The Great One-Step/Three-Step Debate

[mfblume]

This forum has been famous for the great One-Stepper vs. Three-Stepper debate. Please allow me to describe an observation I have made about the whole issue.

I engaged in the debate myself a few months ago. And I personally narrowed it down to this dilemma:

1) One-Step teaching proposes that Holy Ghost baptism is not necessary for salvation but people should experience it anyway,

2) while Three-Step teaching proposes it is necessary.


And then there is this contrast:

1) One-Step doctrine teaches water baptism is not necessary for salvation, but it is nevertheless commanded,

2) while Three-Step doctrine proposes it is necessary for salvation.

Then TONGUES is in the midst of the debate as well. Should everyone speak in tongues if they claim they received the Holy Ghost?


Agreed?

[mfblume]

In my part of the debate, I personally emphasized in the past the issue of whether or not...

1) the Holy Ghost baptism (Acts 1:5; 11:16)
2) ... is the same as the Holy Ghost Infilling (Acts 2:4)
3) ... is the same as the Holy Ghost reception (Acts 2:38; 8:15)
4) ... is the same as the Holy Ghost coming upon us (Acts 1:8)
5) ... is the same as the Holy Ghost falling on us (Acts 8:16; 11:15)
6) ... is the same as the Holy Ghost outpouring (Acts 10:45)
7) ... is the same as the Holy Ghost gift (Acts 2:38; 11:17).

Acts 11 says the same experience the disciples had in Acts 2 (infilling) was the experience the gentiles had in Acts 10 (outpouring/reception/falling on/gift), calling it the "baptism" of the Holy Ghost.

And they spoke in tongues in Acts 2 and Acts 10, making the "baptism" the same thing as the "gift" the same thing as the "infilling" the same thing as the "falling on" the same thing as the "outpouring" the same thing as the "gift". This, in turn, means anyone who "was filled" the spirit, "baptized" with the Spirit, "received" the Spirit, had the Spirit "poured out" on them, got the "gift" of the Spirit spoke in tongues in the Book of Acts. Why? It is because both those in Acts 2 and Acts 10 spoke in tongues, as well as other experiences. (And, by the way, Acts 2 does not say they PROPHESIED when they spoke in tongues, either. That thought is not flatly stated in Acts 2, but simply says they worshiped God without giving any direct message to the onlookers. We have to realize what was flatly stated and what was not).

Someone told me that they felt there were two experiences with the Spirit. There is the baptism of the Spirit, which is subsequent to salvation, and the reception of the Spirit which occurs at salvation. This person who is a one-stepper could find no plainer proof for his belief than simply claiming that the folks in Acts 2 experienced salvation and therefore received the Holy Ghost in them at the same time they happened to experience the baptism of the Holy Ghost, without any explicit statement to that effect found in the Bible.

It boils down to this contrast:

1) One-Steppers have no more solid grounds to say there is a Spirit indwelling at salvation and a subsequent Spirit baptism...

2) ...any more than Three-Steppers have solid grounds to say they are one and the same experience wherein one must speak in tongues everytime one receives the Spirit in any form.

Note the manner in which I phrased those two positions. I chose my words carefully.

If we want to find plain and actual teaching in the bible that stipulates one or the other version of salvation, one has no more grounds than the other when it comes to what I actually stated in the two positions above.

[mfblume]

So, the TWO varying positions that are the strongest differences between the two camps can be described as follows:

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).

[mfblume]

Personally, I see the list of the seven different terms in my second post used in experiencing the Spirit as synonymous and all one and the same experience due to Christ's words in Acts 1 describing the Acts 2 experience, keeping in mind that the Acts 11 statements concluded that the Acts 10 experience is one and the same as the Acts 2 experience. (I know that sounds like a tongue twister, but if you read that last sentence carefully you will find that it is correct!)

This causes me to say there is only one experience where we find the Spirit actually existing inside our lives and it does not happen before Holy Ghost baptism which occurred with speaking in tongues in Acts 2. And it is true that the tongue-talking reference in Acts 10, which stood as initial evidence for Spirit baptism, cannot be said to declare that it MUST happen everytime one receives this Spirit experience. But it is the only verse in the Bible that says anything about something happening initially to indicate one has the Spirit. The bible does not say it will NOT happen everytime one experiences it either. So to make a dogmatic stand either way is to argue from silence. But since it is the ONLY statement found in the entire Bible about what INITIALLY happened TO INDICATE that someone had that experience, then I strongly lean towards tongues being the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Ghost in every case and preach it as so. NOT ONGOING EVIDENCE, mind you.... but INITIAL evidence. FRUIT is ongoing evidence, but even fruit will only grow when maturity occurs, and one can have the Spirit and never actually mature!

To say you believe the Spirit comes inside a person before that tongue talking Acts 2 experience is to say something that has no plain grounds nor basis any more than I can say the bible flatly teaches one will speak in tongues if they are saved.

So... the conclusion? As far as those two positions go, one of the two positions I listed has no more irrefutable grounds than the other position, and that means that, while only one can be correct, neither has irrefutable grounds to declare it is. (Think about that).

So both positions have to lean upon something other than flat and plain statements and stand upon what the conglomeration of the facts presented would lead one to believe. And when this is the case with any argument, people are usually not going to survey the overall conglomeration mof evidence, and instead simply stand with what THEY WANT to believe, rather than claim they believe what the Bible teaches. I propose that is the COMMON mannerism.

I think the three-step position has more grounds and evidence than the one-step position, and feel that the one-step position assumes too much, personally. To say there were TWO experiences of 1) Spirit indwelling for salvation and 2) a distinct experience of Spirit baptism after salvation, concluding that BOTH occurred in the cases of those in Acts 2, is simply not stated as such in the bible. Period. But I also concede that tongue talking is not conclusively stated in the Bible to be what everyone who is saved experiences, either. Hence, I unashamedly am a three-stepper who WILL NOT SAY those who have not spoken in tongues are lost. I leave it to God because neither contrast between positions is flatly stated in the Bible. I just preach it as though everyone WILL experience these things and certainly should, if they are truly seeking after God.


Okay, BOMBS away, and let the games begi…. I mean, continue.

[TGBTG]

Have not read this thread yet, but just wanted to say I have not seen you post in a while. Hope all's cool...Just showing christian love..lol

Now, to the thread...

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by TGBTG

Have not read this thread yet, but just wanted to say I have not seen you post in a while. Hope all's cool...Just showing christian love..lol

Now, to the thread...

I have posted here and there in the last while, but probably it is lost in the other posts in those threads since I only posted once or twice in each of them.

[Cindy]

It's not complicated. By faith are we saved through grace. Repentance, baptism in Jesus name and receiving the Holy Ghost is a continuation of our walk with God.

[KeptByTheWord]

Wow, Bro. Blume! Thank you for doing this in-depth analysis of the HG and the one-stepper versus three-stepper positions. I have to take a stand with you and agree. I would never condemn anyone for not receiving the "tongues" experience also. But, I would encourage them to seek after it though, because the experience is real, and I believe a higher endowment of power from God, the Comforter sent to lead and guide us into all truth. But if someone is manifesting the fruit or evidence in their life, without speaking in tongues, I would never condem them "now" and say they are lost, although just a short while ago, I would have. Thankfully the Lord has opened my eyes to realize this.

As far as baptism goes, if it was good enough for the apostles to do to everyone who believed, then it is good enough for me. But I have a question - should the person being baptized be the one to call on the name of the Lord, and confess their sins?

Read Mark 1:4-5 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

And again in Acts where Paul recounts his conversion experience ...

Acts 22:16 And now, why tarriest though? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Makes me wonder if the person being baptized shouldn't be the one calling on the name of the Lord Jesus.

Any thoughts on this?

Don't mean to start a "bunny rabbit trail" on your post Bro. Blume, but this this is also part of the difference between the one-stepper, versus three-stepper positions on the HG/tongues and baptism in water salvation plan.

[TGBTG]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Wow, Bro. Blume! Thank you for doing this in-depth analysis of the HG and the one-stepper versus three-stepper positions. I have to take a stand with you and agree. I would never condemn anyone for not receiving the "tongues" experience also. But, I would encourage them to seek after it though, because the experience is real, and I believe a higher endowment of power from God, the Comforter sent to lead and guide us into all truth. But if someone is manifesting the fruit or evidence in their life, without speaking in tongues, I would never condem them "now" and say they are lost, although just a short while ago, I would have. Thankfully the Lord has opened my eyes to realize this.

As far as baptism goes, if it was good enough for the apostles to do to everyone who believed, then it is good enough for me. But I have a question - should the person being baptized be the one to call on the name of the Lord, and confess their sins?

Read Mark 1:4-5 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

And again in Acts where Paul recounts his conversion experience ...

Acts 22:16 And now, why tarriest though? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Makes me wonder if the person being baptized shouldn't be the one calling on the name of the Lord Jesus.

Any thoughts on this?

Don't mean to start a "bunny rabbit trail" on your post Bro. Blume, but this this is also part of the difference between the one-stepper, versus three-stepper positions on the HG/tongues and baptism in water salvation plan.

Will the convert be talking while he/she is in the water?? I think not. The whole point of calling on the name of the Lord is that you are focusing/putting your faith in Jesus Christ while going into the water. Hence, Paul tells us in

Romans 6
4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

Also, I think we should remember that a new convert does not even know about the baptism debate in most cases. A new convert is just so overjoyed with his new found faith in Jesus Christ that he will just jump into the water if he was told Jesus commanded it. So a new convert's faith is focusing on Jesus Christ while the baptizer is saying:
"Upon your profession of faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, as he as commanded that all believers should be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, I now baptize you in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ" (One immersion into one body, Amen!!!)

[*AQuietPlace*]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

But, I would encourage them to seek after it though, because the experience is real, and I believe a higher endowment of power from God, the Comforter sent to lead and guide us into all truth.

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.