Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

I agree with you...the universality of the Holy Spirit was confined in part to the restrictions of the law prior to Christ.

However, we must never forget the purpose of this universal outpouring and that is to "testify" of Christ. Any spirit which does not bear "Christlike" fruit is not the Spirit of God.

Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

Now that will preach! :shockamoo

Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

Nobody's trying to "confuse" anyone here... I think we've been very straightforward and biblical.

(If you notice, no one here has said she DIDNT have the holy Spirit. Did you notice that?)

And Sam is not someone who most here would call a "doctrinist".

Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

A little insecure are we? lol just having some good o'le pentecostal apostolic fun. haha

Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

It's quite easy to see when one initially starts going through posts/threads here that the terms one-stepper and three stepper are bandied about quite frequently.

So naturally you want to know exactly what people are referring to when you see that.

I've even recently inquired myself on another thread. So.......

Three stepper seems pretty obvious. Acts 2:38.....that's what I believe

one stepper: Repentence necessary.....baptism will follow but not believed to be neccessary (then why do it is my question?)....receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues (haven't really figured out what the so called one steppers here believe about that).

Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

It is very necessary - I have not seen a discussion here, where baptism was considered dispensable. The question is rather, "Does God place someone in right standing with Him at the moment of baptism, but not a moment before?"

Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

Here's what the PCI Manual said on the subject of salvation. Notice a person had "remission of sins" through sincere repetenance.

As a rough guide to the discussion consider this: the two groups that merged to form the UPC were the PCI and the PAJC. The PCI was mostly "one steppers" and the PAJC tended toward "three steppers." Now, that's very rough - keep that in mind. Thomas Fudge showed that there were in fact a lot "one steppers" among the PAJC and that at times some of the former PCI members became the most ardent "three steppers."

Essentially it came down to a battle for identity. The "three step" opinion eventually took control and the "one step" approach was censored and buried. A lot of folks were disappointed by that. The moves made to assert the "three step" theology involved deceit and some bullying tactics. Also, the vast majority of younger ministers didn't have a clue as to what was going on until Fudge published Christianity Without the Cross and others began to speak out as well.

Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

John the Baptist gave us some insight here. See Matthew 3:5-12. Here John emphasizes the necessity of a changed life (bring forth fruits meet for repentance...). John warned that only "good fruit" would save the people from the fires of the coming judgment.

He didn't say, "Get in the water to escape the flames..." He said "Produce good fruit to avoid the axe and the fire..." This "fruit" is the fruit of repentance - of a changed and regenerated life.

Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

So would a one stepper (as some folks refer to themselves here) believe that Jesus name baptism is essential to the salvation plan?

Or do the one steppers even know what they are saying when they use the term?

IMO it just seemed like repentence only as opposed to Acts 2:38.

That why I asked

Re: Someone please define 1 step and 3 step theolo
 

Actually the question is deeper than that. One can be considered in right of heart or standing and not have realized the cross or atonement of Christ yet.

1) Faith or proper response to God is considered "that which is right" or righteous

God declaring a person toward him or of right heart does not mean they have been united with Christ per Romans 6 and WE TAKE ON HIS RIGHTEOUSNESS!

2) To be united with Christ is to be united in his death at baptism. Thus we are put on or united with the cross/sacrifice.


Mat 5:23 So then, if you bring your gift to the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you,
Mat 5:24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother and then come and present your gift.

The sequence is clear here when one applies it to a person coming into relationship with Christ.

The individual hears the calling of God and HEARS that God has something against him(law) and the solution and he then turns to Christ in repentance/reconcile and he THEN offers his gift/himself to united in sacrifice on the alter. In this we offer our lives to be united with him in death.

Thus the response of faith God declares right and the imputing the righteousness or atonement of Christ are two different things. You CANNOT be united with Christ in baptism which is his atonement unless you have been declared right at heart by repentance.