Gods Sovereignty

[stmatthew]

I often here it said here that "God is sovereign, and can do what he wants". While I understand the premise of what is being said, I disagree with the end result of the statement.


God has set certain boundaries, even upon his own hand, that though he could, he will not go beyond. At one time God destroyed the earth with water. After the water receded, and Noah exited the ark, God set a sign of covenant in the sky, stating that he would never again destroy the earth with water. This was a boundary that God set upon himself. Though he is sovereign, we can bank on the fact that he will never again destroy the earth with water.

So why is it that we are willing to use this "sovereignty thing" so much as a "loophole" when it comes to salvation. The bible is very plain that salvation only comes through Jesus Christ. I believe, as Apostolics, that we all believe a person must be born again to be saved. I understand that we have a diversity of views as to when all this takes place. But for those of us (water-spirit folks) that believe that tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost, how can we use the "sovereign" card and say there is a possibility that someone that has not spoken in tongues can be saved? Are we so unsure of what the bible says that we are must make exceptions just in case? I cannot see any exceptions for salvation outside of water-spirit with the initial evidence of tongues within this new testament era. If I saw any "loopholes" I would be forced to change my beliefs on the new birth message.

So let me ask you water-spirit folks..... do you believe that anyone that has not spoken in tongues in this new testament era will be saved should they meet God in that state?

[seguidordejesus]

I agree

[Newman]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I often here it said here that "God is sovereign, and can do what he wants". While I understand the premise of what is being said, I disagree with the end result of the statement.


God has set certain boundaries, even upon his own hand, that though he could, he will not go beyond. At one time God destroyed the earth with water. After the water receded, and Noah exited the ark, God set a sign of covenant in the sky, stating that he would never again destroy the earth with water. This was a boundary that God set upon himself. Though he is sovereign, we can bank on the fact that he will never again destroy the earth with water.

So why is it that we are willing to use this "sovereignty thing" so much as a "loophole" when it comes to salvation. The bible is very plain that salvation only comes through Jesus Christ. I believe, as Apostolics, that we all believe a person must be born again to be saved. I understand that we have a diversity of views as to when all this takes place. But for those of us (water-spirit folks) that believe that tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost, how can we use the "sovereign" card and say there is a possibility that someone that has not spoken in tongues can be saved? Are we so unsure of what the bible says that we are must make exceptions just in case? I cannot see any exceptions for salvation outside of water-spirit with the initial evidence of tongues within this new testament era. If I saw any "loopholes" I would be forced to change my beliefs on the new birth message.

stmatt- The OT is full of times where God said one thing and did another (to man's benefit). How many things do you think this group could collectively think of?

This fits in from a legal perspective. Two people can form a contract and both are legally bound by it. If however, one side with the right to enforce it; chooses not to enforce it, there is no legal requirement that it must be done. The other side certainly isn't going to require it.

As a lawyer, do you think I tell people not to worry about what the contract says. The other side might not enforce it.... Goodness gracious. Can you say malpractice?

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Newman

stmatt- The OT is full of times where God said one thing and did another (to man's benefit). How many things do you think this group could collectively think of?

This fits in from a legal perspective. Two people can form a contract and both are legally bound by it. If however, one side with the right to enforce it; chooses not to enforce it, there is no legal requirement that it must be done. The other side certainly isn't going to require it.

As a lawyer, do you think I tell people not to worry about what the contract says. The other side might not enforce it.... Goodness gracious. Can you say malpractice?

Newman, we are not talking about God telling Moses that he is going to destroy the Israelites, and then not doing so because of being entreated by Moses. We are talking about foundational salvation teachings. The very core of our systematic beliefs hangs upon our interpretation of the born again experience. IF I give the loophole that God is sovereign, and can go contrary to it, then how can I say it is the only way. To me if my understanding gives way that God may do something contrary to his Word in order to save in this new testament era, then I open a big door for God to change and save Muslims as they are because he chooses to. Either Jesus is the only way, or he is not.

I know you understand what I am trying to say here.

BTW - It is good to see you posting some.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Newman, we are not talking about God telling Moses that he is going to destroy the Israelites, and then not doing so because of being entreated by Moses. We are talking about foundational salvation teachings. The very core of our systematic beliefs hangs upon our interpretation of the born again experience. IF I give the loophole that God is sovereign, and can go contrary to it, then how can I say it is the only way. To me if my understanding gives way that God may do something contrary to his Word in order to save in this new testament era, then I open a big door for God to change and save Muslims as they are because he chooses to. Either Jesus is the only way, or he is not.

I know you understand what I am trying to say here.

BTW - It is good to see you posting some.

1. Moses entreating God for the Israelites is but one incident. Can you think of others?

2. Acts 2:38 is the KNOWN way.

3. Muslims who don't know Jesus saved? I think one finds that God's sovereign intervention in the OT was to those that called on Him not Allah.

Thanks for the welcome but I can't stay!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Newman

1. Moses entreating God for the Israelites is but one incident. Can you think of others?

2. Acts 2:38 is the KNOWN way.

3. Muslims who don't know Jesus saved? I think one finds that God's sovereign intervention in the OT was to those that called on Him not Allah.

Thanks for the welcome but I can't stay!

Hezekiah's prayer, Jonah and Nineveh.....But I don't see Jesus saying you must be born again and then the disciples in the book of Acts saying something different to those who believed....Peter, Paul, and John all taught regeneration.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Hezekiah's prayer, Jonah and Nineveh.....

Good beginning but there are many more examples....

But I don't see Jesus saying you must be born again and then the disciples in the book of Acts saying something different to those who believed....Peter, Paul, and John all taught regeneration.

In the OT God spoke and the prophets said the same thing. But God ultimately did what He chose.

[Steve Epley]

Matt I am a fervent water & Spirit man and I do NOT believe in the light doctrine the ONLY saving message from Pentecost until now is Acts 2:38 period. I certainly am not a 'loop hole" guy but IF(that is a big IF) at the judgment God who wrote the law has mercy on some that are without the law then what could we say??? The lawgiver certainly has the right to give any exemption He would deem. Do I think He will?? I have NO scripture for it. Do I think He can???? He is God and judgment belongs to Him alone. Just a thought.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I often here it said here that "God is sovereign, and can do what he wants". While I understand the premise of what is being said, I disagree with the end result of the statement.


God has set certain boundaries, even upon his own hand, that though he could, he will not go beyond. At one time God destroyed the earth with water. After the water receded, and Noah exited the ark, God set a sign of covenant in the sky, stating that he would never again destroy the earth with water. This was a boundary that God set upon himself. Though he is sovereign, we can bank on the fact that he will never again destroy the earth with water.

So why is it that we are willing to use this "sovereignty thing" so much as a "loophole" when it comes to salvation. The bible is very plain that salvation only comes through Jesus Christ. I believe, as Apostolics, that we all believe a person must be born again to be saved. I understand that we have a diversity of views as to when all this takes place. But for those of us (water-spirit folks) that believe that tongues is the initial evidence of the Holy Ghost, how can we use the "sovereign" card and say there is a possibility that someone that has not spoken in tongues can be saved? Are we so unsure of what the bible says that we are must make exceptions just in case? I cannot see any exceptions for salvation outside of water-spirit with the initial evidence of tongues within this new testament era. If I saw any "loopholes" I would be forced to change my beliefs on the new birth message.

So let me ask you water-spirit folks..... do you believe that anyone that has not spoken in tongues in this new testament era will be saved should they meet God in that state?

I answered this in another thread. If you haven't spoken in tongues, you haven't received the Holy Spirit. And if you aren't indwelled with the Spirit, you are none of His.

It sounds exclusionary. I know. But I believe it is God's word. Not mine.

It's God's will for all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth and God is more than willing to give the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him.

[Pressing-On]

I agree St. Matthew. I believe that Galatians, especially chapter 3, upholds Acts!