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'S THIRD AFFIRMATIVE.
I.    Definitions
II.   Smith's Comprehensive Failures
III.  New Material
IV.   Biblical Creeds
V.    The Weight of Scripture
VI.   Challenge
VII.  Conclusion

I. DEFINITIONS
Mr. Smith is under a hapless and calamitous opinion that he 
doesn't have to respond to my definition of salvation. His 
puerile decision is the equivalent of resignation. He has taken 
the naοve approach that his denominational definition of 
salvation is sufficient for any Bible verse. Does he not know 
that the same word can have different meanings in different 
contexts? His denominational definition cannot distinguish 
between the following:
__ a temporal salvation from one's enemies (Deut 20:4),
__ Israel's national salvation (Acts 2:40, Rom 11:26),
__ as a synonym for "except" (John 6:22),
__ salvation from a specific hour (John 12:27),
__ salvation from a storm (Acts 27),
__ salvation from God's wrath (Rom 5:9), __ a woman's salvation 
through childbearing (1 Tim 2:15), or
__ salvation as a synonym of eternal life (John 3:15-16).

Since the proposition specifically mentions "the point of faith," 
we must have a definition sufficient to allow a discussion of 
everything pertinent to that moment. In a debate, when the 
affirmative provides a detailed definition, it is the task of the 
negative to either accept it or prove the definition false. So, 
Mr. Smith, even as the negative, you have a responsibility to 
prove my definition wrong. A flippant dismissal of the biblical 
definition of salvation that teaches that the event of 
justification is in parallel with (yet distinct from) the process 
of sanctification IS NOT A REFUTATION. Since I have given a 
definition of salvation to a level sufficient to discuss the 
point of faith, your agreement to debate the proposition includes 
your agreement to discuss my definition – OR – concede the point 
through evasion or silence.

Indeed, Mr. Smith's self-righteous Christ-denying system can 
thrive only within an obdurate environment that dismisses this 
crucial and vital topic. This is why he has twice run from a 
discussion of the definition. His avoidance corrupts and negates 
his every attempted analysis.

II. SMITH'S COMPREHENSIVE FAILURES
Mr. Smith's failure to address the critical definition of 
salvation in this debate is amplified by his so-called responses.

A. JAMES 2.
In my second affirmative, I debunked Mr. Smith's willful 
ignorance of the biblical contexts of this passage. Incredibly, 
his response is only the feeble question "if Paul is not talking 
about our being saved by our works (only) then you tell us what 
he is saying." Because Mr. Smith refuses to address the critical 
definition of salvation as the EVENT of justification in parallel 
with (yet distinct from) the PROCESS of sanctification, he closes 
his mind to the material presented in my second affirmative. 
There, I clearly show that the process of our salvation that 
pertains to sanctification BEFORE OTHERS depends on our salvation 
that pertains to the event of justification BEFORE GOD. 

B. JESUS' USE OF THE MURMURING ISRAELITES
Mr. Smith's paltry grasp of the critical definition causes him to 
confuse the human LOOK of faith with God's EVENT of 
justification. Did Mr. Smith not see in my first affirmative how 
I called out that the verbs of the Hebrew narrative were in the 
perfect tense? Certainly Mr. Smith has Hebrew helps sufficient to 
allow him to verify this. Let me suggest: 
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1145290636-3456.html#9 . Here, 
any casual reader can verify that the verbs "nabat" (he beheld) 
and "chayay" (he lived) are both in the perfect tense. Any casual 
reader can click on the tense to discover that the perfect tense 
"expresses a completed action" [fn1].

A completed act is proof that the salvation that pertains to the 
EVENT of justification occurs at the point of faith. A completed 
act is NOT a process. As I presented in my first affirmative, 
faith must not be redefined as faithfulness. Faith in Jesus is 
sufficient to achieve God's righteous COMPLETED ACT of the 
salvation that pertains to the EVENT of justification.

Mr. Smith's treacherous deception resides solely in his confusing 
the human action of LOOKING to Jesus with God's action in the 
salvation that pertains to the EVENT of justification. When one 
properly addresses the definition of salvation as the EVENT of 
justification in parallel with (yet distinct from) the PROCESS of 
sanctification, then one easily sees that Jesus referred only to 
the justification aspect of salvation that relates to the event 
of the new birth. Mr. Smith's trickery would have us redefine 
"new birth" as a lifelong process. Does not common sense tell us 
that we aren't continually being born from our mother's womb for 
the rest of our lives! Any mother will quickly delight in setting 
Mr. Smith straight on his awkward confused redefinition.

C. NOAH
Mr. Smith thinks that a clever reworded implication is a 
refutation. He implied that all Noah had to do was believe to be 
saved and thus did not need to build the ark to be saved. Since 
Mr. Smith's generic definition assigns all words with the one 
same definition of salvation, he cannot distinguish between the 
two salvations of the Flood saga. How can we distinguish between 
these two salvations?

The first clue is that Noah was found just, righteous and perfect 
(Gen 6:8-9, 7:1) BEFORE the Flood. The second clue is that 
Peter's entire epistle deals with issues of sanctification. 
Scripture harmonizes! Noah's salvation was but a temporal 
salvation from the Flood. Had Noah died in the Flood, he would 
yet be in heaven since he was already justified. The biblical 
definition of salvation allows us to see that the salvation that 
pertains to event of justification before the Flood IS DISTINCT 
FROM the process of sanctification through the Flood salvation. 
Mr. Smith's one-denominational-definition-fits-all is obstinately 
blind to the context.

D. PAUL'S CONVERSION.
Mr. Smith tries to cover his avoidance of the biblical definition 
of salvation with the deception of partial context analysis. He 
is quick to quote Acts 9:6 and Acts 22:16. Yet, he is blind to 
the total context where God declares Paul to be a chosen vessel 
(Acts 9:15) and a commissioned apostle (Acts 22:17) to the 
Gentiles BEFORE his water baptism by Ananias. Saul was justified 
(EVENT) by faith without water baptism.

Mr. Smith's denominational definition of salvation cannot 
distinguish between Saul's salvation that pertains to the event 
of justification on the road to Damascus and Paul's salvation 
that pertains to the process of sanctification before Ananias.

E. PAUL IN 1 CORINTHIANS
Mr. Smith thinks that the contentions of the brotherhood are a 
sufficient smoke screen to hide Paul's blatant denial of the 
inclusion of water baptism in the gospel message. What is so hard 
about:

    "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel?"
     (1 Cor 1:17)

In part D above, we clearly saw that Paul was commissioned BEFORE 
his baptism. Mr. Smith's loyalty to a man-made religion makes him 
stop his analysis at verse 17. Had he read to verse 18, he would 
have seen Paul declare that salvation is God's power – not a 
human PROCESS. Had he read to verse 21, he would have seen that 
God's salvation is a gift (event) given to those who believe. 
There is no mention of water baptism or other outward signs. Had 
he read into chapter two he would have seen that Paul's gospel is 
Jesus Christ and Him crucified to the exclusion of anything else 
(2 Cor 2:2).

Mr. Smith's man-made religion can only survive with a partial 
analysis of the text. The biblical presentation of salvation as 
the event of justification in parallel to (yet distinct from) the 
process of sanctification exposes Mr. Smith's religion as a 
perversion of the Gospel Truth.

F. ZACCHAUES, THIEF, PARALYTIC MAN.
Mr. Smith's refutation is that these examples belong in the OT. 
Doesn't he realize that these are simply more proofs that the OT 
saints were saved WITHOUT water baptism with the SAME GOSPEL (Heb 
4:2) as we have?! In his attempt to disagree with me on anything 
I say, he has unwittingly proven my OT point! It isn't often that 
my opponents go so far out of the way to agree with me.

Additionally, Mr. Smith denies the remission of sins before the 
Cross. Yet David rejoiced in God's forgiveness before the Cross 
(Psa 130:4). Daniel ascribed forgiveness to God even after 
rebellion (Dan 9:9). The Hebrew words for "forgive" include nasa' 
(654x), calach (46x), kaphar (102x), kipper (8x), naqah (44x), 
and machah (36x). It appears that Mr. Smith's Bible has at least 
892 holes in it ! !

Again, Mr. Smith's process theology can only stand with a partial 
analysis.

III. NEW MATERIAL
In addition to the billions of OT saints saved without water 
baptism and the seven NT examples presented, there are yet more 
examples.

Phillip denied water baptism to the Ethiopian Eunuch (Acts 8) 
until the Eunuch could demonstrate an existing salvation. 
Philip's caution emphasizes the difference between the salvation 
that pertains to the event of justification by faith in Jesus and 
the salvation that pertains to process of sanctification through 
water baptism.

The Great Commission clearly links salvation with baptism. But to 
which salvation is baptism linked? A correct understanding sees 
that the word "baptism" is a participle dependent upon the main 
verb (making disciples). Thus, the salvation that pertains to the 
event of justification relates to making disciples while the 
salvation that pertains to the process of sanctification relates 
to water baptism. Mr. Smith's avoidance of the biblical 
definition of salvation blinds him to the two aspects of 
salvation.

IV. BIBLICAL CREEDS
The Bible is full of summative creeds of the Christian faith. 
Consider: John 20:31; Acts 13:39; Acts 15:11; Rom 1:16-18, 3:22; 
1 Cor 1:21; Gal 3:22; Eph 1:19; 1 Tim 1:16; Heb 11:6; 1 John 
3:23, 5:13. There are many more. All of these refer to the 
salvation that pertains to justification as coming by faith. None 
of these refers to salvation as coming by water baptism. The 
following two are powerful summaries.

Paul and Silas heard the jailer's self-centered question, "What 
must I do to be saved?" They responded with an heavenly answer, 
"Believe!" (Acts 16:31). Only after demonstrated faith do Paul 
and Silas move to water baptize. They are able to discern between 
the salvation that pertains to the event of justification by 
faith in Jesus and the salvation that pertains to the process of 
sanctification via water. Mr. Smith willfully avoids the truth 
and parrots the jailer's self-righteous theology.

The crowd asked Jesus a self-centered question, "What shall we 
do, that we might work the works of God?" Jesus responded with an 
heavenly answer, "Believe in Me!" (John 6:27-29). Water baptism 
was never a thought. Jesus' purposeful exclusion of water baptism 
in the salvation that pertains to the event of justification is 
clear and powerful. Mr. Smith willfully avoids the truth and 
parrots the crowd's self-righteous theology.

Positively, EVERY summative creed emphasizes that the salvation 
that pertains to the event of justification before God comes at 
the point of faith.

Negatively, NO summary links the salvation that pertains to the 
event of justification with water baptism.

V. THE WEIGHT OF SCRIPTURE
It doesn't take a calculator to see that the weight of scripture 
exclusively affirms justification as an EVENT completed at the 
point of faith WITHOUT water baptism.

It doesn't take a calculator to see that Mr. Smith's sole 
hermeneutic is the abject refusal to accept the biblical teaching 
on salvation. His every attempt at analysis is corrupted by an 
unmitigated failure to comprehend the crucial essence of biblical 
salvation: the event of justification in parallel with (yet 
distinct from) the process of sanctification.

VI. CHALLENGE.
In my first affirmative, I laid down the biblical presentation of 
salvation as the EVENT of justification in parallel with (yet 
distinct from) the PROCESS of sanctification. Only then, and 
because I anticipated Mr. Smith's evasive tactic, I specifically 
challenged him find one Bible verse that presents justification 
as a PROCESS. Mr. Smith has wrongly thought my challenge to be 
part of an affirmation that he doesn't have to do. Wrong-O! After 
a point has been issued, his refutation is mandatory – unless he 
wishes to concede the point through silence!

Mr. Smith's avoidance of the biblical definition of salvation is 
a deafening theological roar! Since he himself noted that the 
word "dikaioo" appears fewer than forty times, it should have 
been an easy task for him to refute my definition of salvation. 
That he fails to follow up his own statement is enlightening.

His failure to find one verse that refutes my detailed definition 
exposes his process view as a man-made redefinition of God's 
Word. His failure verifies the truthful coherence of the biblical 
definition of salvation as the EVENT of justification in parallel 
with (yet distinct from) the PROCESS of sanctification. My 
definition stands – unchallenged!

Mr. Smith has twice failed to address the definition of salvation 
that would allow a discussion of the point (not process) of 
faith. I know in advance, that he will fail yet another four 
times because the biblical record does not have any such verse 
that supports his errant process view.

VI. CONCLUSION
One has to understand that Mr. Smith's reluctance to enter into a 
genuine exchange comes from an innate realization that his 
theology only has a pretense of religion. He can only talk 
religion at a vague and shallow level of analysis. He can only 
talk theology by way of a purposeful confusion of the biblical 
definition of salvation. He has no valid explanation for verses 
like Heb 10:14 where both aspects of salvation are presented in 
the same verse. Indeed, the summary of his contributions to this 
debate is nothing but deceptive confusion and denominational 
redefinitions that twist Holy Writ to serve a man-made religion 
that subtracts from the total sufficiency of Christ and adds the 
corruption of human-centered self-righteousness.

Would he at any time begin a rigorous study of God's Word, he 
would come face to face with EVENT justification. At that time, 
he would have to make a decision on whether to continue endorsing 
a man-made PROCESS – OR – repent, disavow his man-made self-
righteous religion, and embrace the truth.

NO biblical illustration or teaching links the salvation that 
pertains to the event of justification with a process of human 
activity that includes water baptism.

EVERY biblical illustration and teaching declares that the 
salvation that pertains to the event of justification comes at 
the point of faith before any outwards signs such as confession 
and baptism.

May Christ alone be glorified!
Dr. Lloyd Olson