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 SECOND NEGATIVE.
I.    Introduction
II.   Smith's Primary Failure
III.  What Smith Said Was Wrong
IV.   Smith Didn't Answer Anything!
V.    Conclusion

I. INTRODUCTION
Since Smith delighted to reference my grandson so much, I let him 
read Smith's second affirmative. My grandson concluded that what 
Smith said was wrong and that he didn't answer anything. He wanted to 
know what church Smith attended. The words of an 8 year old provide 
an overarching summary of Smith's feeble second affirmative.

II. SMITH'S PRIMARY FAILURE
Smith's main failure is a continued running away from and avoidance 
of justification. Knowing in advance that no CoC theologian is able 
to stand before the truth of justification, I challenged Smith to 
provide one Bible verse that links justification before God to his 
process of human activity. Smith failed to rise to the challenge five 
straight times. I am quite sure that he will fail to address the 
critical issue of justification in his next response.

Justification and sanctification describe the same salvation from 
different perspectives. The Bible teaches that justification deals 
with the sinner's relationship to God the Judge of all mankind that 
is parallel to (yet distinct from) sanctification which deals with 
the believer's relationship with God the Father of all who believe in 
Jesus. Smith's errant PROCESS theology is a deceptive blending of 
justification into sanctification. This heresy corrupts his every 
attempted analysis of God's Word.

Smith's response to justification is to dream up little ditty and 
sing. This foolishness is the equivalent of an open resignation. It 
truly is hard to debate an opponent who will not discuss relevant 
points!

III. WHAT SMITH SAID WAS WRONG
A. How many baptisms?
Here, Smith attempts to use John 3:3-7 to prove that the one baptism 
has two elements: water and Spirit. Smith totally ignored the twofold 
teaching that salvation is FROM ABOVE (John 3:3,7). Instead, he 
closes his mind to Jesus' words and chooses to reinterpret water from 
below to mean the Spirit's baptism from above.

Does he not know that Jesus' taught about the one singular new birth 
using three different illustrations? If Smith is confused by the 
first illustration, he needs only to examine the next two 
illustrations. In John 3:8, Jesus taught that the new birth was 
strictly via the Spirit. The new birth could not be seen. So if you 
are witnessing a baptism, know for certain that it isn't the real 
saving baptism. In John 3:14-16, Jesus equated the new birth to the 
look of faith. A single look resulted in a completed salvation. All 
this without any water!

Since all three illustrations teach the same thing, it is obvious 
that Smith is forcing his errant PROCESS theology of justification 
upon Holy Writ. The last two illustrations expose Smith's lies and 
verify that justification is the EVENT by which God declares sinners 
to be the very righteousness of Christ (2 Cor 5:21). All this without 
any water!

Smith's deceptive theology can only stand with this type of partial 
analysis.

B. Colossians 2:11-12.
Here Smith shoots his own foot. In an attempt to disprove the context 
of national Israel in Acts 2, he points to Romans 2:28-29 which 
states that the real circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit! 
Thank you for showing us that justification is spiritual – not 
physical! This type of vacillation happens when one cannot understand 
or use justification in the biblical context. An error in 
justification forces errs in every other doctrine.

Smith continues shooting himself as he turns to Col 2.  He continues 
stressing that the teaching is NOT about a physical operation because 
we are talking about spiritual Israel. But then he contradicts 
himself saying that spiritual baptism is water baptism! He says yes 
and no at the same time.

   "YES!" – he acknowledges the spiritual circumcision
            of Christ (v11); but
   "NO!"  – he changes it to a physical operation.
   "YES!" – he acknowledges the spiritual operation
            of God (v12); but
   "NO!"  – he redefines it as an operation involving
            human hands.

In spite of a clear Bible passage, Smith rejects God's Word and 
parrots denomination rhetoric.

Smith's fraudulent teaching denies Christ at every turn. He denies 
Christ's spiritual circumcision and God's spiritual operation by 
redefining both as physical water baptism! His error can only stand 
with this pattern of redefining common sense into a cultic creed.

C. Romans 6.
In my first negative, I mentioned that Romans 6 equates the new birth 
to a symbolic baptism. Smith, still holding to one baptism (water), 
responds by saying that if we were immersed into Christ by the 
Spirit's baptism, then our physical baptism would not be in the 
likeness of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. What utter 
nonsense! The word "likeness" doesn't mean the exact same way. Thank 
God! Let's examine Romans 6 to see how Smith's words are a direct 
contrast to Holy Writ.

First, note that the word "water" isn't used anywhere in the chapter 
or the entire book. Smith builds a house without support! Let's read 
and compare Bible to Smith.

Rom 6:3: "believers were baptized into Christ's death." Is our death 
into Christ literal or symbolic? Smith thinks that "likeness" means a 
literal death in water. Common sense dictates that this is symbolic.

Rom 6:4: "Christ was raised up from the dead." Were we raised up from 
a literal or symbolic death? Again, Smith's silliness is rejected for 
a symbolic resurrection.

Rom 6:5: "we have been planted…" Is anyone now stuck in the mud 
(other than Smith)? This is a symbolism of our spiritual planting 
into Christ's death.

Rom 6:6: we are crucified with Christ. How many of us have nail marks 
in our hands and feet (other than Smith)? This is yet another 
symbolism of a spiritual event that Smith mindlessly twists into a 
physical action. 

Rom 6:7 "he that is dead." Is any believer actually dead (other than 
Smith)? Nope! We are all yet breathing. Our death is a symbolic 
pointing to our real spiritual death in Christ.

I could continue but the point is well established. Physical water is 
not the topic of Romans 6. Smith clings to an errant redefinition of 
common sense. In his blind loyalty to a human-centered self-righteous 
theology of death, he rewrites God's Word as a man-made obedience 
ritual.

D. Cornelius.
Peter teaches: "through his name whosoever believeth in him shall 
receive remission of sins."
Smith teaches: "whosoever is water baptized shall receive remission 
of sins."

Smith is full of self-contradicts. Earlier, he wanted us to believe 
that there was but one baptism. Now, he boasts of his ability 
to "know the difference in water baptism and Holy Spirit baptism." 
Which is it Smith? This is another common tactic from those who 
embrace error. They have no qualms about changing their story to fit 
whatever aspect of their error is being discussed.

Smith thinks that he can refute Peter by saying that Spirit baptism 
proves that the Gentiles had been accepted. While this is true, it 
doesn't refute Peter's teaching that remission of sins comes through 
belief in Jesus. Smith changes topic to avoid the issue. The new 
purpose doesn't change the sequence! There is but ONE PLAN of 
redemption: faith in Christ. Smith doesn't realize the ramifications 
of his error. If purpose is an exception to the sequence, then Smith 
teaches TWO plans of redemption.

He also says that Holy Spirit baptism was a PROMISE while water 
baptism was a COMMAND. Yes! This is true. However, Smith has once 
again changed the topic. How does his statement change the fact that 
remission of sins is for all who believe (Acts 10:43)? His new 
statement is yet more confusion with respect to justification.

The importance of my Bible challenge on justification highlights 
Smith's glaring failure. How can Smith profess to be a teacher of the 
Bible when he can't even discuss justification – a kinder garden 
basic?

Holy Spirit baptism is linked with the promise of justification; 
water baptism to a command in sanctification.

E. Mark 16.
Here Smith's witless stumbling over justification results in a 
laughable rewording of God's Word. He thinks that "whoever enters a 
game and overcomes his opponent wins" is a parallel to "believe and 
be baptized." Bad choice for Smith since entering the game is the 
physical birth (water) of John 3:3-7. Does he not know that the 
word "overcome" is linked with the justification that comes by faith? 
Hear God's Word! His own illustration demolishes his argument in John 
3! Thanks!

The Bible teaches that belief and the Spirit's baptism are linked 
with justification; water baptism with sanctification. "This is the 
victory that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that 
overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of 
God?" (1 John 5:4-5).

We don't overcome the world by water baptism. Smith has done the 
typical mindless redefinition of a sanctification word (baptism) as 
justification. Error at the headwater of justification corrupts 
Smith's every attempted analysis.

Mark 16a is an overarching summary of salvation that includes both 
justification (believes) and sanctification (water baptism). Mark 16b 
shows that a lack of faith (justification) is sufficient for eternal 
damnation. No baptism DOES NOT IMPLY no salvation! The purposeful 
omission of water baptism is the negative fallacy error into which 
Smith plunged headlong!

Smith's theology can only stand with such horrendous redefinitions of 
sanctification for justification and a headlong fall into the 
negative fallacy error. 

IV. SMITH DIDN'T ANSWER ANYTHING!
A. Acts 2:38.
Here, Smith's non-answer substituted a pretense for a response.

A1. I presented Acts 1:6-8 where the disciples asked about the 
restoration of Israel. He didn't answer anything. I tied the 
disciples' questions to Peter's second sermon (Acts 3:19-21) where he 
preaches "the times of refreshing (of national Israel)." Not one word 
from Smith on the focus on national Israel that book-ends Acts 2.

I presented the OT passages (Joel 2, Psa 16, Psa 110) that link the 
restoration of national Israel to Messiah Jesus' reign from literal 
Jerusalem. Not one word from Smith.

I presented the book context of the biblical emphasis on Israel's 
national repentance and restoration. Not one word from Smith.

Smith could only mention that witnessing begins in Jerusalem. While 
this is a truth, it failed to answer the question. This is a common 
tactic used by those who embrace error. Since they cannot directly 
discuss a question, they change the topic.

To highlight the error of Smith's system, I challenge him to provide 
ONE BIBLE example of where water baptism to Gentiles resulted was for 
the remission of sins. The only examples that link water baptism to 
remission of sins happen to national Israelites. 

In a general treatise on justification, Paul links the remission of 
sins to faith (Rom 3:25). Paul agrees with Peter who links remission 
of sins to faith (Acts 10:43). It is Smith who disagrees with God's 
Word.

A2. Paul. Scripture interprets scripture! Since Smith cannot unravel 
himself from Acts 2 even when the truth hits him square on, then 
simply let the other passage where remission of sins is used: Paul's 
conversion!

Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. There, on the road, he 
was commissioned as an apostle and sent to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17). 
God told Ananias that Saul was a "chosen vessel" (Acts 9:15; 22:14). 
Only much later was Paul water baptized and that for the purpose to 
receive his sight and be filled with the Spirit (Acts 9:17). In fact, 
Ananias addressed Saul as "Brother!" (Acts 9:17).

Had Smith only compared Scripture with Scripture, he would not have 
fallen upon his sword in Acts 2!

B. Nothing else??
Smith doesn't have much Bible to work with. His theology is built 
upon a few verses amenable to his human-centered tactics of 
redefinition, confusion over justification, and violent ignorance of 
context.

1. Justification. Note again, his failure to answer the challenge to 
find one Bible verse that links justification before God to his 
errant system.

2. OT salvation. I didn't know where to put Smith's response. It 
wasn't wrong – in fact it was what I had first used to refute his 
errant water baptism system. It is hard to find an opponent who so 
willingly helps me! His curious answer to my point that OT salvation 
was by faith without water was:

   God justifies those who believe!

Thank you Smith for demolishing your own proposition!

Jesus' use of the murmuring Israelites (John 3), Peter's use of Noah 
(1 Pet 3), and Paul's use of Abraham (Rom 4) all teach justification 
by faith WITHOUT water baptism. Noah and Abraham are examples of 
justification by faith BEFORE any notions of the Mosaic Covenant.

The OT gospel of faith in Jesus Christ is the same gospel for us in 
the NT (Heb 4:2). This is why Paul denounced water baptism (1 Cor 
1:14).

3. John 6:28-29. Note the roar of Smith's silence to John 6:28-29. 
Jesus taught about the obedience that leads to eternal life. 
Positively, He declared that faith leads to eternal life. Negatively, 
He purposefully omitted water baptism.  If an author writes a book on 
the top baseball team and does not include Team X, then it is his 
teaching that Team X is not the top team. He doesn't have to spend 
thousands of pages denying every other team. In the same way, Jesus' 
positive statement does not need to include a detailed listing of 
everything not pertinent to the obedience that gives eternal life.

4. Note the roar of Smith's silence to 1 John 4:23. 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).

The Word of God is clear. Justification is by faith in Christ – not a 
foolish dependence on the dross of a human-centered obedience ritual. 
Smith has no valid response.

5. Note the non-answer to the great weight of scripture. Smith has 
already unloaded all of his ammunition. He can only discuss two 
verses abused by context, redefined by his man-made creeds, and 
forced into a human-centered obedience rite system of death. Smith 
can only match verses by grabbing sanctification (obedience) verses 
and redefining them as justification. Other than this blatant 
twisting of God's Word, he has nothing.

6. Heb 10:14. Here is a new tidbit for Smith.

"For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are 
sanctified."

This verse teaches that one is perfected for ever. This is the EVENT 
of justification. It uses the verb is a Greek Perfect Tense which 
shows the continuance of an historic event. The permanence of this 
justification is enhanced by the phrase "for ever." The EVENT of 
justification is in parallel with the PROCESS of "being sanctified." 
The KJV phrase "them that are sanctified" is a present participle.

While Smith's errant system blends justification into sanctification, 
God's Word makes justification parallel to (yet distinct from) 
sanctification. Note that our justification depends on Christ's one 
offering – not Smith's errant plea for water baptism.

V. CONCLUSION
My grandson was right!  Not only was everything Smith said wrong, he 
failed to answer critical points. He now has two challenges to meet: 
justification before God linked to faithfulness and remission of sins 
linked to Gentiles. His failure to meet either challenge is a 
conclusive proof that his system denies Christ and is built on the 
sands of man-made religion.

While Smith claims Acts 2:38 as the foundation of his system, he 
denies the surrounding context of Israel's restoration, Peter's OT 
references to Messiah Jesus ruling from restored national Israel, and 
the entire context of Acts that consistently and repeatedly declares 
Israel's future restoration.. The parallel scripture (Paul's 
conversion) shows that justification happens BEFORE and WITHOUT water 
baptism. This was his main point – now down in flames utterly 
demolished.

While Smith claims Jesus Christ, he denies the sufficiency of the 
Cross by worshipping a human-centered self-righteous obedience rite.

He finds support for his system of death through vain twistings of 
Holy Writ, redefinitions of common sense terms, and ignorance of 
crucial topics (justification).

The last error is his worst. Whenever one corrupts justification, 
then every other concept is equally corrupted.

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

Lloyd Olson