Longhenry/Olson Debate on Baptism
Ethan Longhenry's Second Rebuttal
Proposition:
The Scriptures DO NOT teach that immersion in water for the
remission of sin is necessary for salvation.
Affirm: Lloyd Olson
Deny: Ethan Longhenry
Mr. Olson's second affirmation contained little substance and was
high on ad hominem arguments.
He begins with the following:
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.
ELDV: It was not merely "raw Biblical data" provided, but data
with the interpretation imposed upon them by the Reformists. Mr.
Olson has read much into the Greek term dikaioo, and apparently,
does not desire to own up to it.
He continues:
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: There is no difference in the meaning of "saved" between
those tenses, no? The only difference is the relation of the
event to its occurrence. It was not "notation of tense" that I
found to be fallacious as much as the attempting to make
distinctions in MEANING, as you attempted to do in your first
affirmative, based on only the different tenses of the word! As
is made clear, Mr. Olson cannot actually defend such changes.
Mr. Olson:
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
mélange 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!
ELDV: Mr. Olson avoids the force of the argument used. If
justification were an one-time event, there would be no continual
need for being made righteous; the fact that the Christian must
continually confess the sins he continually commits to
continually receive cleansing and therefore be continually
justified demands that justification must be a "continual event,"
which tends to be seen as a "process."
And no one in this debate is arguing that man can justify
himself. God is the only one who can justify; no one denies
that. On what basis, however, does God determine who is to be
justified and who not? Mr. Olson has not addressed this critical
issue in any of his long discussions of justification.
As it is written,
And Peter opened his mouth and said, "Of a truth I perceive that
God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that
feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him."
Acts 10:34-35 ASV
God is no respecter of persons, and anyone who "fears him" and
"works righteousness" is "acceptable to Him." It is important to
note that Peter said this before any Gentile was converted! God
does not justify people arbitrarily, but justifies those who come
to Him. It is manifest that people, therefore, must have at
least the role of coming to God to get to justification, lest God
be made a liar.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: If the above were true, why would there be a need for
continual cleansing-- a continual need to be made righteous (1
John 1:9)? On what basis does God choose who is to be justified
and who not? That it is God and God alone who justifies no one
doubts, but it is man who must come to God to receive it.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Where in the New Testament do we hear of any need for
"already justified believers to verify their justification before
others"? I fail to see such a necessity. Furthermore, faith
without works is dead-- period. It does not matter when that
faith exists. It must have works, or it is dead. A stillborn
faith is no faith at all! Initial faith in God-- obedient
faith-- engages in those things which lead to one being made
righteous and made holy-- obedience to the Gospel (2
Thessalonians 1:6-9; Acts 2:38, Acts 8:34-39, etc.). None of
this answers to the fact that Abraham had been obeying God for
many a year before being declared righteous in Genesis 15.
Mr. Olson:
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).
ELDV: In John 3, Jesus provides no fewer than three statements in
regard to what is necessary for eternal life: being born again,
being born again of the water and of the Spirit, and looking upon
the lifted up Christ. Mr. Olson has not demonstrated how the
Bible teaches that this last example is exclusively the means to
salvation. In my Bible, the word "only" does not exist in John
3:14-15. That is being imposed upon the text by Mr. Olson.
Looking upon the Lord, calling upon the name of the Lord, and
many other such expressions are all metonymy for the events
surrounding initial salvation. And as Paul said of his own
salvation,
"And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins, calling on his name." Acts 22:16 ASV
No one says that baptism is the only event that leads to
salvation. "Only" the Protestants keep wanting to emphasize one
part or the other and declare it to be "only" what is needed.
Such imposition is foreign to the Scriptures.
When Jesus speaks of men looking to Him to receive justification,
He speaks of the need to engage in those activities that lead to
justification: belief in Him (Acts 16:31), confession of Him
(Matthew 10:32-33), repentance and immersion in water for
remission of sin (Acts 2:38). Such things are the demonstration
of obedient faith, and are acts of obedient faith, not of dead
works. Only when a man engages in such things imposed by God in
the New Testament can he be properly called "justified."
Furthermore, such a person must continually petition for the
forgiveness of the sins that he, no doubt, continually sins (1
John 1:9). Mr. Olson has not answered how this can work in his
system.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Well, let's hold on here. Am I wrong to say that Mr.
Olson's thesis denies human activity in the process of being made
righteous?
After all, "being made righteous" is the basic Greek definition
of "dikaioo," "to be justified." Sanctification, of course, is
"being made holy" (hagioo). In this very affirmative, Mr. Olson
has said: "In fact, the raw biblical data explicitly denies human
activity in justification." If Mr. Olson is using the Biblical
definitions of such words, he is in fact saying that humans have
no activity in being made righteous.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: As it is apparent to all, Mr. Olson does not actually
detract from the substance of the argument: notably, that Christ
calls belief upon Him a work. Everything else brought up by Mr.
Olson does not actually deny such a thing, and furthermore it
demonstrates the fact that engaging in faith is the work of man
without which he cannot be saved.
Mr. Olson:
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).
ELDV: And you have yet to prove that this is what the New
Testament teaches.
We will speak of 1 Peter 3 later.
Mr. Olson:
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!
ELDV: Mr. Olson "errantly wants" to force every occurence of
baptism to mean Spirit baptism. I did not ask for Mr. Olson to
rant about water baptism; I wanted proof that the Spirit's
baptism occurred in every instance that baptism is mentioned in
the New Testament. Mr. Olson has manifestly failed in this.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Paul says that there is one baptism. Mr. Olson says that
there is "one baptism for justification" and "one baptism for
sanctification". I read no such nuance in Ephesians 4:5. I read
that there is one baptism. None of this proves that every time
there is a baptism in the New Testament, the Spirit's baptism
takes place.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Mr. Olson errantly assumes that I believe that the word
should be translated "by", and in so doing, actually proves my
point. 1 Corinthians 12:13 does not teach that the Spirit is the
agent of the baptism, but into that which one is baptized.
Christians are baptized NOT by one Spirit in one body, but
baptized IN one Spirit and IN one body. It is manifest,
therefore, that "Spirit baptism" cannot be the baptism of 1
Corinthians 12:13, but, in truth, is being immersed in water.
All who are baptized (in water) into Christ Jesus are baptized
into one Spirit (the Spirit of truth) and into one Body (the true
Church).
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Peter never speaks of Noah's altar. Peter speaks of how
Noah was preserved by being in a boat when everyone else drowns,
and on the basis of that event-- no other event, that event—
demonstrates how baptism now saves us.
I do not speak of "two baptisms." I relegate the baptism of the
Spirit into its Biblically proper role-- two miraculous events at
the hand of God for His specific purposes. The baptism in water,
seen throughout the New Testament, event for those baptized into
the Spirit, is the one baptism of Ephesians 4:5. Mr. Olson, not
the Bible, has defined water baptism as "physical, temporal, and
symbolic"; we will again revisit his manifest interpretive
problem with 2 Corinthians 4:18. I have no problem with
"both/and" concepts when there is a "both" and an "and" in the
Bible-- Paul has one-- uno-- 1-- baptism.
Mr. Olson:
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!
ELDV: Mr. Olson himself then needs to re-read the second
affirmative of the past debate, since he has yet to demonstrate
where the Spirit baptism is ever removed from the contexts of
Pentecost and Cornelius et al, nor has he demonstrated how it is
the normative baptism of the New Testament, nor has he
demonstrated its purpose beyond the miraculous purposes of God as
demonstrated in both Acts 2 and Acts 10-11 as demonstrated
previously.
Furthermore, Mr. Olson continues to over-extend Paul's use of
Abraham. Paul used the example of Abraham in Romans 4 to
demonstrate that Abraham was justified before the Law, since he
was justified before his circumcision. Paul does not speak to the
situation in the New Testament. Paul only shows that one can be
justified apart from the Law of Moses. Mr. Olson will actually
have to prove, and not merely assume, that one in the New
Testament can follow only the example of Abraham and be saved.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: I think it best to first remind Mr. Olson that he is
"affirming" and I am "denying." When I "deny", I demand proof
from you-- I ask you to provide affirmative evidence. I again
ask you to prove that you can do what you're doing.
in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made
with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the
circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism,
wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working
of God, who raised him from the dead. Colossians 2:11-12 ASV
Assuming the "circumcision of Christ" refers in metaphor to
"baptism", which of course Mr. Olson has not proven, and needs to
prove, and which cannot be proven, Mr. Olson also needs to show
how what is true about the target, "circumcision not made with
hands" must also be true of the source, "baptism."
Here's an easy metaphor: Light is Righteousness. If I say, "let
your light shine clearly," and by light I am referring to
righteousness, does it make sense to say that I, by necessity,
declare that righteousness can literally shine clearly? That's
absurd. Shining clearly is a function of light that cannot be
shared by the abstract concept of righteousness. We understand
intuitively that by talking about "light shining clearly," we
desire the person to demonstrate his righteousness in his deeds
before his fellow man.
It is unsatisfactory, then, to merely assert that what is true of
this circumcision of Christ must also be true of baptism. It
must be proven. So let us see the proof!
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Interesting..."inappropriate extremes?" Let us return to
Mr. Olson's declaration:
Since water baptism is visible, it is temporal and not associated
with eternal life.
I merely pointed out that Christ's death was a visible thing, and
by this same definition, would not be associated with eternal
life. Mr. Olson protests, "I never said that EVERYTHING visible
was not associated with eternal life." Well, in this section,
Mr. Olson's "proof" that water baptism cannot be associated with
eternal life is that it is visible and temporal. Since Mr. Olson
admits that Christ's death was visible and temporal yet was
associated with eternal life, Mr. Olson himself demonstrates that
his proof is insufficient. In order to actually attempt to
resurrect the proof, Mr. Olson turns again to the two baptisms,
without actually demonstrating that anyone was baptized by the
Spirit save the Apostles on Pentecost and Cornelius et al in Acts
10-11, and for any other reason than the ones specified for those
occasions. Mr. Olson's thesis again completely fails.
Mr. Olson:
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: Who has denied the above? Not I. Apparently, Mr. Olson
and I are in agreement that people can voluntarily choose God.
Excellent.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Who declares "water baptism righteousness?" Not I. No one
denies that the author of salvation is Jesus Christ. What is
under dispute is the role of immersion in water in that
salvation. Immersion in water-- by the authority of Christ-- is
the response of obedient faith, the appeal for remission of sin
(Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21). It is God who does the remitting. It
is God who does the saving. But the salvation is granted on the
basis of the obedience! This is what Mr. Olson misses.
Mr. Olson:
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).
ELDV: Where on earth do we keep seeing justification and
sanctification so rigidly separated? I do not see anywhere in
the New Testament a comprehensive listing of what is necessary
for one and not the other, and vice versa. This is, of course,
because Mr. Olson has made a far greater deal out of
justification and sanctification than the text warrants.
We have already spoken about the "look" of faith. Again, Mr.
Olson keeps adding this "only" term where it's simply not
present. It's being imposed. It is also rather ludicrous to say
that "the only obedience required is belief" when denying that
one requires active engagement in faith. By being obedient, one
is actively engaged. If active engagement is necessary, then man
must have a role in his salvation.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: So Mr. Olson now assumes the existence of this large group
of people when the text does not say any such thing. A man of
his stature might-- or might not-- have a large entourage. Mr.
Olson has evaded the issue-- where does the Bible declare
immersion in water to be for the purpose of public proclamation?
We have spoken about 1 Corinthians 1 continually, and I have yet
to see Mr. Olson speak of how baptism can be so unimportant and
not a part of the message when (a) it is a part of the message of
Philip in Acts 8 and (b) Paul baptized Crispus, Gaius, and the
household of Stephanas. Is it entirely possible that in 1
Corinthians 1:17, Paul is speaking of his active engagement in
the actual baptism, and not denying the presence of the need for
baptism as part of the message preached?
Mr. Olson:
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: Mr. Olson has sown the seeds of his own refutation.
And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him;
for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is
a rewarder of them that seek after him. Hebrews 11:6 ASV
How can one seek God without striving to be obedient to Him?
Seeking takes effort. One does not get the reward without having
sought God.
It is incredible that Mr. Olson narrows his exegesis to verse 3
of chapter 11 and attempts to declare that faith is merely our
understanding. By faith we understand that the worlds have been
framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been
made out of things which appear. Hebrews 11:3 ASV
The Hebrew author speaks of our faith regarding the creation.
Faith allows us to understand its nature.
Why not examine the rest of Hebrews 11? Faith = action. Hebrews
11 shows time and time again that on the basis of faith people
did things in obedience to God. That is how people sought the
reward. And that is why Mr. Olson manifestly ignored the
majority of that chatper.
Mr. Olson:
ELDV beats the same worn out drum. He fails to note that
sanctification comes AFTER justification.
ELDV: Mr. Olson has not proven such, and the intertwined nature
of sanctification and justification require them both to be
simultaneous initial events and simultaneous processes.
Mr. Olson:
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: Mr. Olson can talk all day about God's justifying action,
but never speaks about the basis on which God determines who to
make righteous and when. That is, of course, because man must
come to God to be justified. Man comes to God through obedient
faith, and thus secures justification. The issue involved is the
nature of the faith that allows us to be made righteous by God,
and Mr. Olson has not demonstrated how that does not require
obedience.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: There is no evidence for anyone saved by human activity.
There is no evidence also, however, for anyone who was saved
without having come to God and obeyed Him. Part of obedience,
for those under the new covenant, is immersion in water for the
remission of sin.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: It is interesting that Mr. Olson will demand a full context
of Noah in 1 Peter 3 but reject such for Abraham in regards to
Genesis 4. How unsurprising...
The issue, of course, is manifest. Mr. Olson only thinks in
terms of justification and sanctification, and therefore makes
categories where the text makes none. Where in the Bible do we
see this distinction of Abraham between being the father of a
nation and being himself?
Mr. Olson should consider his own presuppositions. Abraham had
been obedient to God years before Genesis 15.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: And where is this distinction elaborated upon in the
Scriptures? Where do we see that Abraham must be "vindicated
before others"?
By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed to go out unto a
place which he was to receive for an inheritance; and he went
out, not knowing whither he went. By faith he became a sojourner
in the land of promise, as in a land not his own, dwelling in
tents, with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same
promise: for he looked for the city which hath the foundations,
whose builder and maker is God. Hebrews 11:8-10 ASV
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Mr. Olson's entire premise is founded upon the isolation of
one statement of Jesus amongst many others and then supposing
that it alone demonstrates salvation. Mr. Olson, of course,
cannot show us the use of the term "only" in John 3:14-15, and of
course neglects the clear foreshadowing of immersion in water for
the remission of sin in John 3:5. That which Jesus talks of in
terms of the "look of faith" in John 3, Paul talks of in terms of
repentance in Romans 10:9-10, and immersion in water in Acts
22:16. Mr. Olson has made categorizations where the Scriptures
simply have not.
As for Acts 2, it was soundly demonstrated in the affirmatives of
the last debate that Mr. Olson posits a conflict between Peter
and Paul that the Scriptures do not allow to exist. Paul and
Peter preached the same message; it is manifest that the message
of Acts 2 is the same message that Paul would preach. In fact,
Acts 22:7 itself speaks of being baptized, "washing away your
sins." Let us see if Mr. Olson will try to make that fit some
"national Israel" model.
Mr. Olson:
B6. SPIRIT BAPTISM 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.
ELDV: None of this actually answered the material presented in
the second affirmative, which manifestly must be re-published:
Let us look at the examples of the use of the terminology of
"immersion in the Spirit":
and, being assembled together with them, he charged them not to
depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise of the Father,
which, said he, ye heard from me: For John indeed baptized with
water; but ye shall be baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days
hence. Acts 1:4-5
This is, of course, fulfilled in Acts 2, when God pours out the
Holy Spirit upon the Apostles.
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on
us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how
he said, "John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be
baptized in the Holy Spirit." If then God gave unto them the like
gift as he did also unto us, when we believed on the Lord Jesus
Christ, who was I, that I could withstand God? Acts 11:15-17
This, of course, refers to the previous events of Acts 10:44-46,
when God poured out His Spirit on Cornelius and his men.
At no other time is "immersion in the Spirit" actually dispensed
in the New Testament.
These events have similar characteristics:
1. They were both previously predicted (cf. above, in John and
Amos). 2. God was the acting agent. 3. Both were done as
demonstrations-- Acts 2, to provide witness to the truth in Jesus
Christ to the Jews on Pentecost; Acts 10, to provide witness to
Peter and the other believers that Gentiles were to receive the
Gospel. 4. Both were thoroughly extraordinary events, presaged by
signs and wonders. 5. Neither are the normative means by which
the gift of the Holy Spirit is transferred-- the normative means
is the "laying on of hands", as described below.
Having seen that, let us now look to explicit references to
immersion in water:
And as they went on the way, they came unto a certain water; and
the eunuch saith, "Behold, here is water; what doth hinder me to
be baptized?" And Philip said, "If thou believest with all thy
heart, thou mayest." And he answered and said, "I believe that
Jesus Christ is the Son of God." And he commanded the chariot to
stand still: and they both went down into the water, both Philip
and the eunuch, and he baptized him. Acts 8:36-38
"Can any man forbid the water, that these should not be baptized,
who have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?" And he
commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then
prayed they him to tarry certain days. Acts 10:47-48
that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water:
which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism,
not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the
resurrection of Jesus Christ; 1 Peter 3:20-21
Now, these are the explicit references to immersion in water.
There are a multitude of passages that do not actually mention
water-- yet they must refer to immersion in water and not
immersion in the Holy Spirit. Those immersed in the Holy Spirit
by God are in possession of the Holy Spirit and its gifts...and
yet we constantly see examples of people being "baptized" and
then hands are laid upon them so that they could receive the Holy
Spirit. The only way that these passages make any sense is to see
that they are first immersed in water and then hands are laid
upon them to receive the Holy Spirit. This is manifestly the case
in Acts 8:12-17, Acts 9:17-19, and Acts 19:1-6.
These are the passages that incontrovertibly speak of either
immersion in water or immersion in the Holy Spirit. These are the
passages which we must use to judge the nature of the "one
baptism" of Ephesians 4:4, and from that determination we will
receive the proper perspective on the rest of the uses of the
term baptism in the New Testament. It ought to be manifest that
while the immersion in the Holy Spirit is limited in the New
Testament to two examples, both of which are miraculous and for
the purpose of signs to the people, and the latter example even
includes explicit immersion in water, the baptism most often seen
in the New Testament, spoken of throughout the timeframe of the
New Testament, and the action in which believers share a part is
immersion in water. It is manifest, then, that the baptism of
which Paul speaks in Ephesians 4:4 is immersion in water.
Does this mean that baptism is bereft of the Spirit? By no means!
Immersion in water for the remission of sin is a physical act
that represents the spiritual appeal to God for cleansing. Its
spiritual consequences are vast: entrance into the Kingdom, death
of the man of sin, resurrection in newness of life. These are the
same spiritual consequences of faith, since baptism by necessity
is a part of an obedient faith.
Mr. Olson evaded these arguments in his denial. He has assented
to the fact that 1 Corinthians 12:13 in fact does not teach that
we are baptized by the Spirit, and none of the supposed "proofs"
denies the need for immersion in water to obtain the necessary
remission of sin so as to receive the Spirit. After all, did not
Peter predicate the reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit upon
repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38)?
We await the actual proofs begged for above.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Yet again Mr. Olson attempts to evade the matter.
Let us again see what Mr. Olson argued in his first affirmative:
Water baptism is rejected for it makes justification depend on
another human's faithfulness.
So again I point out the fallacy of the substance of his
argument. Paul himself, in Romans 10:14-17, demonstrates that
people must hear the Gospel from another to be saved. By
necessity, a second person is involved-- the one preaching the
message. The basis of the argument, therefore, is demonstrated
false: since one must come to God, and one must hear the Gospel
to come to God, justification does depend on people's
faithfulness in preaching the Gospel. Likewise, therefore, the
argument cannot hold for immersion in water.
Mr. Olson:
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: It ought to be made clear here that when I ask for proof
that the Bible says that baptism is "not for salvation", Mr.
Olson retorts with "documentation of justification." Mr. Olson
sees only a system of justification and sanctification, and
therefore misses the Gospel! As opposed to seeking out the whole
counsel of God, Mr. Olson desires to limit such discussions to
only verses explicitly speaking about justification. Such a
method is to be rejected in its myopia.
Mr. Olson still must Biblically prove that baptism is "not for
salvation"--- salvation is the operative term, or to "declare
God's power". Such has not been done.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Peter did not teach about Noah making an altar, now, did
he? Where is that in 1 Peter 3? I fail to see it. We yet again
see Mr. Olson imposing his thoughts upon the Scriptures as if
they are fully present.
Mr. Olson:
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: Again, it is interesting that Mr. Olson continually acts as
if he knows the mind of God, yet God has declared the opposite
(Isaiah 55:8-9).
Why would Jesus speak to Jews about what was necessary for
Christians to be saved?
Mr. Olson:
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!
ELDV: As therefore ye received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in
him, rooted and builded up in him, and established in your faith,
even as ye were taught, abounding in thanksgiving. Take heed lest
there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the
rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth
all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made
full, who is the head of all principality and power: in whom ye
were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in
the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of
Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were
also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who
raised him from the dead. Colossians 2:6-12 ASV
Where does this text teach that baptism comes after being rooted
in the faith? That's a massive contextual leap that comes
without much justification. Mr. Olson's continual insistence is
not proof. Mr. Olson has yet to prove that the baptism here is
by necessity the Spirit baptism.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Mr. Olson sure knows how to read into an argument.
I provided verses that demonstrate the covenant distinction
between the Law of Moses and the new covenant in Christ Jesus.
This was to show that Jesus would not be constrained to
demonstrate precisely how one would obtain salvation in the new
covenant while preaching to those under the old. Jesus has not
"defined faith to be only a look to Him;" that's Mr. Olson's
reading in to the text. The same Jesus speaks of the need for
endurance to be saved (Matthew 10:22), judgment by word (Matthew
12:36-37), and many other precepts that demonstrate the need for
obedient faith. Mr. Olson would do well to not impose
limitations that God has not imposed!
Mr. Olson:
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: We have already demonstrated how Mr. Olson has completely
missed the boat in terms of Acts 15, demanding something of James
that is thoroughly unecessary. Mr. Olson has never substantively
demonstrated why we must impose more of the context of Amos upon
James' proof of the words of Peter, or how such would make any
sense in the context. Mr. Olson never demonstrated why we should
do this with Acts 15/Amos but not with Matthew 1/Isaiah 7.
Therefore, it would do Mr. Olson well to actually respond to such
arguments against him.
Mr. Olson has assumed his proof about baptism for "consecration,"
since the Bible never speaks in terms of such for Noah (Mr. Olson
imposes that from 1 Peter 3 needlessly). Proof is manifestly
lacking.
Mr. Olson really hasn't answered the matter. If baptism is not a
part of the Gospel, why is it a part of the Gospel in Acts 8 and
Acts 19? If Paul is not sent to baptize, why does he baptize
Crispus, Gaius, and the household of Stephanas? The truth of
these matters has already been articulated; Mr. Olson has not
actually demonstrated anything to the contrary.
Mr. Olson:
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: Again we see that Mr. Olson, when it is manifest that his
argument is wrong, attempts to re-define his terms. Now it's
that "water baptism is never mentioned in terms of
justification." What does John speak of in terms of
justification? Nothing! The word is not even used in that
Gospel. We again see Mr. Olson imposing justification everywhere!
In the Gospel message of John, we see Jesus' disciples baptizing,
we see Jesus Himself baptized, and we see the need to be reborn
in water and Spirit to be saved. Mr. Olson's argument is futile
and fails.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: None of this, of course, is actually in 1 Peter 3. It must
be imposed from the whole story of Noah. Perhaps Peter had no
intention of imposing the whole story of Noah on 1 Peter 3? Mr.
Olson loudly argues that Paul "eschewed" Genesis 12 in Romans
4. Maybe Peter "eschewed" Genesis 6, 9-10?
Simply put, this is no proof at all. It requires, as Mr. Olson
is only wont to do whenever it suits him, imposing far more
context upon passages than the passages themselves demand. Mr.
Olson surely would not impose Noah's drunkenness on 1 Peter 3—
why not? Why impose anything from Genesis beyond what Peter
himself explicitly demands on 1 Peter 3?
Peter uses the example of Noah being preserved and saved by being
in the Ark to be the antitype of baptism, which of course is
salvation by being in the water. It is incredible for Mr. Olson
to miss the equality of the water in each situation! It is not
the water that is anything, but the faith of Noah on top of it or
our faith underneath it.
Mr. Olson's argument is, of course, destroyed by the end of the
verse, which calls baptism the appeal for a cleansed conscience
through the resurrection. As it is written,
Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a
removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good
conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 1 Peter
3:21 ESV
Baptism = appeal to God for a good conscience. The good
conscience is not already present. Mr. Olson's argument again
fails.
Mr. Olson:
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?
ELDV: Since Mr. Olson only looks for systemization, this exegesis
does not surprise me. It, of course, demands more of Peter than
anyone would reasonably expect. The relevant context
demonstrates Peter speaking about Christ's suffering for sins,
which leads him to speak about the spirits in prison from the
time of Noah, which leads him to speak about the deliverance of
Noah in the time of the Flood, by which he then describes present
salvation. Nothing in the context demands this rigid system of
justification vs. sanctification.
Mr. Olson:
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.
ELDV: Mr. Olson imposes his system upon the text and then
condemns me. That's convienient. This is all done, of course,
despite the demonstration of the intertwined nature of continual
justification and sanctification and the fact that justification
and sanctification, as concepts, are overblown, overemphasized,
and overimposed by Mr. Olson. One would think that if such means
of describing the origin and development of the Christian life
were as important as Mr. Olson makes them out to be that they
would be used far more often than, in truth, they are. There is
nothing to stop Peter from going on an excursus about the nature
of Noah and its parallel to Christian salvation. Mr. Olson's
argument lacks actual proof of his claims.
Mr. Olson has made one thing perfectly clear: he is not able to
demonstrate that the Scriptures teach that immersion in water for
the remission of sin is not necessary for salvation. He is able
to evade arguments, to rail on and on about "justification" and
"sanctification," yet none of this gets near to refuting the
clear passages of Scripture. Mr. Olson seems comfortable with
simply ignoring them, denying their validity with myopic vision,
demanding that certain statements be elevated as exclusive,
apparently giving no thought to the contradictions he has created
in the Scriptures.
While Mr. Olson has yet to actually demonstrate how all of the
Scriptures previously provided that demonstrate immersion in
water is for remission of sin and is necessary for salvation do
not actually teach any such thing, I have demonstrated clearly
how there is initial justification and sanctification, both
predicated upon obedient faith, and continual justification and
sanctification worked out in obedient faith. Obedient faith is
the means by which salvation is gained, for it is upon the
demonstration of obedient faith in belief, confession,
repentance, and immersion in water for the remission of sin that
one may be made righteous in Christ, one may be set apart in
Christ, be added to the church, and be saved (Acts 16:31-33,
Matthew 10:32-33, Romans 6:3-7, Acts 2:38, Romans 10:9-10,
Matthew 10:22). How does Mr. Olson synthesize such matters? He
does not. He ignores and avoids them. If the proposition were,
"The selected Scriptures of Mr. Olson to the detriment of other
Scriptures do not teach that immersion in water is necessary for
salvation," then he would certainly have succeeded!
Unfortunately for Mr. Olson, however, the proposition speaks of
all the Scriptures, not just his selected portions. To that end,
the proposition,
The Scriptures DO NOT teach that immersion in water for the
remission of sin is necessary for salvation,
remains not only unproven but thoroughly refuted.
Ethan R. Longhenry (ELDV)