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?

[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!

[Ron]

St Matt, I know of only one "Biblical" plan of salvation.
Repentance, Water Baptism in Jesus Name, Infilling of the Holy Ghost.

Anything outside of that is "Speculation."

JMHO

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Ron

St Matt, I know of only one "Biblical" plan of salvation.
Repentance, Water Baptism in Jesus Name, Infilling of the Holy Ghost.

Anything outside of that is "Speculation."

JMHO

Agreed. Its the only way I know.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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.

I believe that as well.

I have been confused by some posters that say you don't necessarily have to speak in tongues, but all of them do and sooo......

[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.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Ron

St Matt, I know of only one "Biblical" plan of salvation.
Repentance, Water Baptism in Jesus Name, Infilling of the Holy Ghost.

Anything outside of that is "Speculation."

JMHO

Can you be more clear? Will speaking in tongues accompany the infilling of the Holy Ghost?

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?