Olson/Smith Debate on Salvation

 
 
 Proposition: 
 Faith, repentance, confession and baptism are for (in order to 
obtain) the remission of sins according to Acts chapter 2.

Affirm: J. T. Smith
Deny: Lloyd Olson

DR. OLSON'S FIRST NEGATIVE.
I.    Debate Proposition
II.   Definitions
III.  OT salvation.
IV.   Obedience
V.    Mark 16
VI.   Challenge
VII.  The Weight Of Scripture.
VIII. Conclusion

I. DEBATE PROPOSITION
Notice how the wording of Smith's debate proposition avoids another 
humiliation over justification as he experienced in the first 
proposition. There, he never grasped the vital distinction between 
the EVENT of justification and a PROCESS of sanctification. Here, 
his every attempt at analysis failed to align with the lexical 
evidences showing justification to be the EVENT of God's activity in 
parallel with (yet distinct from) the PROCESS of sanctification. As 
a result of this indiscretion, his proposition here is yet another 
deceptive mixture of justification and sanctification.

II. DEFINITIONS
A. AGREEMENT.
While Smith's new proposition drips of a denominational redefinition 
for the sole purpose of perpetrating a man-made system of self-
righteousness, I accept his definitions of faith, repentance, and 
confession.

B. BAPTISM.
However, his definition of baptism is the epitome of man-made 
redefinition of Bible terms. His definition of baptism is blind to 
the differences between human baptism in water and the Spirit's 
baptism into Christ. In his blindness, he considers only one 
definition for baptism. Even my 8 year grandson, who knows about the 
Spirit's baptism, knows more than Smith. Hear what the Bible says 
about the Spirit's baptism.

John the Baptist taught two baptisms. He contrasted his baptism by 
water with Christ's baptism with the Holy Ghost by fire (Matt 3:11, 
Luke 3:16, John 1:31-33). 

Jesus taught a clear distinction between John's water baptism and 
the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:5). Later (John 3:3-16), 
Jesus taught Nicodemus about two distinct baptisms: one through the 
waters of birth from below and the Spirit's baptism from above.

The book of Acts clearly denounces water baptism salvation. In Acts 
8:14-17, those who had received John's baptism needed to receive the 
Spirit. The Jerusalem Council contrasted the John's water baptism 
with the saving power of the gospel (Acts 13:20-39). Apollos 
preached John's water baptism until Aquila and Priscilla expounded 
the true gospel to him (Acts 18:24-26). Paul showed that John's 
water baptism did not save (Acts 19:3-6).

Paul (1 Cor 12:13) shows that the Holy Spirit immerses believers 
into the body of Christ. Paul, in Romans 6, equates the new birth to 
a symbolic baptism into the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus 
Christ. Paul continues the denial of water baptism in 1 Cor 1 where 
he is grateful that he didn't baptize them. Lest one gets 
sidetracked on the issue of divisions, Paul clearly shows that he 
was sent to NOT to baptize, but to preach the gospel (1 Cor 17). No 
division could ever cloud this clear declaration of truth.

Smith holds that the baptism of Col 2:12 is the one true baptism of 
Eph 4:5. This is an easy lie to expose. The context of Eph 4:5 
states: One Lord (spiritual), one faith (spiritual), and one 
baptism. Again, my grandson easily spots the pattern which dictates 
that the "one baptism" is also spiritual; i.e. the Spirit's. Had 
Smith actually read the context of Col 2, he would not have been so 
quick to write his deception. The context of verse 11, a parallel to 
v12, shows that saving circumcision (and real saving baptism) are 
made WITHOUT HANDS. This can only be a spiritual operation. Had he 
read the last half of verse 12, he would have seen that the real 
saving baptism is performed by "the operation of God."

Smith's deceptions can only stand with partial and convoluted 
analysis. An honest analysis of God's Word must include distinctions 
between two baptisms. His definitions are weighed by Holy Writ and 
found to be wanting.

C. REMISSION OF SINS
Smith takes his definition of the "remission of sins" from Acts 
2:38. This is tragic for context clearly shows that the passage 
applies to national Israel. Smith missed all three contexts of the 
passage.

The surrounding context begins in Acts 1:6. 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." This is the noun form (apokatastasis) of the verb used in 
1:6. These verses form bookends for Acts 2. It is unmistakable 
parallel language screaming for a contextual understanding of 
national Israel.

The immediate context is Peter's sermon to national Israelites who 
have crucified their Messiah. Peter quotes 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 (Acts 2:40). 
Water baptism refers to national Israel's impending judgment.

In the book 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; Amos 9:11-15). 
Paul preaches Israel's restoration (Rom 9-11). Context dictates 
national Israel.

"Remission of sins" is different for gentiles. Consider Cornelius. 
This gentile received the remission of sins by faith (Acts 10:43) 
BEFORE his water baptism. Again, Smith is blind to two distinct 
definitions of the same phrase. His method is to force one 
definition upon every occurrence of the same phrase oblivious to 
contextual clues. His confusion is demonstrated in the following 
example. Consider these two sentences:

   (1) My nose runs.
   (2) I run a race.

It would be silly to force the definition of "run" from #1 upon #2. 
Native English speakers don't get confused over the two definitions 
of the word "run" because they understand each occurrence in 
context. Yet Smith stumbles in broad daylight heedless to one 
context that addresses national Israel and another context that 
addresses gentiles.

Violation of basic linguistics and ignorance of the context of one 
Bible verse is the basis of Smith's proposition. Water baptism 
salvation can only stand with willful ignorance of context and 
denominational redefinition of easy Bible terms. An honest analysis 
of God's Word must include distinctions between Israeli and 
Gentile "remission of sins." His errant system is weighed by Holy 
Writ and found to be wanting.

III. OT SALVATION
Smith teaches that there is a distinction between OT salvation and 
NT salvation. He claims that the better promises of the NT are the 
basis for such a distinction.

The weakness of Smith's proposal is that he looks only to the Mosaic 
Covenant. Does he not realize that this is for a small part of the 
world for a small part of time? He has no answer for non-Israelites: 
Adam and Eve, Enoch, Job, Noah, Lot, etc.

Another tragic consequence of Smith's logic is multiple plans of 
redemption. Smith proposed a different plan for the OT saints under 
the Mosaic Law and a better plan for NT saints. If we include his 
failures of the previous paragraph, we would have to find a third 
plan of redemption for non-Israelites in the OT.

Smith's third failure is that covenants do not save anyone. 
Covenants are merely different administrations of the one same plan 
of redemption offered from the before the foundation of the world. 
Smith's faulty view of covenants forces at least three plans of 
redemption. Let's now look into the truth of God's Word.

Negatively, God's Word declares that the blood of the OT sacrifices 
never saved anyone or removed sins (Heb 10:4). Positively, God's 
Word declares that the OT saints had the same gospel as we have in 
the NT (Heb 4:2). Paul affirms the promise of eternal life to which 
the OT prophets spoke unto the gospel (Rom 1:1-2). Paul also 
declares that the NT gospel of faith was preached to Abraham (Gal 
3:8). At the moment of the first sin, God responded with the 
Promised Seed (Gen 3:15). In any time, age or covenant, faith in the 
Promised Seed was and is the only requirement for salvation.

Jesus used the murmuring Israelites to teach Nicodemus that only the 
LOOK of faith saved. Peter used Noah to show that justification 
happens before anything associated with water. Paul used OT saint 
father Abraham as an example of justification by faith apart from 
sacraments, rites, and works. Smith's teaching is unequivocally 
denied by God's Word.

IV. OBEDIENCE.
Smith is unable to discern the obedience that pertains to 
justification from the obedience that pertains to sanctification. 
While he is partially right in that God desires obedience, Holy Writ 
clearly teaches our total inability to perfectly obey God's 
commands. James 2:10 clearly teaches that to disobey even once is 
the equivalent of breaking all of God's commands. Isaiah confirms 
that even the best of our righteous deeds are filthy rags (Isa 
64:6). This is why Smith's system is deadly: it supplants the 
sufficiency of faith in Christ (justification) with vain and 
impossible human obedience (sanctification).

Jesus denounced self-righteous obedience in John 6:28-29. The crowds 
asked Smith's human-centered question, "What shall we do to do, that 
we might work the works of God?" Jesus converted their human-
centered question to a Christ-centered response: Believe in me!

John denounced self-righteousness in 1 John 4:23. The commandment 
that brings eternal life is simply to believe in Jesus. We overcome 
by faith – not works (Eph 2:8-9; 1 John 5:4-5).

Smith's devious debate proposition renders him unable to distinguish 
between the obedience that pertains to justification and the 
obedience that pertains to sanctification. They are NOT the same! 
Faith, as a look to Jesus, pertains to justification. Faith, as 
obedience through works, pertains to sanctification.

V. MARK 16
Smith's deceptive proposition results in even more error in Mark 16. 
Those who are able to discern between justification and 
sanctification are also able to harmonize this verse with Holy Writ. 
Those who are willfully blind to this vital distinction fall into 
the negative fallacy error.

Another way to understand Mark 16:16 is as follows. Positively, 
whoever overcomes the opponent in a game and celebrates shall win. 
Negatively, whoever doesn't overcome won't win.

Here is Smith's negative fallacy error. He holds that no celebration 
(baptism) implies no victory (faith). This is wrong for two reasons. 
First, one could break a leg in the competition and not feel like 
celebrating. No celebration DOES NOT IMPLY no victory! Second, 
celebration happens AFTER the victory. Winning and celebration are 
distinct!

While baptism seems to be linked with faith for salvation from the 
first half of the verse, the denial of faith by itself from the 
second half of the verse is enough to condemn a person to an 
eternity in hell. The wise are able to note that faith pertains to 
justification; water baptism to sanctification. Faith happens first; 
water baptism is optional (the thief).

While believing (justification) and baptism (sanctification) 
certainly lead to salvation with respect to one's total life, only 
believing is required for justification. The negative fallacy error 
confuses the distinctive timing aspects of justification and 
sanctification.

VI. CHALLENGE
No Mr. Smith, you can't weasel out of a confrontation with the 
distinctiveness between justification and sanctification. Your 
deceptive proposition is exposed. Your partial analysis and 
confusion of context is hereby challenged as follows:

Find ONE BIBLE VERSE that supports justification before God to any 
PROCESS of human activity including water baptism.

I know in advance that you will fail. You failed three times in the 
first proposition. You avoided the subject in your first 
affirmative. You will fail yet twice more. Your failures expose your 
PROCESS system of self-righteousness as a bankrupt perversion of the 
Gospel Truth.

VII. THE WEIGHT OF SCRIPTURE.
Smith's proposition rests primarily upon the abuse of context and 
denominational redefinitions of two Bible verses (Acts 2:38 and Mark 
16:16). He has unwittingly pitted one part of God's Word against 
another part. The great weight of scripture teaches justification by 
faith without works, rites, baptisms, or faithfulness.
   Justified by faith without the deeds of the law (Rom 3:28),
   God justifies by faith (Rom 3:30),
   Faith is counted for righteousness (Rom 4:5),
   Justified by faith (Rom 5:1),
   Not justified by the works of the law, but
       by the faith of Jesus Christ (Gal 2:16),
   Justified by faith (Gal 3:24).

Mr. Smith's reliance upon one verse (twisted out of context) stands 
in stark contrast to the great weight of scripture. His proposition 
is weighed by Holy Writ and found to be wanting.

VIII. CONCLUSION
An honest analysis of Smith's first affirmative shows his:
  1. deceptive rewording of the debate proposition to avoid 
      the distinctiveness of justification and sanctification,

  2. failure to honor the Spirit's baptism by forcing all
      baptisms to be redefined as water baptism,

  3. violent abuse of the context of Acts 2:38,

  4. denominational redefinition of "remission of sins,"

  5. total misunderstanding of covenants,

  6. errant teaching of multiple plans of redemption,

  7. denial of the sufficiency of Christ by adding a 
      man-made plan of self-righteous obedience,

  8. continued confusion of justification and sanctification

  9. negative fallacy error in Mark 16.

His every attempt at analysis is corrupted by the failure to 
comprehend kindergarten concepts. When Smith closed his mind to the 
basic definition of justification, his every subsequent analysis 
became corrupted.

An honest investigation of God's Word denies that water baptism is 
for the remission of sins.

Dr. Lloyd Olson