NOW, When Is Someone Saved?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

Paul says in Romans 8, he that hath not the spirit of God is none of his. This is not man's commandment. It is a bible command. Or do you disagree with Paul also? Could Abraham be saved if he disobeyed circumcision?

This is true, however our 1-step brothers would deny that as person can be saved without the Spirit. They deny a person HAS to speak in tongues in order to have the Spirit.

Also. many teach a difference between the infilling with tongues and receiving the Spirit.

They see these as 2 distinct events and endowments. One is sanctification/salvation of the Spirit in our lives and the other is an empowerment after salvation

[Jeffrey]

In John, we see the Spirit in salvation. In Paul, the Spirit in sanctifying, and in Luke, the Spirit in empowering/equipping for mission.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Circumcision was an ordinance. A sign of God's promise to them.

This still is not the question. What effected God's saving Grace? #1 God initiated Grace, not Abram. #2 Abraham's believing (same as Romans 4) effected the power of God in Abram's life. I think Romans 4 will speak to the circumcision issue, as to whether there was a role in salvation for circumcision. Are you familiar?

my sword is rusty

[Jeffrey]

GEN 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he countedit to him for righteousness.

GEN 26:5 Because that Abraham obeyed my voice,and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.

The idea that God makes a Covenant with a sinner is false. The idea that God gave circumcision *as* the Covenant is false. God made the Covenant "BECAUSE" of the object of Abraham's faith and because he believed and obeyed him by faith.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is true, however our 1-step brothers would deny that as person can be saved without the Spirit. They deny a person HAS to speak in tongues in order to have the Spirit.

Also. many teach a difference between the infilling with tongues and receiving the Spirit.

They see these as 2 distinct events and endowments. One is sanctification/salvation of the Spirit in our lives and the other is an empowerment after salvation

This is true. Thanks for accurately presenting the other view.

It's the same Spirit, different role. The Spirit of God is involved from the beginning and will until the final resurrection.

[Dedicated Mind]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

This is true, however our 1-step brothers would deny that as person can be saved without the Spirit. They deny a person HAS to speak in tongues in order to have the Spirit.

Also. many teach a difference between the infilling with tongues and receiving the Spirit.

They see these as 2 distinct events and endowments. One is sanctification/salvation of the Spirit in our lives and the other is an empowerment after salvation

our "1 step brothers" are saying 3 steppers are teaching heresy. what say ye?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

our "1 step brothers" are saying 3 steppers are teaching heresy. what say ye?

And our 3 step brothers would say our 1 step brothers are teaching heresy. I'll leave that distinction to you guys who seem to like drawing those kinds of distinctions

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Dedicated Mind

our "1 step brothers" are saying 3 steppers are teaching heresy. what say ye?

I'm saying that one-steppers and three-steppers are both teaching salvation by faith but we present it differently. We both teach that justification/salvation/regeneration is by faith and we both say that faith is more than just a mental assent. One steppers say that faith is trust in Jesus that results in a change in the person's attitude and actions even though those changes may not be perceptible for some time. Three steppers say that faith is trust in Jesus that results in water baptism in Jesus' name and receiving the Holy Ghost Baptism.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Sam

I'm saying that one-steppers and three-steppers are both teaching salvation by faith but we present it differently. We both teach that justification/salvation/regeneration is by faith and we both say that faith is more than just a mental assent. One steppers say that faith is trust in Jesus that results in a change in the person's attitude and actions even though those changes may not be perceptible for some time. Three steppers say that faith is trust in Jesus that results in water baptism in Jesus' name and receiving the Holy Ghost Baptism.

Sam, what I previously believed about grace is not just a different presentation, it's a different perspective... more dramatically said, it's a different paradigm. When we leave the onus on God for saving us, that affects how vivid and real we see grace, and just how gracious that God is.

While I think your unity statement is true for some in both of these camps (because we all know there are exceptions), as far as a theological position, the differences couldn't be more stark IMO. Maybe I'll soften that view in time. Right now, it's contrastingly different. I never realized how much that theology penetrated into absolutely every area in the believer's life: from seeing grace, to acting out in grace (gracious living) to trusting the security of God's salvation to keeping sanctification in perspective.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

And our 3 step brothers would say our 1 step brothers are teaching heresy. I'll leave that distinction to you guys who seem to like drawing those kinds of distinctions

Fair enough, Prax.

It's not so much I'm bent on making that distinction as much as just identifying a distinction that seems to be so obvious.

I sincerely am not discussing this with contempt, prejudice or anger. Posts like these are what AFF was built on.