How many times did you ask God for the Holy Ghost?

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Palathais,

Call me "pelathais." Say it it with me... well, I don't really know how to say it.

Originally Posted by mfblume

all one can correctly do about the three step teaching is claim it equates repentance, water baptism in Jesus' name and Holy Ghost baptism with salvation. You cannot take what is claimed to be evidence of the third "step" and accuse it as being equal to salvation. People cannot accuse three steppers of equating tongues with salvation.

I can, and I do. I know that you consider yourself to be something of a "Three Stepper" and I know that you don't hold to the "tongues=saved" idea; but it's still a prominent feature of that group-think process.

Originally Posted by mfblume

If tongues are claimed to be the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost, and

1) the person has already repented

2) and been baptized in Jesus' name,

3) and simply needs to experience the baptism of the Holy Ghost, (and one believes all three "steps" are vital to salvation),

...how else would a "three stepper" describe that person as being saved when we hear that one speak in tongues, having full understanding that tongues are only evidence of the Spirit baptism? Shouting, "they're saved now!" after seeing the person speak in tongues is not equating tongues with salvation. It is believing that tongues is the evidence of salvation, keeping in mind that all three steps are then accomplished and considered to be required for salvation.

Granted. And, the "altar call experience" is what often culminates the whole process; and seeing the convert "speaking in tongues" is what culminates that.

Try this, however: Go to a UPC or other "conservative" OP meeting and say something like, "Speaking in tongues is not necessary for salvation." The responses you'll get will vary, but a prominent component of the accusations that will be made against you will be that you have said, "You don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved...!!!"

I know, you didn't say that - but that's what will be said about you. It is from this experience myself that I say that most of the outspoken rhetoric of the OP salvation experience does involve the idea that "speaking in tongues = salvation."

"No tongues, no salvation."

[Timmy]

Originally Posted by mfblume

It has already been pointed out that TONGUES are not believed by three steppers to be ONGOING evidence, but INITIAL EVIDENCE, in no way affirming one is presently saved. THE FRUIT is ONGOING evidence. If someone spoke in tongues after having repented, and been baptized, and two hours later indulges in atrocious sins, they are not saved because they once spoke in tongues. All we can say is that person ONCE received the Holy Ghost baptism. And no more.

Unless they faked it, of course.

[Sam]

Originally Posted by seekerman

Present it as one may, but the final result of the three step process for a chance at redemption is that tongues is an integral part of the processI. Tongues cannot be separated from the process of attaining a chance at redemption. Without the 'evidence' of tongues, according to some, there is no redemption.

Who taught such a redemption theology IMMEDIATELY before the oneness Pentecostals came along in 1913 anyway?

That WASN'T the teaching of the folks who called themselves Apostolic Faith back in the early 1900's nor was it taught immediately after 1913. That is a later innovation that has taken over a lot of the Oneness Pentecostals but it was not the original Apostolic teaching of the New Testament church in the first century AD, nor was it the teaching of the folks upon whom the Holy Ghost was outpoured in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They were folks who were saved and they knew they were saved. They "discovered" a truth about an empowering experience called "the Holy Ghost Baptism" and they received and preached that experience. A little later they saw the importance of the Name of Jesus and, in addition to praying in that name, healing the sick in that name, evicting demons in that name, and reverencing that name, they began to baptize people in water in that name. The concept of two separate baptisms --one in water and one in Spirit--- being one new birth experience or one salvation experience was not part of their teaching. That has come along later and is a corruption of the New Testament message and has permeated the UPC and other organizations until it is often presented as the norm.

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

But that does not equate tongues with salvation. Other than what 3-steppers claim about tongues, how else can they claim tongues is only initial evidence of a part of the process that actually saves, and that tongues do not actually saves in and of itself?? Would you say they should make a disclaimer to indicate tongues do not save, but are evidence of salvation so long as repentance and baptism were already accomplished?

I'm speaking from a 3-stepper perspective as I understand it. There cannot and would never be a disclaimer concerning tongues and salvation with the 3-stepper. For example, if a person repented, was baptized and they said "I'm redeemed for I have been born of the Spirit", the reaction to that by a 3-stepper would include the question of 'evidence' of tongues in some way. If the person indicated they had not spoken in tongues, the 3-stepper would be quick to point out that the person isn't born again....not redeemed. Tongues are an integral indivisible part of the 3-stepper program.

And I ask again, who taught such a doctrine IMMEDIATELY before the 1913 introduction of such theology? Where was the church in the 1800's teaching such things?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Call me "pelathais." Say it it with me... well, I don't really know how to say it.

At least give me credit for the AIS at the end that most miss.

I can, and I do. I know that you consider yourself to be something of a "Three Stepper" and I know that you don't hold to the "tongues=saved" idea; but it's still a prominent feature of that group-think process.

Prominent or not, it cannot be said that tongues equates with salvation.

Granted. And, the "altar call experience" is what often culminates the whole process; and seeing the convert "speaking in tongues" is what culminates that.

Try this, however: Go to a UPC or other "conservative" OP meeting and say something like, "Speaking in tongues is not necessary for salvation."

That would be understood as tongues is not the initial evidence of the Spirit, while the Spirit is considered necessary for salvation. Bro., you are still wrong.

The responses you'll get will vary, but a prominent component of the accusations that will be made against you will be that you have said, "You don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved...!!!"

Right! Because tongues is the INITIAL EVIDENCE of the Holy Ghost. Without the initial evidence you do not have the Holy Ghost and Without the Holy Ghost you are not saved. (Now, like I said many times, I believe one is saved if they are sincerely seeking God and all of Acts 2:38, though they have not experienced it yet.) But in all your hypothetical quotes, it is still understood by the hypothetical speakers that tongues do not save, but are evidence of part of what does save. Sorry, you are wrong.

I know, you didn't say that - but that's what will be said about you. It is from this experience myself that I say that most of the outspoken rhetoric of the OP salvation experience does involve the idea that "speaking in tongues = salvation."

"No tongues, no salvation."

But why? It is because tongues are considered initial evidence of part of what does save.

Put it this way. I order a pizza because I want to eat pizza. I smell the pizza and say I HAVE MY PIZZA! I did not buy the smell, but the pizza. The smell is only evidence of the pizza. But it is the pizza I want to eat not the smell. SAME THING WITH TONGUES!

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by Sam

That WASN'T the teaching of the folks who called themselves Apostolic Faith back in the early 1900's nor was it taught immediately after 1913. That is a later innovation that has taken over a lot of the Oneness Pentecostals but it was not the original Apostolic teaching of the New Testament church in the first century AD, nor was it the teaching of the folks upon whom the Holy Ghost was outpoured in the late 1800's and early 1900's. They were folks who were saved and they knew they were saved. They "discovered" a truth about an empowering experience called "the Holy Ghost Baptism" and they received and preached that experience. A little later they saw the importance of the Name of Jesus and, in addition to praying in that name, healing the sick in that name, evicting demons in that name, and reverencing that name, they began to baptize people in water in that name. The concept of two separate baptisms --one in water and one in Spirit--- being one new birth experience or one salvation experience was not part of their teaching. That has come along later and is a corruption of the New Testament message and has permeated the UPC and other organizations until it is often presented as the norm.

As usual, you've put the view into the proper perspective, Sam. Another good post, brother.

Are you now attending a oneness Pentecostal church? Do they KNOW what you believe????

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by seekerman

I'm speaking from a 3-stepper perspective as I understand it. There cannot and would never be a disclaimer concerning tongues and salvation with the 3-stepper. For example, if a person repented, was baptized and they said "I'm redeemed for I have been born of the Spirit", the reaction to that by a 3-stepper would include the question of 'evidence' of tongues in some way. If the person indicated they had not spoken in tongues, the 3-stepper would be quick to point out that the person isn't born again....not redeemed. Tongues are an integral indivisible part of the 3-stepper program.

Right, because there is no other way to look at it when tongues are considered the only initial evidence of Spirit baptism. But that still does not equate tongues with salvation.

And I ask again, who taught such a doctrine IMMEDIATELY before the 1913 introduction of such theology? Where was the church in the 1800's teaching such things?

All I know is that Acts 10 shows it to be the case. Who cares about who or who did not teach it?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Timmy

Unless they faked it, of course.

Of course!

[seekerman]

Originally Posted by mfblume

All I know is that Acts 10 shows it to be the case. Who cares about who or who did not teach it?

Well, I think that's kinda important being the only true plan of salvation and all.

Doesn't it concern or trouble you that the church of the Living God cannot be found in the 1800's? No problem with it slowly growing after 1913, but nothing in the several centuries immediately prior to 1913?

Something is amiss, bro blume.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right! Because tongues is the INITIAL EVIDENCE of the Holy Ghost. Without the initial evidence you do not have the Holy Ghost and Without the Holy Ghost you are not saved. (Now, like I said many times, I believe one is saved if they are sincerely seeking God and all of Acts 2:38, though they have not experienced it yet.) But in all your hypothetical quotes, it is still understood by the hypothetical speakers that tongues do not save, but are evidence of part of what does save. Sorry, you are wrong.

Originally Posted by mfblume

Right, because there is no other way to look at it when tongues are considered the only initial evidence of Spirit baptism. But that still does not equate tongues with salvation.

I am confused at your two comments here? Could you elaborate? I think I know what you are saying, but I'll let you elaborate.