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.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by JTULLOCK

By the way I am a Brother not a Sister. LOL JTullock= Justin Tullock.

Sorry, bro.
I'm not sure why I had this assumption that you were a sister.
My bad!


PS...
If you find any scripture reference that answers my main question (proving the "measure of the Spirit" doctrine), feel free to share it with us.

I've been waiting for someone to drop one on me but...

(***crickets chirping***)



...still waiting.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

"Unbidden guests Are often welcomest when they are gone." - William Shakespeare

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Are you going somewhere?

J/K!!!!!!!!!!

Behave!!
:O)

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Brother Price

Well, look at the doctrine. One cannot have sins forgiven unless they are baptized. So, what happens if one sins after baptism in Jesus name? According to the logic behind the doctrine, they MUST be rebaptized. According to three step theology, baptism is the only way sins are forgiven. So, add 2+2=4.

And according to your logic, if believer sins after being born again (one step), the Spirit will have to leave that person because a Holy Spirit cannot dwell in an unclean vessel.

What happens if we sin AFTER we have been born again and are walking in the light? 1 John 1:9

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Sam

That is just one verse. It seems to contrast Jesus, the unique Son of God, with all the other sons/children of God by saying Jesus did not have just a measure of the Holy Spirit but the others (all the rest of us) do.

It is my understanding that the Holy Spirit comes into a person's life at salvation/regeneration. This is an experience spoken of as a second birth, a birth from above, or being born of the Spirit as contrasted with a first birth, a birth from a human parent, or being born of "water." A person who does not have the indwelling Spirit of God (or Jesus living in one's heart) would be someone who has not yet been saved or born again.

Bump for TRFrance. Here is an answer to your question.

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by Sam

34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.

It's difficult to know if all of this is the testimony of John the Baptist or if some of the latter words are comment by the Apostle John. However, in verse 34 it says "he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him." I assume this refers to Jesus, and says that He does not have the Spirit by measure (He is the Holy Spirit/God/Father) in a body of flesh, and it seems this is in contrast to others who only receive a measure of the Spirit. In other words, Jesus -the unique Son of God-- does not just have a measure of the Spirit in contrast to the other sons of God who just have a measure.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Sam, If you want to infer from that passage that the sons of God receive a measure of God's Spirit, the next question would be, when?

Originally Posted by Sam

That is just one verse. It seems to contrast Jesus, the unique Son of God, with all the other sons/children of God by saying Jesus did not have just a measure of the Holy Spirit but the others (all the rest of us) do.

It is my understanding that the Holy Spirit comes into a person's life at salvation/regeneration. This is an experience spoken of as a second birth, a birth from above, or being born of the Spirit as contrasted with a first birth, a birth from a human parent, or being born of "water." A person who does not have the indwelling Spirit of God (or Jesus living in one's heart) would be someone who has not yet been saved or born again.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Bump for TRFrance. Here is an answer to your question.

I see it Miz. Thanks.
But it doesn't really answer the issue at hand.

The point of the "measure of the spirit" doctrine is not to contrast between us (the saints) having a measure as opposed to Jesus, who had the Spirit without measure.
The real issue of the doctrine is to contrast the infilling/fullness of the Spirit we (believers) get at the baptism of the Holy Ghost, compared to the more limited "measure" that believers supposedly get when they repent. This teaching, which some Trinitarian Pentecostal churches espouse, teaches that all believers are have the Holy Spirit in them just from repentance.... just that some have an infilling (they've "been filled up") via the baptism of the Spirit, while others just have that smaller measure from repentance.

Still, as I've said, there's no scriptural basis for the belief that someone receives a limited "measure of the Spirit" as a separate experience from the baptism/infilling of the Holy Ghost. The doctrine that fits neatly into the 1-step salvation plan, but it's not found in the Word of God.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

I see it Miz. Thanks.
But it doesn't really answer the issue at hand.

The point of the "measure of the spirit" doctrine is not to contrast between us (the saints) having a measure as opposed to Jesus, who had the Spirit without measure.
The real issue of the doctrine is to contrast the infilling/fullness of the Spirit we (believers) get at the baptism of the Holy Ghost, compared to the more limited "measure" that believers supposedly get when they repent. This teaching, which some Trinitarian Pentecostal churches espouse, teaches that all believers are have the Holy Spirit in them just from repentance.... just that some have an infilling (they've "been filled up") via the baptism of the Spirit, while others just have that smaller measure from repentance.

Still, as I've said, there's no scriptural basis for the belief that someone receives a limited "measure of the Spirit" as a separate experience from the baptism/infilling of the Holy Ghost. The doctrine that fits neatly into the 1-step salvation plan, but it's not found in the Word of God.

I agree with you, there is no scriptural basis for that belief, and all MOW has is that IT HAS TO BE or else many who are righteous will be lost which goes against God's just nature, but at least Sam made an attempt to provide an answer with scripture.

MOW is saying faith in Christ and repentance makes a person righteous in God's sight. And based on this reason alone a measure of the Spirit MUST be given at that time, the time of repentance when according to MOW a person is made righteous, otherwise if not, then God would be condemning the righteous with the unrighteous. And that would be an unjust thing for the Judge of the whole earth to do. If that is the sole basis for MOW 's arguement then there must be a better answer somewhere else to let us know when someone is considered righteous in God's sight. Because there is a clear lack of scriptural basis for what MOW is asserting.

When is a person declared right/righteous in God's sight? IOW when are they considered justified?

1 Cor 6:11 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.

[Fiyahstarter]

Originally Posted by Sam

Some do, but it would be a minority opinion.

I know of folks who think that if a person fails God, the way to restoration is rebaptism in water and rebaptism in the Spirit.

I don't agree with the logic, but at least this seems consistent with 3-stepper salvational doctrine.

I mean, if 3-steppers are going to say that repentance alone does not exonerate your sin, you MUST be baptized to finish the work...

Then why WOULDN'T they also require re-baptizing to restore backslidders?

[Fiyahstarter]

All in all... although 1-steppers and 3-steppers differ in opinion as to the "moment" salvation is complete...

We do both agree that 1, 2, 3 are where it's at.

So whoever you are, whatever you believe... bottom line is this:

DON'T STOP UNTIL YOU GET BAPTIZED IN JESUS' NAME AND GET THE HOLY GHOST!

Don't sell yourself short! It's the ONLY way to go!!!

Love you guys, but I'm also "spent" on this topic.

BTW (for TRFrance - I am a sister!!) And I really hope I didn't offend... I truly was just trying to understand and apply the different analogies to my own personal experience. I see good points from both sides. Thanks for your input!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Fiyahstarter

I don't agree with the logic, but at least this seems consistent with 3-stepper salvational doctrine.

I mean, if 3-steppers are going to say that repentance alone does not exonerate your sin, you MUST be baptized to finish the work...

Then why WOULDN'T they also require re-baptizing to restore backslidders?

IMO, because of 1 John 1:9. John is writing to Christians.