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 From the first affirmative, I presented an 100% 
analysis of 40 Bible verses using dikaioo and 29 verses using 
hagiazo. These verses teach: __1. Justification is an EVENT. __2. 
Human activity is denied for justification. __3. Only God is 
active in EVENT justification. __4. Only God sets aside believers 
unto Himself in EVENT adoption. __5. Believers are only active in 
PROCESS purification. __6. Justification is parallel with, yet 
distinct from, sanctification.

What has been ELDV's response? First, he said that "the Bible has 
been loaded by the theological speculations of reformists." Then 
he said that I had "read much into the Greek term dikaioo." Is 
merely saying that a refutation? ELDV never documented the so-
called error. ELDV never presented his view of what the basic 
words should mean. 

The raw biblical data shows that justification is an historic 
event using a past tense verb. ELDV runs from this by saying, 
"notation of tense is a massive fallacy." So where is the future 
tense of dikaioo that supports your statement? Instead, he makes 
another denial of basic Bible analysis saying, that I "cannot 
actually defend such changes." I don't have to! It is a simple 
use of Bible. Either we accept God's Word as truth or we avoid 
it. ELDV tried to show the distinction in tense with an appeal to 
I John 1:9. 

This is why the raw biblical data is so important! Does one look 
to the Bible or does one look to Rome? I John 1:9 itself shows 
that only God is just and that righteousness is an aspect of 
cleansing – not justification. ELDV denied God's Word and choose 
an appeal to Rome which blends justification into sanctification 
as a continuous process. Thus, in complete disdain of God's Word, 
ELDV appeals to sanctification verses as "proofs" of 
justification.

The biblical data has NO SUCH PRESENT TENSE ACTIVE VOICE verb 
that links justification with human activity. The raw biblical 
data shows the error of process justification in the Rich Young 
Ruler's foolish trust in works (Luke 10:29), Jesus' rebuke of the 
Pharisees self- righteous justification before others (Luke 
16:15), and Paul's denial of active obedience for justification 
(Gal. 2:16, 5:4). ELDV could only respond to this with yet 
another appeal to I John 1:9. 

In yet another total disregard for the lexical evidences of God's 
Word, ELDV uplifts the Romish doctrine of self-righteousness in 
an appeal to James 2. But as been repeatedly shown throughout 
this debate, James uses Abraham's works as a motivator to ALREADY 
SAVED believers.

Surprisingly, ELDV tried to refute John 3 which gives three 
illustrations of saving faith. First, justification is from above 
John 3:3,5. Jesus contrasts the unseen spiritual with the 
visible. Second, Jesus points to the wind. You can't see it 
directly, but you can see its results. This is an illustration of 
the Spirit's work in justification. Third, Jesus appeals to the 
brazen serpent in Num 23. Salvation came by a simple look of 
faith apart from works, sacrifices or sacramental rites. ELDV's 
wayward appeal to John 3:5 is really a support for God's activity 
in justification and a denial of conditional human-centered 
process justification.

ELDV denied this by simply saying that he didn't see the word 
"alone." Therefore, he feels that it is fine to grab any 
sanctification verse as further proof of justification. So he 
appealed to Acts 22:16. However, ELDV simply grabs the tiny part 
of Bible that seems to support his view and cuts out all other 
relevant passages. Paul clearly shows that he was commissioned as 
an apostle before Ananias baptized him (Acts 26:17). Ananias was 
sent to Paul for the purpose that (1) he might receive his sight 
and that (2) he might be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:17). 
Water baptism is nowhere in these purposes! In fact, when Ananias 
first met Paul, he addressed him as "brother." Ananias knew Paul 
was already saved from his conversation with God. However, since 
Paul was an Israelite, his baptism for the remission of sins was 
exactly for the same national reason that Peter preached in Acts 
2. This baptism is not applicable to Gentiles. The debate shows 
ELDV's continued disdain for an honest analysis of God's Word.

As a mini-summary, ELDV has not answered the simple, easy to 
duplicate, lexical evidences showing justification is an EVENT 
not conditioned upon human activity. His only responses have 
been: (1) blatant disregard for God's Word, (2) implications of 
eisegesis without any such substantive demonstration, and (3) a 
return to Rome with confused appeals to sanctification verses as 
errant proofs of justification.

SANCTIFICATION The lexical evidences have demonstrated that 
humans are only active in sanctification. ELDV's total response 
returns to Rome using any sanctification verse as proof of 
becoming righteous. DUH. Sanctification is spiritual growth by 
which believers are conformed into the image of Christ. ELDV's 
appeals to sanctification change nothing of the relationship that 
makes sanctification depend on justification. Justification DEOS 
NOT depend on sanctification.

ELDV denies this via an appeal to the Romish interpretation of 
John 6:29 in which justification blends with sanctification. 
Jesus clearly refuted this error with a simple directive: 
"believe in Him." ELDV can do nothing but deny Jesus and cling to 
the human- centered self-righteous philosophy that prompted the 
question (6:28) in complete disdain to the lexical evidences 
presented. Sanctification depends on justification in exactly the 
same way that growth depends on birth. Sanctification does not 
yield justification any more than growth yields birth. ELDV puts 
this backwards and closes his eyes to simple lexical evidences.

None of ELDV's questions change the parallel, one-way dependent, 
distinct relationship of justification with sanctification. He 
tried to dodge the issue through five sideshows.

First, he wanted to be shown how the Spirit's baptism occurred in 
every instance baptism is mentioned in the New Testament. It 
doesn't. Water baptism is the visible unsaving rite associated 
with sanctification. His question is irrelevant to the issue put 
before him. His demands sidetracked him from answering the 
lexical evidences that sanctification depends on justification.

Second, he demanded proof why the Greek preposition "en" in I 
Corinthians 12:13 should be translated "by," and not "in." ELDV 
obviously did not read my response. The "en" was clearly 
associated with the second occurrence – not the first. The 
question of the Spirit as the Agent of saving baptism is confused 
with the question whether or not the Spirit uses water as the 
means of immersion into Christ. This revolves around the second 
"en."  But ELDV has confused himself with regard to the first 
"en." He actually says, "I Corinthians 12:13 does not teach that 
the Spirit is the agent of the baptism, but into that which one 
is baptized." So he has elected to twist clear passage to support 
his theology rather than using the lexical evidences which 
clearly show that God alone is active in justification. 

Third, he demanded to know how Paul can speak of there being but 
one baptism yet Mr. Olson speaks of two. He acknowledges Acts 2 
and Acts 10 as the only time in which "immersion in the Spirit 
[is] actually dispensed in the New Testament."  ELDV holds God's 
Word in disdain. My second affirmative presented many verses that 
verifying the Spirit's presence in securing eternal life without 
baptism, works or anything else. It is noteworthy that ELDV uses 
his theology to force fit these verses to align with him rather 
than come into alignment with the Bible.

All I can do is return to Bible. 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 (I Cor 12:13). 
The Spirit seals and provides the earnest of eternal life (II Cor 
1:22, 5:5; Eph 1:13-14). The Spirit gives life (II Cor 3:6). 
Believers receive the Spirit by faith - not by works (Gal 
3:2,14). The body without the Spirit is dead (Jam 2:26). This is 
tremendous evidence that verifies that the Spirit's presence 
secures eternal life without baptism, works or anything else. 
ELDV's sideshow has not overturned the lexical evidences.

Fourth, he demands to know why Spirit baptism is the primary 
baptism despite all evidence pointing to water baptism. What 
evidence? Look at all the Bible evidence that shows the Spirit's 
activity in justification. It is not coincidental that these 
Bible verses support the easy lexical evidences.

Fifth, he tries to refute the lexical evidence by appealing to the proper understanding of source and target domains of 
metaphors in Colossians 2. The whole Col 2 metaphor is not of 
earthly water baptism but of spiritual Spirit baptism. In verse 
11, the circumcision mentioned is made without hands. It 
references the circumcision of Christ. Hence, it cannot be 
anything physical. In verse 12, the baptism is done by the 
operation of God. Hence, it cannot be done by the operation of 
humans. In verse 13, quickening is mentioned. Since, sinners are 
already physically alive, it cannot be anything physical. Hence, 
it must be spiritual quickening. Verse 14 ties all of this to the 
Cross which was God's instrument in the forgiveness of sins. The 
whole context speaks of spiritual baptism.

All five of these questions were sideshows driven by ELDV's 
theology of blending justification into sanctification. None of 
these answered the raw data presented. ELDV did not once deny 
that justification is an EVENT in which God alone is active and 
human activity expressly denied. Instead, he was strangely silent 
about the stark truths of the biblical evidences. Instead, he has 
put his defense in five unrelated and easily refuted sideshows.

ELDV finally turns to Abraham of an example of obedience before 
the declaration of justification. He doesn't realize that his 
supposition actually worsens his case. If Abraham were saved by 
leaving UR, then this for sure happened without baptism, 
sacrament or rite. Rom 4 references Gen 15 and presents Abraham 
as a fitting example for those of either testament. He 
specifically mentions faith and denies works.

The lexical evidences show justification is God's activity 
conditioned solely upon faith not upon human activity.  
Justification is an EVENT; sanctification a process. 
Justification is parallel with yet distinct from sanctification. 
ELDV has tried to refute these lexical evidences using theology 
rather than Bible. Each of his so-called proofs turned to 
sanctification aspects and redefined them to mean justification – 
in complete disdain of God's Word and easy to verify lexical 
evidences.

Not only has ELDV failed to refute the lexical evidences, his 
sideshows have been corrected against the backdrop of biblical 
justification in a parallel, one-way dependent, distinct 
relationship with sanctification.

A. ETERNAL VS TEMPORAL Things seen are temporal; things unseen 
are eternal (II Cor 4:18). Since water baptism is visible, it is 
temporal and not associated with eternal life. The original 
argument focused on Spirit baptism versus water baptism. The 
Cross was visible. ELDV has cleverly warped the illustration of 
the Cross in an attempt to discount the biblical directive. ELDV 
looks only to the earthly aspects of the Cross and tries to pass 
them off as sufficient for the unseen spiritual aspects. Why does 
he do this? He is more interested in proving his human-centered 
self-righteous theology than aligning himself with God's Word. 
The obvious fact is that the Bible itself handily refutes ELDV's 
error.

ELDV has missed the unseen saving aspects of the Cross. Jesus' 
blood was applied in the holy place who through the eternal 
Spirit offered Himself without spot to God (Heb 9:11-14). This 
same author also dictates that physical blood does not avail (Heb 
10:4). Did Jesus physically even enter into the Temple's holy 
place? Nope! Heb 9:24- 26 shows that Jesus entered into heaven 
itself to offer His own blood. Now scripture doesn't record that 
Jesus got off the Cross to perform all of this. Physically, He 
was nailed to the wood. Spiritually, He entered into the heavenly 
places. This is a clear teaching of the unseen saving spiritual 
aspects of Jesus' Cross. 

Since God is spiritual, and since our sin problem is spiritual, 
the remedy must also be spiritual. We are likewise encouraged to 
enter into the holy of holies into God's presence by Jesus' 
blood. Do we actually have to build a ramp to heaven? Ridiculous! 
Faith in Jesus is the only saving spiritual application; NOT 
physical water baptism. Abraham is proof that water is not the 
Spirit's means of justification for Abraham was justified by 
faith apart from sacrifice, circumcision or rite.

Note also how Hebrews once again links salvation with the eternal 
Spirit rather than water. Refutations of ELDV's demands come from 
unexpected places as Scripture interprets Scripture!

ELDV has failed to see "both/and" concepts. His only so-called 
refutation was a glaring demonstration of his wayward hermeneutic 
that violently abuses context, takes every possible avenue to 
redefine parallel concepts, and force fits his human-centered 
self- righteous water baptism upon any given verse. Even Jesus' 
Cross is not beyond his wayward tactics.

B1. DEPRAVITY It is nice to see that we agree on a voluntary 
response of faith in Jesus. However, it is apparent after two 
responses, that ELDV cannot answer the question of depravity. I 
specifically said, "Depravity denies water baptism salvation. 
Even if water baptism were required, it would be so corrupted by 
depravity would that it would be a filthy rag. Water baptism 
salvation has an over-inflated opinion of human ability and a 
woefully inadequate understanding of sin. Water baptism salvation 
convolutes the gospel into a self-righteous system of death."

Where is ELDV's refutation? Instead of answering the force of 
depravity against his self-righteous assertions, he has evaded 
the topic by running to the sideshow of a voluntary belief in 
Jesus. Did he think he was debating the Calvinist error? When I 
returned the discussion to his self-righteous error, he tried an 
appeal to water baptism righteousness: "Immersion in water … is 
the response of obedient faith, the appeal for remission of sin 
(Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21)."

Yes, water baptism is the response of obedient faith. In my first 
affirmative I defined it as "consecration that occurs AFTER the 
Spirit's baptism WITHOUT HUMAN HANDS (1 Cor 12:13, Col 2:11-12)." 
This sideshow is NOT a refutation of depravity.

In the first half of the debate, scripture debunked ELDV's 
wayward appeal to the Acts 2:38 remission of sins through water 
baptism. The surrounding context established Israel's 
restoration. The immediate context of Peter's sermon contained OT 
quotes to passages discussing Jesus' return and rescue of 
national Israel. The far context continues to link Israel's 
national deliverance to Messiah Jesus (Acts 5:28-31, 7:37, 10:36, 
13:23-25, and 15:16-17 referring to Amos 9:11-15). ELDV wrongly 
appeals to I Peter 3:21 as support since it does not mention 
remission of sin. Context dictates that Acts 2 is applicable only 
to national Israel before their judgment; not to Gentiles of any 
age. So much for this sideshow!

Not only is water baptism not an appeal to the remission of sins, 
it does not answer the inherent evil of depravity raised in the 
first affirmative. How can human righteousness please God when it 
is so corrupted? Our hearts are so desperately wicked they are 
beyond knowing (Jer 17:9). Even in our best states we are vanity 
(Psa 39:5) for even our finest righteous deeds are nothing more 
than filthy rags (Isa 64:6). If water baptism were required for 
salvation, no one could perfectly comply. Obedience is far more 
than ELDV's demand of an outward compliance. The only obedience 
pleasing to God is of the heart. Note again that heart obedience 
is unseen.

ELDV cannot engage this topic directly for depravity exposes his 
system as a human-centered self-righteous system of death and 
despair.

B2. CHRIST's RIGHTEOUSNESS The original argument was, "While God 
demands perfection (Matt 5:48), depravity shows that human 
perfection is impossible. Since only Jesus' perfection saves (Rom 
3:22a; Phil 3:9; Heb 10:10-14), any system that depends on water 
baptism unwittingly denies Christ's righteousness."

ELDV has failed to refute the accusation of a wayward dependence 
on human righteousness. He has failed to refute the accusation 
that water baptism unwittingly denies Christ's righteousness.

Instead, in complete ignorance of the lexical evidences, he 
bewails, "Where on earth do we keep seeing justification and 
sanctification so rigidly separated?" I have never once said that 
justification was separated from sanctification. I have 
repeatedly declared that they were parallel, one-way dependent, 
and distinct. Justification is based on Christ's righteousness 
alone. Sanctified purification involves humans coming into 
conformity with God's will through obedience. Even here, I 
hesitate to use human righteousness. Human righteousness is 
really unrighteousness (Isa 64:6). We are only pleasing to God 
when we come to Him in Jesus' righteousness.

ELDV has failed to answer the accusation that dependence on human 
righteousness denies dependence on Christ's righteousness. 
Instead, he tried the sideshow of the Eunuch and his baptism and 
then appealed to Paul's baptisms of Criospus, Gaius and 
Stephanas. His sideshow demonstrates repeated failure to address 
the lexical evidences that present justification by faith alone 
in parallel with yet distinct from sanctification.

Water baptism is a good and blessed event if it is the sanctified 
consecration of a believer who wishes to live his new life for 
God. That Paul baptized anyone is a sideshow for it is understood 
as an after justification act of obedience. Phillip grilled the 
Eunuch to know the existence of salvific faith before he was 
baptized. Paul himself denounced water baptism as part of the 
gospel message of justification (I Cor 1:14,17). So much for this 
sideshow.

Where was ELDV's proof that water baptism righteousness will 
please God for justification?

Where was ELDV's proof that water baptism does not unwittingly 
deny Christ's righteousness?

He has failed to answer the charges presented relying instead 
upon the obfuscation of irrelevant sideshows.

B3. INSTRUMENTAL FAITH The original argument was, "Any move to 
convert faith from the instrument that appropriates God's free 
gift of eternal life into a measure of process justification is 
the anti-gospel. Water baptism, works and enduring faithfulness 
are the anti-gospel for they measure errant process 
justification. Correct biblical theology makes them aspects of 
consecration and purification that follow event justification."

What has ELDV tried in order to counter this charge? First, he 
asked "what is faith?" He took the LOOK of faith for 
justification and redefined it as a full-fledged system of 
faithful obedience. I simply noted his failure to answer the 
lexical evidences which show that justification is God's activity 
alone and that humans are only passively involved. He doesn't 
like the word "passive" and thinks of it as a couch potato 
Christian. He doesn't understand that humans actively make a 
decision for Christ which results in them being passively 
declared righteous by God's active declaration.

Incredibly, he thinks Heb 11:6 supports his wayward view. "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." Then he says, "Faith = action." Tragically, his truthfully 
statements are demolished by his wayward theology.

CONTEXT reveals that faith pleases God in terms of rewards – not 
the imputation of Christ's righteousness! ELDV ignores the clear 
contextual clues that this passage refers to sanctification. 
Sanctified purification is where we humans must submit to God's 
will through obedience. Here is where we please God for future 
rewards. In exactly the same way that ELDV confuses justification 
and sanctification, he also confuses destiny and rewards.

The vain faithless believer of I Cor 3:11-15 was saved by faith. 
He built only works of wood, hay and stubble on the foundation of 
Jesus Christ. In the Day of Judgment for believers, he lost 
everything but HE HIMSELF WAS STILL SAVED (v15). 

Faith should equal action. This is James' appeal to his already 
saved readers. However, action does not save anyone unless it is 
the action to BELIEVE IN JESUS (John 6:29). Faithfulness pleases 
God to increased rewards (Heb 11:6) – not for justification. The 
only thing that pleases God for justification is Christ's 
righteousness! ELDV's sideshow is demolished.

Where is his refutation of instrumental faith leading to 
justification? He has failed to address this critical argument of 
justifying faith. All he could muster was falling by the wayside 
in irrelevant discussions of sanctified obedience.

B4. OT SAINTS The original argument stated that Abraham was 
declared righteous before circumcision (Rom 4:2,3,5,9). He was an 
example of saving faith for all believers in either testament 
(4:13). Imputation is an accounting term that has nothing to do 
with water baptism.

How has ELDV answered this? First ELDV claimed that Abraham was 
justified by his obedience by leaving UR. However, 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.

ELDV tries to refute this by an appeal to inconsistency. He 
claims that I demand full context with Noah and only partial 
context with Abraham.

First, ELDV did not address the force of the argument that 
answered his appeal to Gen 12. God's election of Abraham as the 
forefather of a nation has nothing to do with personal 
justification. His cry of "inconsistency" unwittingly attacks 
God's progressive teaching on justification. Everything in 
theology must be aligned with God's declarations. In Gen 6-7 Noah 
was declared to be just, perfect and righteousness at the 
beginning of the entire narrative. In Romans 4, God declares 
Abraham to be just by his personal decision of faith in Gen 15. 
This is not my inconsistent interpretation. This is an 
observation of CONTEXT. ELDV has demonstrated five successive 
posts in which he holds context in disdain and elevates 
denominational rhetoric above God's Word.

Instead of context, ELDV hides behind my use of the word "only" 
in John 3:14-15. He tries to use John 3:5 as a clear teaching of 
water baptism. As was demonstrated in my second denial of the 
first proposition:

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

Then, he tried another appeal to Acts 2. Incredibly, after being 
soundly rebuffed for failure to observe context, he yet thinks 
that Acts 2:38 still applies to Gentiles today. Again, let me 
remind him of past refutations:

[quote from third denial of first proposal] 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.[end quote]

Then ELDV appeals to Acts 22:7 which speaks of being baptized, 
"washing away your sins." ELDV might be learning for he alludes 
to some "national Israel" model.  He is right if he would only 
let go of his human-centered self-righteous denominational system 
of death. Paul, a national Israelite, was baptized for the exact 
same reason that Peter offered baptism in Acts 2 – for national 
repentance to accept Messiah Jesus. ELDV fails to use ALL of 
God's Word. Scripture explains scripture!

As was shown above, Paul clearly shows that he was commissioned 
as an apostle before Ananias baptized him (Acts 26:17). Ananias 
was sent to Paul for the purpose that (1) he might receive his 
sight and that (2) he might be filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 
9:17). In fact, Ananias addressed Paul as "brother." Since Paul 
was an Israelite, his baptism for the remission of sins was 
exactly for the same national reason that Peter preached in Acts 
2. This baptism is not applicable to Gentiles.

ELDV's come crashing down – again! Where was his refutation of OT 
Abraham as a fitting example of justification by faith sufficient 
for all in either testament? He failed to directly address the 
argument and all of his sideshows have been effectively 
repudiated.

B5. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ELDV has failed to address this 
whatsoever. The argument [quote from first affirmative] Chapter 5 
is a mini summary of everything that has proceeded using the Adam 
– Christ contrast. Baptism is purposefully omitted. Addition of 
any rite to instrumental faith is an ungodly deviation[end quote] 
stands unchallenged.

B6. SPIRIT BAPTISM The first argument demonstrated that Rom 6 
occurs in context before Paul's discussion of sanctification. The 
word "water" was not used anywhere in the entire book. Thus, this 
is Spirit baptism.  ELDV's first response demanded proof of the 
Spirit's presence in baptisms. Twice, he has been presented with 
a plethora of Bible proofs of the Spirit's presence. Let me 
remind him yet a third time:

[quote] 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.[end quote]

ELDV has no further substantive argument and repeats the material 
earlier refuted. He can do nothing but appeal to Philip and the 
Eunuch. He abuses the clear temporal sequence of Spirit baptism 
followed by water baptism in Cornelius. Here are two distinct 
baptisms that ELDV wants to redefine as the one baptism of 
water.  Eph 4:5 declares ONE BAPTISM. As was shown in my second 
denial of the first proposition, Eph 4 refers to the body, the 
Spirit and the Lord as spiritual – but ELDV would have baptism be 
physical! Only EDLV's human-centered philosophy would break the 
divine pattern!

Without any Bible to use in support, ELDV once again returns to 
his failures in I Pet 3. In the first proposition, I clearly 
documented that the OT CONTEXT occurred AFTER God's declaration 
of Noah as being just, perfect and righteous. In the second 
proposition, I showed that the NT CONTEXT of I Peter 3 related 
only to aspects of sanctification. ELDV brings no Bible response 
and only parrots denominational rhetoric. Again, his sideshows 
have been refuted!

Where in all of his remarks was a direct Bible response to the 
Romans 6 context? Why has ELDV not mentioned the relationship to 
the prior chapters on justification by faith alone? ELDV has not 
addressed the fact that Paul's discussion of sanctification does 
not begin until Chapter 7. Chapter 8 is Paul's first reference to 
God's sanctified act of adoption. ELDV has run from contextual 
truths.

B7. SANCTIFICATION Spiritual growth leads to conformity into 
Jesus' image AFTER Spirit baptism. Believers die to the law and 
live to Christ. Even in the new life, Paul lost the battle with 
the flesh (Rom 7:5-24) but served God with the mind (7:25). We 
walk by the Spirit not by the flesh. Even as we fail, there is no 
condemnation for God's children (8:1). Event sanctification 
secures adoption (Rom 8:15,23; Gal 4:5).

ELDV has made no response to this point. This point corroborates 
the lexical evidences which detail the parallel, one-way 
dependent, distinct relationship of justification to 
sanctification. The argument stands unchallenged.

C. A SECOND HUMAN The original argument was, "Water baptism is 
rejected for it makes justification depend on another human's 
faithfulness."

ELDV could not directly respond to this. However, he found a 
clever way to say something in an appeal to Romans 10:14-17 that 
mentions the need to preach.  This sounds nice, but it is not 
part of justification. While it prepares the way, justification 
is by faith in Jesus alone. The force of the argument was that 
the need of water baptism for justification depends completely on 
another human being at the right spot at the right time. The 
preparation for the act of faith is temporally severed from the 
moment of justification.  ELDV wants this moment to include water 
in spite of no clear evidence. The 100% survey of lexical 
evidences does not mention water baptism once in relation to 
justification. ELDV's sideshow is clear evidence that he has no 
adequate response.

Preparation for the gospel message is important but has no part 
of the question regarding water baptism. The argument originally 
posted stands.

D. JESUS' BAPTISM. The original argument denied Jesus' need of 
water baptism for salvation. Thus, as a pattern for all, water 
baptism is not for salvation. Rather, water baptism declares 
God's power and mark's the beginning of the believer's public 
witness.

Since ELDV cannot refute this pattern, he has attempted to hide 
behind demands for questions. Does he not know that my first 
affirmative lays down the logical arguments that he must refute? 
Questions demanding proof are nonsensical. I've already given the 
proof.

Any common sense reading should be able to verify the pattern. 
ELDV hides behind the furtive question: "Where is Noah's altar in 
1 Peter 3?" ELDV evidently missed that the OT context places 
every aspect of the Flood Saga AFTER Noah's justification. He 
also missed that the NT context only and solely discusses 
sanctification. One does not need a specific reference to an 
altar to understand the appeal to sanctification or to understand 
that the altar happened AFTER Noah's justification. ELDV's 
question from silence is all he can bring – a silent but powerful 
admission of failure.

We should do baptism for the exact same reason that Jesus was 
baptized: NOT for salvation, to declare God's power and as an 
appeal of an ALREADY SAVED conscience to live one's life for God. 
The argument stands.

E. JESUS' REQUIREMENT Jesus told the self-centered to "believe in 
Him" (John 6:29).

Where was the refutation of this argument? All ELDV could do was 
make a personal smear using Isa 55:8-9 as a vain attempt to prove 
the opposite. While it is true that God's thoughts are higher 
than our thoughts, it is equally true that if you lack wisdom, 
all one must do is ask God and He will provide the wisdom needed 
(James 1:5). The NT also declares that God's Spirit has been 
provided that we might know the things that are freely given to 
us of God (I Cor 2:12). Jesus was not speaking in riddles or 
parables. He gave a truthful, common sense, easy to understand 
response: "believe in Him."

Then ELDV hides behind: "Why would Jesus speak to Jews about what 
was necessary for Christians to be saved?" ELDV draws an 
unnecessary distinction between Jews and Christians. Jews can be 
Christians as well. ELDV faulty distinction between the Law of 
Moses and the new covenant in Christ implies TWO faiths and TWO 
plans of salvation. Since ELDV's view is a Christ-denying, human-
centered, self- righteous system of death and despair, he has no 
inherent requirement for consistency. Hence, he can demand ONE 
faith/baptism in one argument and then demand TWO faiths here in 
this argument. The Bible clearly says that there is but ONE faith 
and ONE baptism. Paul, in Romans 4, uses Abraham as a fitting 
example of justification by faith regardless of circumcision, 
works, sacraments or testament.

Then he tried another appeal to Col 2:14-17. When I showed him 
that this was based on a rooted and established faith, he 
declared, "Mr. Olson has yet to prove that the baptism here is by 
necessity the Spirit baptism." Clearly ELDV has run out of valid 
responses. Let me again show him the following biblical 
evidences:

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 (I Cor 12:13). The Spirit seals 
and provides the earnest of eternal life (II Cor 1:22, 5:5; Eph 
1:13-14). The Spirit gives life (II Cor 3:6). Believers receive 
the Spirit by faith - not by works (Gal 3:2,14). The body without 
the Spirit is dead (Jam 2:26). This is tremendous evidence that 
verifies that the Spirit's presence secures eternal life without 
baptism, works or anything else. ELDV's sideshow has not 
overturned the lexical evidences.

Where was ELDV's refutation? Jesus Himself declares salvation is 
only faith in Him. The word "only" is a logical conclusion. Since 
Jesus purposely omitted any other qualification, the inclusion of 
the word "only" is not an argument from silence. Conspicuous by 
absence is any reference to water baptism. The command stands: 
believe in Jesus – alone.

F. PAUL'S REQUIREMENT The original argument was: "Paul's gospel 
is the knowledge of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus 
(1 Cor 15:3-4) with justification by instrumental faith (Rom 5:1; 
Gal 2:16; 3:14,22,26; 1 Tim 1:16). He wants to know nothing 
except Jesus and His crucifixion (1 Cor 2:2). Water baptism is 
resolutely denied (1 Cor 1:14,17)."

ELDV first tried to refute this by asking why Paul baptized 
people. 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 simplistic 
question is not a refutation.

ELDV next tried to suggest that Acts 15 demands more of James 
than what he quoted. James quoted only Amos 9:11-12. However, 
prior context shows God's judgment against Israel and post 
context shows God's permanent restoration of Israel. Even the 
verses James' quoted refer to the rebuilding of David's 
tabernacle. Since this was spoken in a time when the temple was 
already standing, what need would James have in this quote if he 
were referring to an already existing structure? Common sense 
dictates that the rebuilding of David's tabernacle is a direct 
reference to the restoration of national Israel. ELDV clearly 
cannot see the impact of the two quoted verses much less their 
CONTEXT. His sideshow ends. His refutation fails.

ELDV next asked, "Why is baptism part of Acts 8 and Acts 19 if it 
is not part of the Gospel?" In Acts 8, water baptism comes after 
a declaration of faith in Jesus (justification). Water baptism is 
an act of faithful consecration to God in order to live the new 
life for Him. In Acts 19, Paul clearly shows that the Acts 2 
baptism did not save (19:4). Here is more inconsistency on ELDV's 
part. In one argument, he wants to use Acts 2:38 as a proof of 
salvation. In this argument, he does not want to see Paul's 
denouncement of Acts 2:38. Since he embraces a self-righteous 
system of death, he has no inherent requirement for consistency. 
In Acts 19, Paul preached Jesus to those who were not saved. 
AFTER they heard [and believed] (19:5a), they were baptized. 
Another sideshow debunked!

All ELDV's arguments have failed. The original argument yet 
stands.

G. JOHN'S REQUIREMENT The original argument was: "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 could only show his ignorance of the relationship of 
justification to salvation by lamenting, "What does John speak of 
in terms of justification? Nothing!" He then retreats to the 
already refuted error of making John 3:5 imply water baptism.

Salvation is the overarching umbrella encompassing all aspects of 
God's plan of redemption. Justification is the initiating aspect 
by which God the Judge declares sinner's to be forgiven as He 
also imputes Christ's righteousness to them. Sanctification is 
the aspect by which God our Father sets believers aside unto 
Himself through adoption and works with believers toward 
purification through faithful obedience.

While justification is not in John's Gospel, the implication is 
quite clear in his use of the words "eternal life." Note that 
John specifically omits any reference to water baptism. ELDV's 
abuse of John 3:5 has already been refuted. In John 3, Jesus 
makes three attempts to teach that the new birth is "from above" 
(anothen). Thus, the new birth is not associated with human 
activity. In 3:6, Jesus continues the contrast ELDV misses from 
just looking at v5.  Physical life is contrasted with eternal 
life. Physical life comes through the waters of birth; spiritual 
life comes by God's Spirit! Verse 7 supplies the bookend to verse 
5 showing that the new birth is spiritual from above and not from 
human activity below. ELDV ignores the contrast and redefines it 
as water baptism.

ELDV continues to retreat to a few verses abused by context, 
violated by self-righteousness, and redefined by denominational 
rhetoric. Each of these few verses has been debunked. This 
highlights the paucity of genuine biblical support ELDV can 
muster. Meanwhile, biblical evidences for justification by faith 
apart from water baptism show up everywhere. This difference is 
noteworthy.

ELDV's sideshows are refuted. The argument stands as given. Water 
baptism is unequivocally omitted throughout John's presentation 
of the gospel.

H. PETER's REQUIREMENT. The original argument was: "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."

ELDV suggests: "Perhaps Peter had no intention of imposing the 
whole story of Noah on 1 Peter 3?" Inexplicably, his refutation 
appeals to Noah's drunkenness. Since this happens way after The 
Flood, it has no bearing whatsoever upon the illustration. 
Apparently, ELDV has been refuted so often on this illustration 
that he now clutches for the absurd.

Note how ELDV twists the actual text. He declares, "Baptism [is] 
the appeal for a cleansed conscience through the resurrection" 
while Peter actually said, baptism is "the answer of a good 
conscience toward God."

What is so hard about the word "answer?" An answer is a response. 
In context, baptism is a response to an already cleansed 
conscience. A cleansed conscience is a synonym for "ALREADY 
SAVED." The OT context declares that Noah was ALREADY just, 
forgiven and perfect before The Flood. ELDV resolutely denies 
this easy observation.

When I showed that the context of I Peter (after the 
introduction) was strictly sanctification, ELDV could only 
remark, "Nothing in the context demands this rigid system of 
justification vs. sanctification." Really? Everything in both the 
OT and NT context speaks of events that happen AFTER 
justification. Only willful dismissal of context could lead to 
such an incredible statement.

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.

ELDV's lucubrations denied Christ, violated context, confused 
biblical justification and sanctification, and redefined God's 
Word through Catholic rhetoric. 

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. The demand for water 
baptism regeneration 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.

Let us seek to be "found in him, not having mine own 
righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the 
faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith" 
(Phil 3:9). 

Lloyd