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

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by pelathais

Not myself, however when I've seen this brought up before, the inevitable cry of "Now you're saying people don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved!!" rings out.

The "Three Step" plan has been so ingrained into the current generation of Oneness Apostolics that "speaking in tongues" is usually equated with salvation itself. That's a primary impetus behind the histrionics in the altar - "New babes are being born into the kingdom!" Maybe.

Taking Parham's "evidence of Spirit baptism" and adding to it G.T. Haywood's "Water & Spirit" doctrine logically leads to equating tongues with salvation.

I disagree. Let's take the claim you quoted and analyze it. "Now you're saying people don't need the Holy Ghost to be saved!!"

If the Holy Ghost is considered necessary for salvation, and speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost reception, speaking in tongues is still not equated with salvation. It is evidence, albeit initial evidence and not ongoing evidence, that one has what one considers is necessary for salvation. So you could say it is evidence one has salvation only in certain situations. I say certain situations, because water baptism is considered necessary for salvation as well, and people can receive Spirit baptism without having yet been water baptized. But even if one has been water baptized and has been Spirit baptized with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues, and those are considered necessary for salvation, that still is not grounds to tongues equates salvation. At best you can say tongues is initial evidence of salvation. No more, though.

Even if people SAY that someone is then saved when they speak in tongues, as they waited to hear the tongues, that still does not mean they equate tongues with salvation. It means tongues is initial evidence of it. There is nothing wrong with this logic. If there is a case of there being initial evidence of something, and that evidence is witnessed, then saying one is saved when seeing such evidence is not saying the evidence IS SALVATION.

Any time there is a claim of evidence involved in any given conclusion, seeing that evidence and claiming the sought for conclusion is present is not saying the evidence is the accomplishment. No one who proposes the so-called three-step doctrine believes tongues equates salvation, unless they say that with the understanding that evidence for a conclusion equates presence of the conclusion. And that is a far cry from flatly equating tongues as salvation.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by mfblume

... No one who proposes the so-called three-step doctrine believes tongues equates salvation, unless they say that with the understanding that evidence for a conclusion equates presence of the conclusion. And that is a far cry from flatly equating tongues as salvation.

You're not quibbling with me here, you're taking on the whole UPC culture with that statement. While many might be happy to offer things like, "Even the devil speaks in tongues..." and thus agree with your assertion, the way that the machine actually works is that you are NOT saved in a UPC church until you have "spoken in other tongues."

[Sam]

Originally Posted by pelathais

You're not quibbling with me here, you're taking on the whole UPC culture with that statement. While many might be happy to offer things like, "Even the devil speaks in tongues..." and thus agree with your assertion, the way that the machine actually works is that you are NOT saved in a UPC church until you have "spoken in other tongues."

It is my understanding that speaking with tongues happens AFTER the Holy Ghost Baptism has taken place --maybe not immediately after but some time after. It is also my understanding that a person does not speak with tongues in order to get or obtain the Holy Ghost.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Sam

It is my understanding that speaking with tongues happens AFTER the Holy Ghost Baptism has taken place --maybe not immediately after but some time after. It is also my understanding that a person does not speak with tongues in order to get or obtain the Holy Ghost.

Right. It is only EVIDENCE of Holy Ghost, while Holy Ghost is considered necessary for salvation.

[mfblume]

Palathais, 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.

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.

[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?

[mfblume]

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?

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?

[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.

[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."

[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!