism. ELDV has failed to provide one 
such example and has failed to provide a valid response.

B6. SPIRIT BAPTISM ELDV claims that it is valid to interpret the 
baptism in Romans 6 as "water baptism" since the word "Spirit" 
isn't used anywhere. He challenges me to provide places where 
Spirit baptism is called being baptized "into Christ." Has he not 
seen the 15 references that I provided in my second denial of his 
proposition? (See the definition of sanctification where he asks 
the same question). It is clear that ELDV is not reading the 
refutation and naively proceeds with his demolished errant 
presuppositions.

Since ELDV claims to have verified that baptism is water in his 
second affirmative of the previous proposition, it is necessary 
to revisit his "so-called proof."

From the first proposition: ELDV's 2nd Affirm: 
LAO has not provided Scripture documenting the necessity of 
salvation because of the presence of the Spirit. Does Peter say 
that Cornelius and his men were "saved" in the same way as they? 
Acts 11:15-17. The Spirit's presence was to show Peter that the 
Gentiles were to receive the Gospel. Peter was to baptize them 
for the remission of sins.

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.

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.

It is clear that ELDV doesn't learn from these exchanges.

B7. SANCTIFICATION ELDV claims that I've changed my definitions. 
He bewails: 
"Justification and sanctification are both dependent on obedient 
faith. If the faith is not obedient, there is no justification 
nor sanctification."

In doing this he parrots his Catholic process justification 
theology and exposes his lack of understanding biblical 
justification. He yet again fails to distinguish the simple LOOK 
of faith to Jesus sufficient for justification and eternal life 
(John 3) from the obedience of sanctified faith that leads to 
rewards.

ELDV's obtuse foray has not challenged the proposition. He's done 
just the opposite. His one-sided zeal for obedient faith has 
verified that works are part of sanctification. He has failed to 
deliver one verse that shows water baptism should be in 
justification. The lexical analysis of 40 occurrences of 
justification fails to mention water baptism – even once! Yet 
despite a total lack of evidence, ELDV wishes to deny Christ's 
righteousness and build a Christ-denying system of death on the 
dross of human abilities.

C. A SECOND HUMAN ELDV attempts to show how water baptism depends 
on another human's faithfulness by appealing to Rom 10:14-17. 
Note that since this text does not discuss water baptism, ELDV – 
lacking anything of substance – tries to cover this weakness by 
redefining the need for preaching the gospel message to be 
included in the need for water baptism. While the text mentions 
the preparatory steps of going, preaching and hearing, where is 
water baptism? ELDV proposal is yet another wistful theological fabrication.

His pattern is predictable. In another fit of extremism, ELDV 
twists the common sense reading of a text (any text) into an 
unholy support of his Christ-denying system. He shows gleeful 
disdain of God's Word at every turn. Note how he conflicts with 
Paul's adamant denial of the inclusion of water baptism in the 
gospel message (1 Cor 1:14,17). The fallacy of his nonexistent 
argument is readily apparent.

D. JESUS' BAPTISM. ELDV denies the clear pattern of Jesus' 
baptism by throwing up the smoke screen: 
"Mr. Olson will need to Biblically prove the logical syllogism 
that he has made." Where does the Bible ever say that baptism is "not for salvation" or "to declare God's power?"

The scriptures are replete with documentation of justification by 
faith in Jesus without once adding works, sacraments, or faithful 
endurance. The absence of verses for water baptism is not an 
argument from silence; instead, it is a purposeful omission of 
water. Water is irrelevant. ELDV must do more than an appeal to 
an argument from silence. Where is a refutation of the clear 
pattern? Where is a verse that says water baptism is required for 
justification? He has none and can only throw up irrelevant 
questions.

ELDV disavows the biblical pattern by claiming the Eunuch's 
baptism was "in obscure water pools in the desert (Acts 8:26-39), 
not exactly a public place." What nonsense! The Eunuch was a man 
of "great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians" (Acts 
8:27). Does ELDV think this leader made the trip alone? A man of 
this stature had a large entourage. The import of his public 
baptism in an obscure desert pool was all the more heightened by 
his prominent position.

Peter used Noah's baptism to teach this very pattern. When Noah 
disembarked from the Ark, he built an altar to God as an appeal 
of a cleansed conscience to live for God in the new world. 
Baptism is an act of consecration per the definition of 
sanctification given.

E. JESUS' REQUIREMENT I showed how the self-centered crowds asked 
Jesus what they could do to be saved (John 6:28). Jesus converted 
their self-centered question into a Christ-centered response: 
believe in Him (6:29). Water baptism is purposefully omitted.

ELDV would deny this obvious contrast with an appeal to Col 2:14-
17. Does he not know this text does not mention water baptism? 
Not only does this appeal fail to support his case, but it in 
fact demolishes his pitiful refutation! CONTEXT shows that this 
baptism comes after being permanently rooted and established in 
the faith (2:7) in which ye also are circumcised with the 
circumcision made without hands (2:11a) by the circumcision of 
Christ (2:11b) by the operation of God (2:13). His willful 
disdain of context is all he can bring to the exchange. Context 
reveals that this baptism happens with justification thereby 
confirming the Christ-centered response. Water baptism is 
purposefully omitted and Col 2 refers to Spirit baptism – the 
only ONE SAVING BAPTISM!

Incredibly, ELDV then appeals to Eph 2:11-18. Here, Paul equates 
unsaving damnation to physical circumcision made by hands (2:11-
13). Jesus' blood is the basis for peace with God (2:13-16). 
Believers have access by one Spirit unto the Father (2:18). I 
love it! ELDV himself provides proof of the necessity of 
salvation because of the presence of the Spirit. Water baptism is 
not mentioned! This is ELDV's pattern. He takes a passage that 
clearly denounces his position and then theologizes it into his 
corner. This is more extreme than absurd.

Secondly, ELDV shows contempt of Jesus' contrast. The crowds 
asked a human-centered question. Jesus responded with a Christ-
centered response: believe in Him. When presented with this 
contrast, ELDV unbelievably sides with the human-centered crowds. 
Recall that Jesus Himself has defined saving faith to be a simple 
LOOK to Him (John 3 and here in John 6:29). ELDV's pattern of 
confusion, self- righteousness and textual redefinition 
continues. 

F. PAUL'S REQUIREMENT While Paul's gospel message resolutely 
denied the inclusion of water baptism (1 Cor 1:14,17), ELDV's 
pallid refutation relies on two questions. First, he asks: Why 
did Paul baptize Crispus, Gaius, and the house of Stephanas (1 
Cor 1:14, 16)? As was shown in the first proposition, while 
baptism is not part of the gospel message of justification by 
faith in Jesus Christ (1:21), it is perfectly fine to baptize for 
consecration as God's vessel for public service – just like Jesus 
– just like Noah. ELDV's question is not a refutation. The 
biblical understanding of sanctification is but a further 
demolition of water baptism salvation.

Second, ELDV asks: Why would Paul order the disciples of John to 
be baptized (Acts 19:1-6)? But this was answered in my first 
denial of the previous proposition. Paul rebaptized because the 
first baptism was John's which was strictly and solely for the 
purpose 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 never mounted a valid 
response to this. One must pay attention to context!

ELDV's view makes Paul a liar. He has brought nothing to show 
that water baptism should be included in the gospel message. Paul 
denied ELDV's anti-gospel by declaring that water baptism has no 
part of justification by faith in Jesus Christ. Paul declared 
that one is saved strictly by believing (1 Cor 1:21). Paul wanted 
to know nothing except Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2). 
Context rules!

G. JOHN'S REQUIREMENT I showed that John wrote an entire Gospel 
for the purpose that his readers might believe in Jesus and have 
eternal life (John 20:31). Water baptism is unequivocally omitted 
throughout his presentation of the gospel.

ELDV tries to resuscitate his macabre view using John 4:1-2 where 
Jesus' disciples baptized. However, this so-called proof is not 
linked with justification and his appeal fails. ELDV next tries 
an appeal to 1 John 2:4-5. But this whole epistle is written to 
ALREADY SAVED believers. The central theme is fellowship with God 
and Jesus (I John 1:3), who is the true God and eternal life (1 
John 5:20), in the joy of God's light (1 John 1:5). John's need 
of obedience is strictly for sanctified cleansing (1 John 1:9). 
ELDV shows unabating confusion of justification and 
sanctification. Justification is in parallel with, yet distinct 
from sanctification. 

H. PETER's REQUIREMENT. Baptism is an appeal of an already 
cleansed conscience to God to live for Him in the new life (1 Pet 
3:19-21). It is the consecration of a justified sinner for holy 
service to God.

In the first proposition, ELDV's redefinitions of types were 
exposed. In context, EVERY aspect of Noah's saga happened after 
he was declared just, perfect and righteous. When Noah 
disembarked from the Ark, he built an altar to consecrate his 
life to God in the new world. This is the picture for water 
baptism. Water baptism is typified in the altar – not the water. 
Any reader can turn to the first proposition to see the details 
from the OT context.

In this proposition, let's examine the NT context. Peter begins 
with his historic recounting of the believer's justification by 
faith (1:9). Immediately after this, he begins a discussion of 
sanctification. Why not? This is the biblical pattern: 
justification by faith; sanctification by faithfulness. Peter 
urges holiness (1:13- 21); love toward one another (1:22-25); 
spiritual sacrifices (2:1- 10); abstinence from fleshly lusts 
(2:11-12); submission to government (2:13-17), in business (2:18-
25), in marriage (3:1-8) and in life (3:9-12); and godly conduct 
in suffering (3:13-17). In 3:18, Peter begins discussing Christ's 
example of suffering that He might bring us to God. Are we now to 
think that Peter switches from sanctification to justification?

Immediately after Noah's example of consecration, Peter draws the 
parallel that as Christ has suffered for us we should have the 
same mind (4:1) to live to the will of God (4:2). His 
exhortations to sanctification continue: be sober (4:7), glory in 
suffering (4:16), humble yourselves (5:5-9) and then concludes 
with a final blessing.

The message of sanctified living is both BEFORE and AFTER Peter's 
appeal to Noah's type. Both the source and the target agree! 
EVERYTHING points to sanctification. ELDV needs to twist both 
contexts into his Christ-denying human-centered system of self- 
righteousness.

CONCLUSION ELDV's refutation has failed in every aspect. He 
failed to use the raw biblical data to understand justification. 
His refutations of event justification by God's activity and 
human passivity were based on monumental lies, a mιlange of 
justification and sanctification, violent abuse of scriptural 
contexts and redefinition of the word "faith." He failed to use 
the raw biblical data to understand the three definitions of 
sanctification: set aside, consecration and purification.

The pattern of the debate is now firmly established. ELDV's 
lucubrations customarily deny Christ, violate context, confuse 
biblical justification and sanctification, and redefine God's 
Word through Catholic rhetoric. When a biblical response is given 
to one verse, he turns to the second verse. When a biblical 
response is given to the second verse, he runs to the third verse 
"ad naseum." Finally, he returns to his patent abuses of the 
first verse apparently oblivious to its historic refutation. When 
one closes their eyes to an honest investigation of God's Word, 
then these circles are commonplace.

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 
of life does not mix with a human- centered system of death. 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).

Water baptism is thus rejected as a temporal, human-centered, 
self- righteous system of death and despair. It unwittingly 
denies Christ, abhorrently supplants the Spirit's ONE BAPTISM and 
imprudently forces salvation to depend on another fickle feeble 
human.

The proposition yet stands for it was never credibly challenged. 
Justification is by God's grace – alone; through instrumental 
faith – alone; in Christ – alone! This must be affirmed today 
with the same vigor that the Reformers affirmed this biblical 
truth in the sixteenth century.

The righteousness of God is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all 
them that believe (Rom 3:22) 

Lloyd