The Great One-Step/Three-Step Debate

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I think it is plain as well. But the two points I contrasted DO NOT have plain positions in the word. And BOTH positions lay claim to salvation. Otherwise, how do you refute my statement about the two listed positions of contrast as I worded them? Are you saying the BIBLE DOES PLAINLY SHOW two different experiences of Spirit indwelling, when I cannot see where4 it clearly does? IOW, please go further than a general statement about KNOWING. Show me the detailed flaw in my thought.

The flaw in your thought is that there is a sense of uncertainty.

While there may be uncertainty about some things, the point of salvation is not something that we should be uncertain about.

I have to leave this computer, I will post again.

I am reminded of 1 John 5:13.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

The flaw in your thought is that there is a sense of uncertainty.

While there may be uncertainty about some things, the point of salvation is not something that we should be uncertain about.

I have to leave this computer, I will post again.

I am reminded of 1 John 5:13.

That is not dealing with the issue of the two points I mentioned, which is what I meant by the flaw in my thought.

It is easy to not deal with the actual issue and point out a flaw, but the only real way you can show a flaw in this is to show me the flaw in the following:

1) One-Steppers are right when they say the bible does not actually say ONE MUST speak in tongues when receiving the Spirit in any form.

2) Three-Steppers are right when they say the Bible does NOT declare there are two different experiences with the Holy Ghost (one at salvation and a subsequent baptism after salvation).

[Liberal]

Originally Posted by *AQuietPlace*

This is something that bothers me......

Yes, the experience is very real when the presence of the Lord's spirit 'comes over you' (for lack of a better term).

But I have - SO many times - seen people praying at the altar, the spirit of the Lord almost visible all over them. Their face is glowing, you can see that they are feeling the presence and power of God so strongly. They are probably even "stammering". They feel completely changed and renewed. But, because they can't seem to articulate "tongues", we say they didn't get the Holy Ghost.

I guess that's one of the biggest things that bothers me about the "must speak in tongues to be saved" belief.

We have people with their ears pressed to the person's mouth, trying to determine whether or not they utter a full word in tongues. If they can get even a full word or two out, we pronounce that "They got it!!"

Nothing else is different. The power of God is just as strong all around them, but if they don't speak those few words, they didn't get it. Speak those few words, and they did.

It's just so confusing to me.

You're not confused, AQP. The person you described is filled with the Holy Spirit.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by mfblume

That is not dealing with the issue of the two points I mentioned, which is what I meant by the flaw in my thought.

a) It is easy to not deal with the actual issue and point out a flaw, but the only real way you can show a flaw in this is to show me the flaw in the following:

1) [B] b) One-Steppers are right when they say the bible does not actually say ONE MUST speak in tongues when receiving the Spirit in any form.[/B

]2) c) Three-Steppers are right when they say the Bible does NOT declare there are two different experiences with the Holy Ghost (one at salvation and a subsequent baptism after salvation).

a) It was not my intent to dodge the issue or to point out flaws just for the sake of pointing out flaws.

b) I will find scriptural support for this.

c) You may be right, but we both know of scriptures where it talks about people being filled with the Spirit without speaking in tongues. Still, your wording presents a challenge and I will attempt to "settle it" using scripture.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

a) It was not my intent to dodge the issue or to point out flaws just for the sake of pointing out flaws.

b) I will find scriptural support for this.

c) You may be right, but we both know of scriptures where it talks about people being filled with the Spirit without speaking in tongues. Still, your wording presents a challenge and I will attempt to "settle it" using scripture.

No problem.

I believe we can know we are saved, but not from the manners people often have used. The bible says our spirit bears witness with His Spirit that we are the sons of God. If we start looking for other proofs, I think we may mistake a wolf in sheep's clothing for a sheep. lol

I simply pointed out that the two points of both sides of the great debate on this forum are seemingly, thus far, irrefutable. And people should not speak from either side as if their side does not have that flaw.

So, the two points should not leave one amiss as to whether we can know we are saved, but rather to realize the knowing comes by a means aside from the two.