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.

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.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Bro I can see that. That is why I love our church, it is very Pentecostal, even this last Sunday the Holy Ghost moved and fell. I have been blessed that all the AG churches we have been a part of have been very Pentecostal.

God knows the desire of my heart. :heeheehee

Next month Pastor Tommy Bates will be preaching at our church.

Been praying for wisdom for you. God has a home for you and your family.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Right Aquila, It takes all three steps that Peter and the Book of Acts brings out, for a person to be born of the water an the Spirit.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Thanks! Sometimes I wonder if I fit in anywhere. But God knows where I truly belong.

Water and spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit.

Some people (me) don't fit anywhere.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

AMEN!!! We have got to hold onto that FOUNDATION.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I agree.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Originally Posted by renee819
.

Houston wrote,
.

Then Houston, Please tell me, after Jesus poured out the Holy Ghost at Cornelius house, why did Peter then baptize them in water, if “Water and spirit both refer to the Holy Spirit.”????

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Originalist wrote,
And I'm in the same boat. I don't feel that I fit anywhere.

I would tell you, but you like to boast about your studying for over 50 years. So, I conclude that it will fall on deaf ears and blind eyes.

My my my...

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

If you won't answer Renee, I am ALL eyes and ears, Brutha. Please do explain your position to me. I am just dying to read your explanation.

I don't like the perceived tone that I am picking up from your post.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

:toofunny

Answer the question, boy.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

Don't worry about her she cuts her hair and paints her face.......:heeheehee

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

:toofunny

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

In the next chapter (John 4) Jesus clarifies what the water is, the Holy Ghost.

However, this does not negate other verses that clearly teach the necessity of baptism as a step towards the new birth.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

There are two subsequent works after salvation namely

1. Entire Sanctification.

2. The Baptism of the Holy Ghost evidenced by speaking in tongues.

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

To those who believe receiving the Spirit occurs 'after' salvation, I ask:

Please explain, from the Bible, where or how a person receives the Spirit before receiving the Spirit? As I showed earlier, the apostles understood 'receiving the Spirit' to be synonymous with what we call 'the baptism with the Holy Ghost'. So how can one have (or 'get') the Spirit before receiving the Spirit?

Re: The doctrine of subsequence
 

I prefer the doctrine of sustainance.

I obeyed it today at Orental Wok.
Number 14 Spicy Fried Chicken! YUM....


ive been eating that about once a week for the last 13 years.