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

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by seekerman

But, does anyone really truly equate tongues with redemption?

No.

[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 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."

Right! But that STILL does not mean that referring to such tongues as evidence of the Spirit baptism that this "culture" alleges tongues IS salvation. When something is evidence of what is required for salvation, you cannot equate that evidence WITH salvation.

[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.

[Timmy]

What if, instead of tongues, the fruit of the Spirit were thought of as the "evidence" of being saved? Would that make it easier or harder to tell who is saved and who isn't saved?

[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.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Timmy

What if, instead of tongues, the fruit of the Spirit were thought of as the "evidence" of being saved? Would that make it easier or harder to tell who is saved and who isn't saved?

It has already been pointed out that TONGUES are not believed by three steppers to be ONGOING evidence, but INITIAL EVIDENCE, in no way affirming one is presently saved. THE FRUIT is ONGOING evidence. If someone spoke in tongues after having repented, and been baptized, and two hours later indulges in atrocious sins, they are not saved because they once spoke in tongues. All we can say is that person ONCE received the Holy Ghost baptism. And no more.

[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?