What is a One Stepper?!

[Jack Shephard]

[QUOTE=TRFrance;443897]***

I saw it but didnt address it because
1.. It didn't seem like a question was being asked. and
2... I've responded to those points numerous times in the past when it's been brought up by others on other threads multiple times.

Lord knows, I’ll probably be asked again. I find myself answering the same questions over and over, and it rarely seems to really make much of a difference, so it gets tiresome after a while. At the end of the day, it seems like people will believe what they want to anyway. Then later, someone comes on and asks me the same question I responded to 20 posts earlier... and on it goes.

Anyway, here’s my response, JT ...



Yes, our initial response is to believe. No argument there. Believing leads to salvation, but is not in itself salvation.

Yes, once cannot be saved without believing. Believing is obviously then the necessary first step. But again, believing is never salvation in itself.

You quoted: "Believe on the Lord and you shall be saved" (Acts 16:31)... if one were to take that verse by itself, without balancing it in proper NT context, one might say believing is all that's needed but repentance is not necessary for salvation! Would you agree with that? Somehow, I think not. Jesus already said "except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish" (Lk 13:3).

You also quoted: "Whoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21). Same thing. Let me use a preposterous example here for a sec; imagine... if one were to use that verse as their end-all-be-all "proof text" of salvation, they might try to simply say that literally calling Jesus' name is all we have to do to be saved. (...yes, an absurd thought, but stay with me here for a sec…) Why? Because the verse plainly says "whosovever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved". So if "the name of the Lord" is Jesus... is one saved just by "calling the name of Jesus", and nothing more!? Of course not. That would be taking the verse out of proper New Testament context. Same with all those verses that say believe and you’re saved. 1-steppers ignore the larger context of NT scripture that shows us that more is required than just taking that first step of believing.

If you want to use Acts 2:21 as proof of what it takes to be saved… then why ignore Mark 16 which also says “he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”? (…even though I’m not saying I believe believing and baptism provide salvation in themselves) Why just stop at verses that say “believe” or “believe and call on the Lord”?

Fact is, many 1-steppers ignore the verses that let us know that one is not saved without having the Spirit. They make having the Holy Ghost optional… OR they rely on the spurious “measure of the spirit” doctrine to say that people automatically get “a measure” of the Holy Ghost upon repentance. That leads to your next post….

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

TRF....You never addressed my response to your post. I would assume you did not see it. So here you are again. Personally, I feel that everyone gets a measure of the spirit when the are repent/saved.

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

I do believe one is saved at genuine repentance.

Since we know that with out the spirit no one will see Him,

believing that one is saved at repentance this verse Acts 2:21 would confirm the measure of spirit at repentance-for me at least. This is because all that calls on Him will be saved and one has to have the spirit to be see Him-thus it is confirmed.[/quote]
You feel that everyone gets a measure of the spirit when they repent? Fine. Feel free to show us the scriptures you base that on. I've asked repeatedly for scriptures on that, and usually get none (except for some who offer John 20;22, which can be easily shown to be inapplicable and invalid).

The kind of argument you're using is known as "circular reasoning". In circular reasoning a person starts out with a certain premise or statement and then goes out to prove it by using either
1... the statement itself or
2... a "fact" that would rely on the statement that is to be proven.
Any such “proof” based on that kind of reasoning is simply not valid.

Lets look at the case you’re making here. Basically:

*You started with the premise that repentance is sufficient for salvation. (...which I disagree with, and you've never proven. But now you wish to support this premise. However, as we'll see, your argument breaks down since you end up having to go back to this very premise in order to prove it's true!)

*Then you acknowledge that a person can’t see God without the Holy Ghost (I agree. Scripture is clear on that...such as Rom 8:9)

*But then you also say you believe a person receives "a measure of the spirit" when they repent. But how do you prove/ confirm that?? Well, you say this: "believing that one is saved at repentance this verse Acts 2:21 would confirm the measure of spirit at repentance-for me at least."

Huh? So (while you're acknowledging that one must have the Spirit in them to be saved) you say the "measure of the Spirit" theory is proved to you by the fact that you already believe they're saved at repentance??

Take a close look at what you’re saying here.
To make it crystal clear, this is what your argument boils down to:

* I believe salvation is at repentance
* I believe salvation requires the Holy Spirit, since I know we can't see God without it.
* So, since I believe salvation is at repentance, then that means we must get at least “a measure of the spirit” at repentance.
* Thus, my theory that one receives a measure of the spirit at repentance is confirmed by the fact that I already believe salvation is at repentance."

No offense, JT, but you’re using "backward logic" here. In essence, your original premise is 'confirmed' to you by the fact that you're already inclined to believe it.

Then in your final statement there is more of the same:

Sorry, my sister. Maybe it’s confirmed to you in your own mind because you want it to be. But you really haven’t confirmed anything with scripture.

(And what about the believers in Acts 8 who repented, and were baptized, but did not get the Holy Spirit some time afterward? Clearly they didn't receive a measure of the Spirit since the Acts 8 16 says

"the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus."

****************
Anyway, lets get to the root of the issue here, and one of the biggest holes in the 1-stepper argument...

I'd ask you the same question that I and others have asked around here. Please demonstrate to us from scripture that one receives a measure of the Spirit before the baptism of the Holy Spirit. That’s all.

The fact is, it can not be proven scripturally, because there is no New Testament record of anyone in the church age receiving a "measure of the spirit" of God before the baptism of the Spirit.

Anyway...be blessed.

Thanks for the response. I do not agree with what you are saying, but I understand where you are trying to come from. I used to be a 3-stepper so I know all the ways to talk around it. Even though I do not agree I do thank you for your response. I will say that this is all my belief and if I am wrong so be it. I do tell people that I encounter that they need to be baptized in Jesus name a receive the HG. But I do not tell them they have to inorder to make heaven. Again thanks for the response. By the way I am a Brother not a Sister. LOL JTullock= Justin Tullock.