Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

The doctrine of subsequence is laced throughout the first Pentecostal experiences.

In Acts 1, Jesus told believers to go and tarry for the promise. It would be a gross miscalculation to teach that those believers were headed to Hell before and unless they went to the Upper Room and spoke with tongues.

Please note that this command was given AFTER the resurrection.

2 Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:

3 To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.

5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

6 When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?

7 And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power.

8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

This passage is not about salvation, it's about subsequent power to witness.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

And once again those who oppose the plain bible truth make a caricature of the bible doctrine of the new birth. Attempting to split the works of God in saving souls into clear, distinct, definite, SEPARATE events, as though they are not interconnected and interdependent.

The apostles received the Spirit on the day of Pentecost. If anyone had correct teaching or understanding of the role and purpose of the Spirit, it was them.

Acts8:14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:

15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:

16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

The Samaritan believers were believers, had 'received the Word of God', were baptised in Jesus' name... but had not received the Holy Ghost.

Not 'had not received the subsequent baptism of the Spirit as a second definite work of grace distinct from the initial reception of the Spirit'. No, the BIBLE's words are 'received the Holy Ghost'. They had not RECEIVED THE HOLY GHOST.

John 20:22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

Same words. RECEIVE the HOLY GHOST. The Samaritans had not RECEIVED the HOLY GHOST until the apostles came down and prayed for them, until the Spirit had 'fallen upon' them.

Speaking of that 'falling upon' business...

Acts1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.

Jesus is saying that after they receive the Spirit, after the spirit 'is come upon you', they would receive power, and they would be witnesses unto Him. He did not say they would receive power after the subsequent baptism of the Spirit distinct from the receiving of the Spirit...

Again:

Acts10:44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.

45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.

46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,

47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

The spirit 'fell upon' the Gentiles, the GIFT of the Spirit (the Spirit is the gift of God to the believer) was 'poured out' upon the Gentiles, and Peter says the Gentiles 'received the Holy Ghost'

Further along, Peter says:

Acts11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.

16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

So receiving the Spirit, being baptised with the Spirit, the Spirit falling upon people, the gift of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit being poured out upon, being filled with the Spirit, are all terms for the same experience.

They are all terms for that which is called 'receiving the Spirit'. How can you 'receive the Spirit' without receiving the Spirit? Also, if the Holy Ghost baptism is called 'receiving the Spirit', then it follows that the Spirit is received via the Holy Spirit baptism.

The doctrine that being baptised with the Spirit is a different thing from 'receiving the Spirit' is unknown to the apostles. Therefore, it is a false doctrine. This is so basic I marvel that any professing Pentecostal cannot see it.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Amen, Esaias! It's amazing, isn't it?

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

HEAR, HEAR!!!!

:rooting :rooting

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Honestly I will say that many here are much smarter and well versed on the scriptures and I respect your deep degree of study.

I don't understand how any professing Pentecostal can't see Salvation at repentance.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Again, I once held to your view. I have not since 1992.

Jesus did not tell his disciples in verse 8, "I'm going to give you power to witness". Rather, he told them that they would "BE witnesses". This denotes a state of BEING. And what would their lives bear witness to after that the Spirit came upon them? His resurrection.

Previously, in John chapters 3 and 4, Jesus linked receiving new birth/eternal life to the receiving of the Spirit. In John 7 it was made clear that the Spirit would not be available until he entered into his glory. He never broke up the Spirit's entering a believer into two parts.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

That poster once held your current view.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

That's fine. I wish he would be so kind as to show us where Jesus split the receiving of the Spirit into two parts.

I never had the mental baggage of having been abused, or having witnessed abuse in the UPCI to have to sort through. Maybe he did.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I know you saw it in the AG and it still weighs on you and made it easier for to support your new doctrine of faith.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I've never thought of that. What I always felt drew me to the UPC originally was that I knew the AoG was becoming less and less Pentecostal.