The doctrine of subsequence
 

I was listening to Greg Boyd teach this doctrine last night and the only verses he used to support it was 1 Cor 12:3 and Eph 1:13.

http://whchurch.org/sermons-media/se...ling-down-fire

1 Corinthians 12:3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus is accursed"; and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit.

This verse is speaking of people who are actually speaking by the Spirit as in prophecy or interpretation of tongues. Paul used these to point to those who are not speaking by the Spirit of God and those who are speaking by the Spirit of God. So if someone is giving prophecy by an evil spirit they cannot say by that evil spirit that "Jesus is Lord". And likewise is someone is giving a prophecy by the Spirit of God, they will not say that "Jesus is accursed". This verse has nothing to do with a confession of faith in Christ.

Ephesians 1:13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation--having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Now this verse doesn't specify how long "after" is.

Are there any other verses that people who teach the doctrine of subsequence use in support of their doctrine?

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

What is this 'doctrine of subsequence'?

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

That the baptism in the Spirit is a work of grace subsequent to the new birth. The AoG and CoG teach this. I used to, but later rejected it.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I don't see where he sees the doctrine of subsequence in Eph 1:13. So is he saying then that those who have "accepted Christ" are "saved", but have not yet been "sealed"? That makes no sense. Perhaps he should consider how Eph 1:13 reads in other versions of the Bible. Take the New Living Bible for instance....

How can one have been "saved" without God having "identified them as his own" or giving them "the guarantee of an inheritence, and that they've been purchased to be one of his people"?

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

People receive the Spirit by/at the point of faith. The HGB is a separate experience.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Again, I used to teach that, but later rejected it.

Please explain your stance scripturally.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Who is Greg Boyd. I would like to know so I can figure out if this is someone I should be concerned with.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

He's not in your denomination.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I don't buy the idea that Holy Ghost baptism is a subsequent experience in relation to some form of initial salvation. I believe that the baptism of the Holy Ghost is essentially being born of the Spirit. Now, as it relates to initial evidence, I believe that the typical evidence is tongues. I'll accept "stammering lips" in that a person experiencing the baptism of the Holy Ghost often holds back, afraid of what it will sound like, or doesn't honestly understand what is happening to them. I simply do not see Holy Ghost baptism being a subsequent experience.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

The AoG and CoG embraced the doctrine of subsequence to accommodate the growing "Pentecostal experience" within their ranks. However, it began to create two separate classes of Christians, those simply born again and those with the baptism of the Holy Ghost. The Bible doesn't make this distinction and those who were viewed as being simply born again felt like second class citizens. If taught like this.... it becomes divisive to a body. So... instead of embracing that the Holy Ghost baptism was being born of the Spirit and encouraging all to experience this reality... they abandoned the teaching to keep unity within their denominational ranks.