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.