Longhenry/Olson Debate on Baptism

 
 
 The Scriptures do not teach that immersion in water for the 
remission of sin is necessary for salvation.
Affirm:  Lloyd Olson
Deny:  Ethan Longhenry

I will begin by petitioning the reader to think about what the 
proposition says.  The proposition begs one to argue that the 
Scriptures nowhere teach that immersion in water for remission of 
sin is necessary for salvation  In three affirmatives, however, 
Mr. Olson has not done any such thing. Instead, he has attempted 
to focus on particular Scriptures and concepts which he has 
twisted and misinterpreted to the complete neglect of the large 
corpus of Biblical verses regarding baptism.  I bring it to the 
reader's attention that Mr. Olson has spent far more time in his 
concepts of justification and sanctification than the actual 
matters of the proposition.

On justification and sanctification, Mr. Olson has determined to 
provide but part of the story.  Mr. Olson never did defend 
changing the definitions of the terms based on the use of tense, 
since no such "justification" can exist!  Words do not change 
meaning when tense changes-- only the relation between the time 
and the event changes.

Mr. Olson has taken the Scriptures that speak about justification 
and sanctification and makes a big deal out of imposing his 
synthesis upon the rest of the Scriptures, yet does not take into 
consideration that perhaps--  just perhaps-- Paul and the other 
Biblical writers incorporate the concepts of being made righteous 
and being made holy into their other discussions of salvation, 
and not predicate their discussion of salvation on these two 
concepts.  Mr. Olson's system allows no other conversation, and 
yet other conversation is entirely necessary.  How does God 
determine who to justify and who will not be justified?  This 
question was asked in two rebuttals, and was never answered.  
Biblically, justification is dependent on one having come to God 
in obedient faith.  After all, one cannot be made righteous while 
in sin (Isaiah 59:1)!  One's sins must be remitted in order to be 
made righteous, and, despite Mr. Olson's exclusive claims 
regarding a "look of faith," the Bible is clearly manifest in its 
teaching that belief, confession, repentance, and immersion in 
water for the remission of sin are the necessary steps required 
to demonstrate obedient faith and to be made righteous (Acts 
16:31-33, Matthew 10:32-33, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16).

Mr. Olson still holds to this concept of mere event 
justification, but has not truly answered the matter of 1 John 
1:9.  Attempting to refer to technical definitions is a problem 
Mr. Olson has demonstrated throughout the debate, for he has 
decided to use the Protestant explication into very basic 
concepts as opposed to the concepts themselves.  "Justification", 
in Greek, is dikaioo, "to be made righteous."  If one has sin 
against them, can they be considered righteous?  Hardly.  Hence, 
John says that as we confess our sins (present; continual), God 
is faithful and just to forgive us (present; continual).  If we 
continually need forgiveness for the sins we continually commit, 
we must therefore need continually to be made righteous.  The 
Bible, therefore, demonstrates that justification-- being made 
righteous-- must be a continual process, lest we be saved once 
and then consigned to condemnation by future sin.

Mr. Olson has continually denied the intertwined nature of 
"justification" and "sanctification," again in an attempt to 
uphold the Protestant explication of these concepts despite their 
usage in the Bible. "Sanctification" is the Greek hagioo, "to be 
made holy."  To be made righteous, one must be made holy; to be 
made holy, one must be made righteous.  If Mr. Olson dispensed 
with Protestant systems and returned to the Biblical use of these 
terms, the conflict he supposes is here would be manifestly 
dispensed with.

Mr. Olson continues to appeal to John 3, but appeals to John 3 as 
if it is the only chapter in the Bible!  Mr. Olson does not deny 
that he has imposed exclusive terms on the text where there are 
none, and yet seems to make no apology for it.  As interpreters 
of the Bible, we are faced with many decisions to make about the 
way we interpret the Bible.  When we have texts that could be 
seen in conflict, we must choose to find a way to understand how 
they work together in harmony, we can force contradiction in the 
Biblical text, or we can choose to ignore it.  I think that we 
can all dispense with the third possibility, and most Christians 
would recognize that we should not force contradiction upon the 
Biblical text.  Therefore, when we see passages of this sort:

And Peter said unto them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one 
of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your 
sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 
2:38 ASV

And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away 
thy sins, calling on his name. Acts 22:16 ASV

(It should also be noted in regard to Acts 22:16 that Mr. Olson's 
argument regarding Ananias calling Saul "brother" holds no water, 
since they were both Jews and Ananias could have been speaking in 
that regard.  Further, if the sins of Saul had already been 
forgiven before this point, why would Ananias tell Saul to be 
baptized and to have his sins washed away?  Surely Mr. Olson 
would not argue that you could be in a saved relationship with 
God yet have sin against you?)

if so be that it is righteous thing with God to recompense 
affliction to them that afflict you, and to you that are 
afflicted rest with us, at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from 
heaven with the angels of his power in flaming fire, rendering 
vengeance to them that know not God, and to them that obey not 
the gospel of our Lord Jesus: who shall suffer punishment, even 
eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory 
of his might, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 ASV

..and I could go on and on.  The New Testament has plenty of 
passages affirming the need for those who would come to God to 
obey Him, obey His Gospel, and plenty of baptisms took place.

So now we return to John 3.  When we see the multitude of 
evidence in the New Testament affirming the need for obedience to 
be saved, are we justified to interpret John 3 so as to speak 
only of a "look" that would save?  The honest interpreter will 
have difficulties doing such.  It is far easier to reconcile 
these passages by not twisting passages in clear, plain language, 
but by looking at Jesus' words in their context and in how He 
compares by metaphor His being lifted up on the cross with the 
bronze serpent being lifted up by Moses.  It is eisegesis, not 
exegesis, to read into this text that Jesus says that looking 
upon Him means a "simple look of faith aside from works."  The 
"look" cannot be literal, lest none of us be saved after 33 CE; 
the "look", therefore, is a metaphor for something, and the only 
thing that is in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures would be 
obedient faith.  We "look to Jesus" upon the cross by obedient 
faith.

On baptism, Spirit and water, Mr. Olson dodged the issue.  I 
asked him to explain how he spoke of "two baptisms," by the 
Spirit and in water, when Paul speaks of one baptism in Ephesians 
4:4.  His response?  "My second affirmative presented many verses 
that verifying the Spirit's presence in securing eternal life 
without baptism."  Furthermore, when asked why he would emphasize 
the type of baptism that the New Testament does not emphasize, he 
responded by saying, "Look at all the Bible evidence that shows 
the Spirit's activity in justification."

It would appear that Mr. Olson attempts to evade the issue of the 
number of BAPTISMS by speaking about the Spirit's role in 
salvation.  Nothing in what Mr. Olson cited denies the need of 
immersion in water for remission of sin. Nothing in what Mr. 
Olson cited speaks of baptism of the Spirit, save 1 Corinthians 
12:13, which itself has been properly explained as to that into 
which we are baptized when immersed in water.  The reason why he 
evades, of course, is because the preponderance of the Biblical 
evidence proves that the "one baptism" of Paul is immersion in 
water, not the Spirit.  Mr. Olson even concedes that the 
Scriptures do not explicitly establish all usages of the term 
"baptism" as being Spirit baptism.  Mr. Olson has provided no 
evidence that everyone who was immersed in water in the New 
Testament was also baptized by the Spirit.  Mr. Olson has not 
proven that the Spirit is the agent of baptism.  He has not 
proven this because the Scriptures do not teach it!

Mr. Olson has made a big deal of his interpretation of Colossians 
2, yet has not actually proven that his methodology is 
legitimate.  He has not proven that the "circumcision without 
hands" refers to baptism.  He incredibly makes the argument that 
the baptism of verse 12 is the work of God, when the text clearly 
says that us being raised with him is the work of God.  In his 
attempt to undermine the truth of baptism, he endeavors for 
everything in the passage to be seen spiritually, yet he entirely 
misses that Paul speaks of the baptism as a burial, which makes 
complete sense in terms of immersion in water yet no sense if 
seen as being immersed by the Spirit.  The circumcision of verse 
11 is spiritual: the removal of the "man of sin."  The quickening 
of verse 13 is also spiritual.  Speaking of all of these 
spiritual events does not mean that the baptism of verse 12 
cannot be physical, since immersion in water is a physical act 
with spiritual consequences.

Mr. Olson continues this line of thought with the concept of 
temporal and eternal thing.  In all honesty, Mr. Olson should 
have retracted this argument immediately.  When his argument is 
taken naturally, it denies the saving power of the death of 
Christ!  He has to make exceptions for such things in order to 
make the argument seem to work, and by doing so the argument is 
seen to fail.  Everything Mr. Olson says regarding the fact that 
the death of Christ was a physical event with spiritual 
consequences is true for baptism: it's a physical event with 
spiritual consequences.  As Christ physically died so we could 
have the forgiveness of sin, a spiritual consequence, so we also 
physically are immersed in water so we can walk in newness of 
life, having put to death the man of sin, appealing to God for 
the remission of our sin-- spiritual consequences.

In this argument, Mr. Olson cannot have it both ways-- he cannot 
affirm the physical aspects of the death of Christ while denying 
the spiritual consequences inherent in baptism.  The argument 
fails miserably.

Mr. Olson continues to posit the idea that Acts 2 is part of some 
message to "national Israel," and irrelevant to us.  We ought to 
remember that by doing so he appeals to the wayward question of 
the disciples who had clearly not yet understood the spiritual 
nature of the Kingdom (Acts 1:6).  He then provided the flimsiest 
of connections to Acts 3:21, and when called upon it, could only 
appeal to the same error of the Jews for the past two thousand 
years: the expectation of a messiah to re-establish physical 
Israel, which was in truth nowhere promised and will not occur.  
That covenant has been superceded (Hebrews 8:13), and history 
proves as much: no one has been able to observe the Law of Moses 
in its entirety since 70 CE.  Despite the mountain of evidence 
against it, Mr. Olson continues to perpetuate this false 
standard.  We must learn to read the prophecies in the Old 
Testament in spiritual terms lest God be made a liar.

It should also be re-iterated that Mr. Olson never did justify 
imposing more of Amos 9 than James actually cited in Acts 15.  In 
Acts 15:16-17, James cites Amos 9:11-12 to prove that God 
intended to bring the Gentiles into the fold, agreeing with the 
experience of Simon Peter.  Mr. Olson has demanded that the 
entire context be read into the passage-- vv. 11-15 of Amos 9.  
He has never justified this.  He has never answered why he would 
demand this here yet would never demand the entire context of 
Isaiah 7 be imposed on Matthew 1:23.  It is high time to call Mr. 
Olson to consistency, and demand that he read the text as the 
text is written, and not to impose more upon it than is 
necessary.  Mr. Olson has imposed this contradiction upon the 
text where it simply does not belong at all, and despite having 
been called upon it no fewer than three times, never did respond 
to the criticism.

Acts 2, the first Gospel lesson, is the same message preached to 
the Gentiles; the gospel of Peter and Paul are the same 
(Galatians 1:6-9, Galatians 2:7).  This fact alone is sufficient 
to refute the proposition. Mr. Olson has never made a substantive 
argument denying that Acts 2:38 teaches the need for immersion in 
water for the remission of sin.  With his exegesis exposed as 
misdirected, it demonstrates that the proposition cannot stand.

Regardless, Mr. Olson attempts to get at the heart of faith.  He 
posits that 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 teaches that a man will be 
saved without having works:

According to the grace of God which was given unto me, as a wise 
masterbuilder I laid a foundation; and another buildeth thereon. 
But let each man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other 
foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus 
Christ. But if any man buildeth on the foundation gold, silver, 
costly stones, wood, hay, stubble; each man's work shall be made 
manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it is revealed in 
fire; and the fire itself shall prove each man's work of what 
sort it is. If any man's work shall abide which he built thereon, 
he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he 
shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as 
through fire. 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 ASV

This text says no such thing.  What is the fire that burns one's 
work? Persecution!  One can still survive persecution, even if 
one's works are gone, and yet again strive and continue.

Mr. Olson continues to try to hide behind his system of 
justification and sanctification.  Since the system has been 
demonstrated as not Biblical in source, it is no substitute for 
what the Bible says.  The need for obedience is made manifest in 
more than a few Scriptures (Matthew 10:22, Romans 1:5, 2 
Thessalonians 1:6-9, 1 Peter 1:22, and many others)...let alone 
Hebrews 11 itself, which demonstrates the works in faith done by 
the saints of the Old Testament.  Despite all this, Mr. Olson 
will continue to deny the need for obedience in faith for 
salvation.

Mr. Olson also strove to make Abraham fit his system, despite the 
fact that Abraham was not called in the covenant between God and 
man through Christ Jesus.  Mr. Olson also attempted to cover up 
his inconsistency, but the inconsistency remains.  Mr. Olson will 
read the entire context of Noah and his existence into 1 Peter 
3:20-21, yet refuses to do so for Abraham in Romans 4.  Mr. Olson 
did not answer for his creation of a dual Abraham, as if him 
being the father of nations and an individual human being must be 
made separate, to explain the faith of Genesis 12 as opposed to 
Genesis 15. The ludicrousness of the argument might have been 
made apparent to him. Abraham made many decisions on the basis of 
his personal faith in God, and that began in Genesis 12 when he 
heeded the voice of God (in Haran, not Ur, as Mr. Olson alleged; 
Genesis 12:4) and went to Canaan (Hebrews 11:8-10). Abraham had 
been obeying God long before his "faith was reckoned to him as 
righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).  Mr. Olson has missed the point on 
account of his system!  Paul is not attempting to show that 
Abraham was saved only at Genesis 15 by God's declaration.  
Abraham's obedience had existed for some time.  Paul is 
demonstrating that Abraham having been determined righteous by 
faith was NOT according to the Law of Moses, was NOT on account 
of his circumcision, since he was not yet circumcised!  The 
argument, therefore, is not against obedience, but against 
believing that the Law of Moses justifies.  Abraham's obedient 
faith allowed him to receive the promise. Furthermore-- and most 
importantly-- Paul is not making this argument to deny the need 
for obedience to Christ and is not indeed making any argument 
regarding the need for obedient faith under the new covenant.  
His argument ONLY speaks of how Abraham's faith was not tied to 
the Law of Moses nor his circumcision.  Mr. Olson's attempt to 
broaden this to "any rite", any form of obedience, is textually 
unwarranted and fallacious.

There was one other argument that ought to have been retracted 
immediately, that of the "second human."  Mr. Olson alleges that 
baptism cannot be for salvation because it requires the presence 
of another human.  The fallacy of the argument has been twice 
exposed by Romans 10:14-17, where Paul establishes that salvation 
can only come when people hear the Word, and to hear the Word, 
one must be preaching it!  The presence of a second human is no 
hindrance to the need of immersion in water for the remission of 
sin.

Mr. Olson has tried to make much of 1 Corinthians 1:14-17, where 
Paul demonstrates that on account of people believing that they 
were baptized in Paul's name, he would cease being the actual 
baptizer.  This statement is twisted by Mr. Olson to deny the 
presence of baptism in the Gospel, despite the fact that the 
response of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8:34-39 of Philip's 
preaching of Jesus was the desire to be baptized.  How else would 
the eunuch have known to be baptized unless Philip preached its 
need in the Gospel?  Mr. Olson has never really answered this 
fact, but has attempted to evade it with statements referring to 
baptism being for consecration--  something you do not see in the 
Scriptures.  If any act were for consecration, it would be the 
laying on of hands (1 Timothy 4:14).  Mr. Olson's statements are 
entirely unsatisfactory simply because they are not Biblical.  
Baptism is nowhere called an act of consecration.  It is never 
declared a public act of a demonstration of an inward event.

Finally, regarding 1 Peter 3, Mr. Olson again attempts to 
rationalize his imposing of the entire story in Genesis upon the 
text when such is entirely unwarranted.  He has yet to warrant 
it!  This is shoddy exegesis.  The only event Peter speaks of is 
Noah being preserved from death by being in the Ark during the 
Flood.  Baptism is drawn in parallel as the antitype-- the 
contrary type.  There is no warrant to impose anything else from 
Genesis upon the text.  Mr. Olson creates this charade simply to 
deflect the fact that Peter speaks clearly on the saving nature 
of baptism.

Mr. Olson then challenges my interpretation of the text, 
attempting to say that Peter says that baptism is the "answer of 
a good conscience." Unfortunately for Mr. Olson, the word 
eperotema is related to the word eperotao, used both in Mark 9:32 
and Matthew 16:1 as "to question, to seek after."  Robertson 
notes that it never means "answer" in ancient Greek.  The Greek 
word manifestly demonstrates that baptism is the seeking-- the 
asking-- for a good conscience through the resurrection.  It is 
not already present.  The conscience is not yet purged.  These 
facts demonstrate the fallacy of Mr. Olson's argumentation on 1 
Peter 3:20-21.

What, then, shall we say regarding these things?  Mr. Olson 
assiduously avoided most of the texts in the New Testament 
demonstrating the need for immersion in water for remission of 
sin.  His evasions in regards to systems of justification and 
sanctification, attempting to isolate Acts 1-3 as referring to 
Jews alone, and overemphasizing the concept of Spirit baptism 
have been exposed and proven wrong.  Salvation is not only spoken 
of in terms of being made righteous and being made holy; one is 
made righteous and made holy in terms of being saved, in terms of 
believing in God, confessing Jesus as the Christ, repenting of 
one's sins, and being immersed in water for the remission of 
sin.  This remission of sin allows for being made righteous and 
being made holy.  The arguments regarding Acts 1-3 cause 
unnecessary contradiction, since it is manifest from Galatians 
1:6-9 and 2:7 that Peter and Paul preach the same Gospel.  If the 
message is the same, Acts 2 is the same as the preaching of 
Paul.  If that is true, Mr. Olson cannot be right.  Furthermore, 
there is but one baptism, and the baptism in the Holy Spirit is 
easily demonstrated to be the miraculous event of God as 
predicted by the prophets of old for specific purposes, and 
immersion in water for the remission of sin is the operative "one 
baptism" for all who would be saved today.

The Scriptures stand.  Mr. Olson can run around them, attempt to 
make arguments ignoring them, and exalt the systems of men, but 
in the end the Scriptures are true and they cannot be denied.

And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, "All 
authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye 
therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them 
into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy 
Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of 
the world." Matthew 28:18-20 ASV

And Peter said unto them, "Repent ye, and be baptized every one 
of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your 
sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Acts 
2:38 ASV

Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ 
Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with 
him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised 
from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might 
walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with him in 
the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of 
his resurrection; knowing this, that our old man was crucified 
with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we 
should no longer be in bondage to sin; for he that hath died is 
justified from sin. Romans 6:3-7 ASV

which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, 
not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the 
interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the 
resurrection of Jesus Christ; 1 Peter 3:21 ASV

The Scriptures manifestly show that immersion in water, baptism, 
is for remission of sin, and is necessary for salvation. The 
proposition stands refuted, and is patently false, and those who 
would advocate it ought to reconsider the message of God and 
repent before it is everlastingly too late.

Ethan R. Longhenry (ELDV)