Olson/Smith Debate on Salvation

 
 
 Proposition: 
 Salvation comes at the point of faith before any outwards signs 
such as confession and baptism.
Affirm: Dr. Lloyd Olson
Deny: J. T. Smith

Dr. Olson is like a great number of men I have known who try to 
defend their error in open discussion. First of all, instead of 
dealing with what the Scriptures teach, he tries to channel 
everyone’s thinking in another direction. Doctor Olson did not 
sign to affirm (neither did I sign to deny) the subject of 
“justification”. He signed to affirm (and I signed to deny) that 
salvation is at the point of faith. Yet in his last affirmative 
he used the word “salvation” eleven times and “justification” 
FORTY SEVEN times. Dr. Olson, read and affirm your proposition. 
It says “Salvation comes at the point of faith…”

In case you are not aware of it, there are two different Greek 
words that are translated “saved” and “justified”. “Saved” or 
“salvation” is used one hundred times in the New Testament and is 
from the root word sozo. The word “justify” “justified” or 
“justification” is found thirty-five times. The root word is 
dikaioo. We are supposed to be discussing people who were not the 
children of God but were saved and became children of God. Now 
our question is; what passage(s), teaches us that those who were 
not the children of God had their sins forgiven and become 
Christians at the point of faith? The burden of proof is yours, 
Doctor Olson.  He insists that I prove one is NOT saved at the 
point of faith but must be baptized. All in due time, all in due 
time. You would think Dr. Olson had never debated before and 
wasn’t aware of the facts. Instead of affirming his proposition, 
he is trying to get me to affirm while in the negative. But, we 
know that Dr. Olson has had many debates and knows exactly what 
he is trying to do.

In his point II. he asks, 
“Did Mr. Smith refute anything I presented…he avoided a direct 
discussion of justification.” 

Now Dr. Olson, again I say we are not discussing the subject of 
justification. I am sure it would be an interesting study, but we 
have not signed to discuss that subject. 

He said, concerning Abraham’s justification by faith,

“he jerked it out of context.” 

No, I was simply trying to show that even if we were talking 
about justification, Abraham was not justified by “faith only.” 
Now Dr. Olson knows what James says about the matter. Abraham was 
justified by faith when it moved him to do what God said. He also 
knows that James says it was not by “faith only” don’t you Dr. 
Olson? By the way, was Rahab already a child of God when she 
received the spies in Jericho? James says, in 2:25 “Likewise also 
was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had 
received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?” When 
did her justification come – at the point of faith or after she 
had obeyed God’s instruction to receive the spies and send them 
out another way?

In his next paragraph he chides me for “attempting to circumvent 
God’s word.” All right, Dr. Olson, if Paul is not talking about 
our being saved by our works (only) then you tell us what he is 
saying.

Olson’s III. Where was Mr. Smith's refutation of the LOOK of 
faith alone that perfectly completed salvation and affirmed 
justification as an EVENT?

Dr. Olson says I refused to refute his argument concerning the 
Murmuring Israelites. Remember his argument is at the point of 
faith. Notice, however what he said. The Israelites were cleansed 
by “the LOOK of faith…” Dr. Olson, don’t you see what you’ve 
done? It was BOTH – their FAITH that caused them to LOOK. I ask 
you, Dr. Olson, was LOOKING faith or was it AN ACT OF FAITH IN 
OBEDIENCE TO A COMMAND OF GOD? You gave up your proposition by 
using this illustration. Now don’t forget to tell us if CLEANSING 
was at the point of faith!

Well what do you know? Dr. Olson does know the difference in 
salvation and justification. He used them both in the above 
sentence. But, our proposition says SALVATION, Dr. Olson. 

Olson’s point III. C. Where was Mr. Smith's refutation of the 
fact that Noah was justified BEFORE the Flood? 

I was not trying to prove whether Noah was “justified before the 
flood.” That is not a part of the proposition. My point was this, 
you are talking about something happening “by faith.” If the 
blessing is given as a gift from God, it may be conditional or 
unconditional. It may be predicated upon performing a “work of 
righteousness” as was true of Noah. 

Why didn’t Noah just say, “God I believe there is going to be a 
flood and I believe you can save us.” Isn’t that what you are 
affirming in your proposition?  Wouldn’t that be the same as 
telling people that all they have to do is believe in Jesus as 
the Christ the Son of God and they can be saved WITHOUT ANY 
WORKS?

Where was Mr. Smith's refutation of the fact that Peter's epistle 
was an exhortation of sanctification issues?

How did you come to that conclusion, Dr. Olson? The word 
sanctification is used only one time in I Peter 1:2. The word 
saved is used three times in I Peter. Yet the good Doctor 
concludes that Peter’s epistle is an exhortation of 
sanctification.

See what happens? Dr. Olson when you deny what the Bible says, 
you’re in hot water up to your hip boots. That’s bad for a man 
who has hydrophobia.

Olson’s IV. NT EXAMPLES
Dr. Olson says Jesus’ baptism is a pattern for us all. Who said so? Dr. Olson. What passage did he use? NONE!

B. Paul's Conversion
Where was Mr. Smith's refutation of the fact that Paul was saved 
BEFORE his water baptism (Acts 9:6)?

What does Acts 9:6 say? “And he trembling and astonished said, 
Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, 
Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou 
must do.”

Why do you suppose the Lord told him to go into the city and it 
would be told him what he MUST DO! DO?  Saul don’t you know you 
are already saved. REJOICE! Dr. Olson says you are already saved. 

Now let’s see. When Paul gave his own account of his conversion 
in Acts 22, he said in verse 16 that he was told what TO DO to 
“wash away his sins.” What had he been doing that was sinful, 
during the time he was waiting for someone to come to him and 
tell him what to do in Acts 22:16,? Was it the fasting and 
praying for three days and nights? Is that what his sins were all 
about?

Now, Dr. Olson knows more that the Lord. He knows more than the 
angel that came to Ananias, and even knows more than Saul 
himself. According to Acts 22:16 Saul said he still had his 
sins.  Ananias was told, “And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and 
go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the 
house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he 
prayeth” (Acts 9:11). Ananias was under the impression that he 
still had his sins (Acts 22:16). So, no one who was on the scene 
believed Saul was saved. Too bad Dr. Olson wasn’t there to tell 
Saul, “rejoice, you’re saved!”

But what about Ananias calling Saul brother? What about Peter 
calling the people on Pentecost brethren? They were both Jews! 
Why shouldn’t Ananias call him brother? Why would Ananias call 
someone a brother in the Lord who, as Saul himself said, still 
had his sins? No, Dr. Olson, you are mistaken.

Where was Mr. Smith's refutation of the fact that Paul denounced 
the inclusion of water baptism in the gospel message (1 Cor 
1:14,17)?

Perhaps the greatest contextual blunder Dr. Olson has made is 
this. What was the problem Paul had under consideration? “Now I 
beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among 
you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind 
and in the same judgment. 11For it hath been declared unto me of 
you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that 
there are contentions among you. 12Now this I say, that every one 
of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; 
and I of Christ. 13Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? 
or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? 14I thank God that I 
baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius; 15Lest any should 
say that I had baptized in mine own name. 16And I baptized also 
the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I 
baptized any other. 17For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to 
preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of 
Christ should be made of none effect” (I Corinthians 1:10-17).

How can anyone read the above and make the statement Dr. Olson 
made? As the context shows, the reason Paul said he was glad that 
he had not baptized a great number of people was because men were 
claiming they were followers of Paul, Apollos, Cephas or Christ. 
But notice what Paul says it takes for one to be OF Paul. Paul 
had to be crucified for him and he had to be baptized in the name 
of Paul. Yet Dr. Olson wants one to be OF CHRIST whether he is 
baptized or not. Paul was not excluding baptism from the gospel. 
He was saying he was not sent to baptize. John the Baptist was 
sent to baptize – thus his designation “the Baptist”. Dr. Olson 
you are too intelligent not to know what you are doing to these 
passages. Do you hate what the Lord said so much that you would 
stoop to this level? 

VI. MR. SMITH'S FAILURES
Dr. Olson continually wants me in the affirmative – saying that I 
have failed to prove something. Dr. Olson, you are supposed to be 
in the proving business. I am to deny anything you teach with 
which I do not agree. Now good readers, he knows that – don’t you 
Dr. Olson?

- to address the NT use of OT examples of justification  by faith 
alone. He conceded the point!

We are not discussing justification. Your proposition says 
salvation. There is no failure on my part.

- to address the NT teachings of justification by faith alone. He 
conceded the point!

I conceded nothing. You did not show a single passage in Old or 
New Testaments where anyone was saved at the point of faith 
alone. The only passage in the Bible that discusses “faith only” 
is in James 2, and James says NOT justified by faith only.


II. NEW MATERIAL
In addition to the material Mr. Smith failed to address, consider 
the great weight of scripture.
The weeping woman (Luke 7), Zacchaeus, The thief on the cross 
(Luke 23), The paralytic man (Matt 9)
   
All of these accounts, as Dr. Olson well knows, took place while 
Jesus was on earth and BEFORE He authorized His baptism. Though 
Dr. Olson is one of the smoothest and most intelligent men with 
whom I have debated, however his refusal to acknowledge facts 
that he knows makes him the worst of the lot. You are teaching 
false doctrine that will send people to hell. And sir, you will 
answer to God for it.

Now Dr. Olson, you ridicule me for not showing how baptism 
applies to our proposition. It doesn’t apply to your proposition. 
In affirming your proposition you were supposed to show where 
just one person was saved at the point of faith before confession 
or baptism. You obviously can’t show that being done after Christ 
died on the Cross. Before He died on the Cross there was no 
remission of sins, IN FACT – only in PROMISE of forgiveness yet 
to come. Though the blood of animals was used in the Old 
Testament, “But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again 
made of sins every year” (Hebrews 10:3). The Hebrew writer also 
said, “For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of 
an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of 
the flesh: 14How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through 
the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge 
your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” 
(Hebrews 9:13-14). How then were people to receive the 
forgiveness of sins? Through the blood of Christ as verse 14 
says. Observe verse 15. “And for this cause He is the mediator of 
the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of 
the transgressions that were under the first Testament, they 
which are called might receive the promise of eternal 
inheritance.” 

How then could God say of those who had not yet been cleansed by 
the blood of Christ that they were saved or justified? In the 
same way that He spoke of all nations being blessed through 
Abraham’s seed when Abraham had no children. “(As it is written, 
I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he 
believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those 
things which be not as though they were” (Romans 4:17). When God 
promises something it is so certain that it is as if it had 
already happened.

Dr. Olson, we are still waiting for you to produce one person who 
was SAVED at the point of faith. 

By the way, what did he say in reply to my question of whether 
one had to repent before he could be saved? Zilch –Zero – Zip – 
Nil – Nadir – Nothing!  Why not, Dr.? Maybe he will tell us next 
time.