As far as group 2 I would not say they are saved but rescued. Yes this is pretty much what I believe.
Search the "Light Doctrine" or "holy, righteous, and wicked" doctrine"
Eventually I will start a thread on this to lay out my position.
I wasn't trying to hijack the thread. Sorry.
Thanks for your response. The UPCI website mentions the term "full salvation" and this could be what they mean by that.
i never fully understood the significance of speaking in Tongues. from my understanding it is a result of one being overcome by the Holy Spirit and speaks in a different language. this would e similar to when the Lord speaks through a profit. its hard for me to believe that only those chosen by the Lord for him to speak through would get salvation. there may be laws of man that claim this but i dont think there are laws of the Lord that state this.
I do not believe that a person must speak in tongues to be saved but if they do not speak in tongues they do not have the Holy Ghost but these are two of three distinct works of grace performed by God in us.
Does God have to make you speak in tongues to save you?
LOL! He has a plan to keep us in contact with Him, through His Spirit, but forcing it wasn't a part of the plan. He just wanted to be our Comforter. I've always thought it was pretty awesome of Him.
I'm still not sure I know an answer for this question. The book of Acts seems to make a good case for new converts speaking in tongues when they were filled with the Holy Ghost, but I'm not sure I understand how so many have come to the conclusion that this means every time anyone ever receives the Holy Ghost they have to speak in tongues.
If it is true that tongues are absolutely necessary, it's strange in my mind that God chose something like tongues that can be so easily and unintentionally faked.
Also, in Acts it seems we can assume that tongues always happened just like they did on the day of Pentecost. Tongues were languages known to others. I'm no linguistics expert, but most tongues I hear don't sound like they could possibly be any language.
This is why I'm so afraid to be dogmatic about this issue. I definitely feel that people can make a case for tongues using the book of Acts, but what about the rest of the epistles? Tongues are comparatively rarely mentioned. Something that your salvation hinges upon should be pretty clear in my mind.
I would argue a greater case can be made for salvation being related to water baptism than tongues.
There should be a third voting option, "I don't know."
Timmy, your poll is really inadequate. You should have an option for, "I don't know", or "Fruit of the spirit necessary to be saved"... or something like that.
Reason being is that there is not a scripture in the entire NT that specifically states "when you speak in an unknown tongue or language you are filled with the Spirit, and therefore saved."
There are many, many more scriptures for the necessity of baptism being a salvational issue.
My personal opinion is that we should rather look for the fruit of the spirit in believer's lives, as opposed to just listening to see if they speak with tongues. I've heard too many "speak in tongues" but their works, and actions were evil. I've known many, many others who demonstrated beautiful fruit of the spirit, who did not have another language given to them.
So, because of this... I would say that baptism is not optional throughout the NT writings, but that the real test if one is filled with the Spirit would be the fruit, and not the tongues.
Timmy, your poll is really inadequate. You should have an option for, "I don't know", or "Fruit of the spirit necessary to be saved"... or something like that.
Reason being is that there is not a scripture in the entire NT that specifically states "when you speak in an unknown tongue or language you are filled with the Spirit, and therefore saved."
There are many, many more scriptures for the necessity of baptism being a salvational issue.
My personal opinion is that we should rather look for the fruit of the spirit in believer's lives, as opposed to just listening to see if they speak with tongues. I've heard too many "speak in tongues" but their works, and actions were evil. I've known many, many others who demonstrated beautiful fruit of the spirit, who did not have another language given to them.
So, because of this... I would say that baptism is not optional throughout the NT writings, but that the real test if one is filled with the Spirit would be the fruit, and not the tongues.
Yeah, I usually include "Other", but this time I figured hey, why let them cop out? This is salvation we're talking about! You either know what's required or you don't! And if you don't, well, I don't know what to tell ya.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Linear Mode
