Olson/Smith Debate on Salvation

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

I. DEFINITIONS

Dr. Olson has chided me for not opposing his definition of the word salvation. There is a 
problem. His proposition does not hinge on his definition of salvation. HE DIDN’T 
DEFINE IT. 
   
In his last affirmative he gave several examples of how the word salvation is used  
“temporal salvation, Israel's national salvation, a synonym for "except", salvation from a 
specific hour, salvation from a storm, salvation from God's wrath, - a woman's salvation 
through childbearing, salvation as a synonym of eternal life. Now which one defines or 
sets forth the salvation from past sins? Neither one! Yet that is supposed to be what we 
are discussing.

Dr. Olson says, 
“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.” 

That I deny. I did not sign to discuss everything pertinent to that moment. I signed to deny 
that salvation is at the point of faith. He haven’t proven it – he won’t prove it – he can’t 
prove it because the Bible doesn’t teach it. All of this other verbiage about justification 
and sanctification is just a smoke screen to keep our readers from knowing his utter 
failure to establish the position set forth in his proposition. 

The definition of the word saved is as follows. “The basic meaning of the verb sôz is to 
rescue from peril, to protect, keep alive. When Sôzría, salvation, savior, and the 
salvation, are used, the context must be considered to determine whether the 
preservation of physical life (deliverance from physical death, sickness or peril) or 
spiritual life (deliverance from sin, Satan and hell) is in view. (from The Complete Word 
Study Dictionary: New Testament). That is what this discussion is supposed to be about. 
Instead, Dr. Olson gets on his horse and rides off in all different directions at the same 
time. Now, let’s examine Dr. Olson’s third affirmative.

Obviously Dr. Olson has justification and sanctification on the brain and cannot 
comprehend anything else. He is so blinded by the god of this world that he cannot see 
what he is doing to God and His word.

In my first and second negatives I pointed out to the good Doctor that even if we were 
talking about justification and sanctification, any reward that is given by God comes after 
one has done the bidding of God. It does not come before. The people of the Old 
Testament (who were the children of God by natural birth – Patriarchs, Jews [Israelites])  
did not receive the promise of God until they did the works of righteousness He required 
of them. Then it is not by our own works of righteousness or deservings, but in obedience 
to the commands of God. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into 
the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. 
22Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and 
in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? 23And 
then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity” 
(Matthew 7:21-23).  “And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?” 
(Luke 6:46). “And being made perfect, He became the author of eternal salvation unto all 
them that obey Him” (Hebrews 5:9). Salvation, justification and sanctification all come 
about AFTER one obeys God and is saved from past sins. “And such were some of you: 
but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord 
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God” (I Corinthians 6:11).

JAMES 2.
In my second affirmative, I debunked Mr. Smith's willful ignorance of the biblical contexts 
of this passage.

Let me see, seems that I recall asking if Rahab, according to James, was justified 
BEFORE or AFTER she had received the spies with peace and sent them out another 
way? I thought Dr. Olson might “doctor that up” a bit. Instead, he observed the Passover 
– which by the way he is an expert at doing.

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. 

I cracked up when I read the above. This man must drive a Dodge. That is all he does 
with regard to his proposition DODGE, DODGE, DODGE. His proposition states that 
salvation (which he equates with justification, followed by sanctification) is at the point of 
faith. His above statement is a great example of circulus vitiosus Latin for arguing in a 
circle. Boy, it is ever! Yet in three affirmative articles, where did he find any of it taking 
place AT THE POINT OF FAITH? And if that were not enough, if you ask a question 
about a situation he himself has raised in affirmation of his proposition (the murmuring 
Israelites who were bitten by snakes) and what do you get? observing the passover in a 
Dodge! 

He ridiculed me for saying that when Paul said we were not saved by works, he was 
talking about works only.. After I was portrayed as a blithering idiot for making such the 
statement, I asked him, "if Paul is not talking about being saved by our works (only) then 
you tell us what he is saying." That’s when he started singing “here we go round the 
mulberry bush” without an answer of course. And he has a DOCTOR’S DEGREE!
   
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.

Now, Doctor, I raised a question about this in one of my other replies. You didn’t answer 
it, did you? My question was, “did they receive their salvation (justification to you) at the 
point of believing that God had made arrangement to heal them if that looked at the 
brazen serpent on the pole: or was it AFTER THEY LOOKED?”  That was the question. 
You observed another passover in your Dodge. No one knows better than you, that it was 
AFTER they looked and NOT BEFORE! You said it was “the look of faith. Dr. Olson, do 
you not see what you did when you made that statement? Everyone else does. You sold 
yourself out as most servants of Satan do who try to circumvent what God has said with 
their own theology.

The good Doctor said, 
“A completed act is proof that the salvation that pertains to the EVENT of justification 
occurs at the point of faith.” 

Yes, Doctor, we hear what YOU say, but it doesn’t make sense when we compare it with 
what God said. So, again I ask, when was the EVENT complete, when they believed that 
God could heal them, or when they LOOKED? Yes, I agree that God doesn’t do anything 
half-way. When He does something, He completes the job. That is not the question. The 
question is, when is the job completed, at the point of our complete acceptance of Him by 
faith, or when that faith prompts us to perform any works of righteousness that he 
requires of us? Were the Israelites saved from their snake bites when they were told to 
BELIEVE that God could heal them OR was it when they LOOKED at the brazen serpent 
on the pole?

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.

No, Doctor, you missed the point again. I did not say nor imply that all Noah had to do 
was believe to be saved. THAT IS YOUR PROPOSITION – remember – AT THE POINT 
OF FAITH. You are the one who says no works. What did God say in Hebrews about 
Noah? “By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, 
prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and 
became heir of the righteousness which is by faith” (Hebrews 11:7). He believed – he 
prepared an ark and he saved his household. I am amazed that you know what God 
would and would not do about Noah being in heaven whether he had built the ark or not. I 
would suggest that you quit “whittling on God’s end of the stick” and urge people to carry 
out the instructions that He has given them. Belief only is a doctrine of the devil. 

D. PAUL'S CONVERSION.
Same ole, same ole. Dr. Olson observed the passover as he has with most of what I 
have said. 
In my last negative I said “Why do you suppose the Lord told him to go into the city and it 
would be told him what he MUST DO! DO?”  What did the good doctor say in reply to 
this? Nothing!

I said, “According to Acts 22:16 Saul said he still had his sins.” What did our PHD say 
about that? Nothing! Is this supposed to be a debate or what?

I said, “Ananias was under the impression that he still had his sins (Acts 22:16). What did 
the good doctor prescribe for that? Nothing! All he wants to do is bluster and talk about 
someone not paying attention to the context. Shame on you, Dr. Olson.

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

Dr. Olson made quite a speech about this. There is nothing hard about what Paul said 
unless you have some expert help. Help like Dr. Olson can give you.  I said in my last 
negative regarding these passages in I Corinthians 1:10-17 (in context) “How can anyone 
read the above and make the statement Dr. Olson made? As the context shows, the 
reason Paul said he was glad he had not baptized a great number of people because 
men were claiming they were followers of Paul, Apollos, Cephas or Christ.” Isn’t it pitiful 
that anyone has hydrophobia as bad as Dr. Olson? Every time he sees water in the 
Scriptures he starts foaming at the mouth and having fits. He takes Paul’s statement 
completely out of context and then has the audacity to talk about someone not sticking to 
the context. THOU ART THE MAN, Dr. Olson.

F. ZACCHAUES, THIEF, PARALYTIC MAN.
Mr. Smith's refutation is that these examples belong in the OT.

I said in my last negative “All of these accounts, as Dr. Olson well knows, took place 
while Jesus was on earth and BEFORE He authorized His baptism.” Dr. Olson, let me 
ask you: could you put money in a parking meter to park before it was ever invented? 
Neither were men subject to Christ’s baptism until after He commanded it. He didn’t 
command it until after His death, burial and resurrection. You know this and yet you 
pervert the Scriptures in an effort to try to keep people from doing the Lord’s will (II Peter 
3:16).

Again in this connection I stated the following in my last negative. What did Dr. Olson say 
about it – You guessed it – NOTHING! Par for the course.
 
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 and 
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.

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.

(See above paragraph which the good Dr. didn’t even refer too)

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.

Did you ever see such a made up piece of exegesis? How does Dr. Olson know why 
Philip denied the Eunuch baptism? Is he a reader of Philip’s mind? Until you know that 
one is a believer in Christ he is not a proper subject for baptism. Jesus said, “He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned” 
(Mark 16:16). Philip was simply asking if the Eunuch believed what he had been teaching 
him about Christ. And by the way, if baptism is not part of the gospel, how did the Eunuch 
know about needing to be baptized? The text says, “Then Philip opened his mouth, and 
began at the same Scripture, and preached unto him Jesus” (Acts 8:35). Does preaching 
Jesus include baptism, Dr. Olson? If not, again I ask, why did the Eunuch say, “And as 
they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here 
is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8:36). Context, Dr. Olson, context!

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.

How did this fellow get a PHD? Look what he has done. He says:

"baptism" is a participle dependent upon the main verb (making disciples) 

YES! The baptizing as a present participle translates during, while or as the leading verb. 
So, you have to baptize disciples in order to make disciples. Thank you Dr. Olson, I 
caught you in truth.

Then he says, 
No, that is not correct. the salvation that pertains to the process of sanctification relates to 
water baptism.

Now we have Dr. Olson arguing with himself. Will wonders never cease!

Conclusion:
The rest of Dr. Olson’s affirmative is more of the same.