The doctrine of subsequence - Page 8

Esaias · #71 09-20-2013, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

I'm glad to see that someone finally understands that it is at Spirit baptism that our hearts are literally made pure by faith. God's precense is a purifying precense. Our God is a consuming fire. It is at that point also that new heart is created within us by this purifying precense of God. Again, their hearts were purified BY FAITH. Faith in what? Jesus and his shed blood. The blood is "applied" by the agency of the Spirit. There is no literal "cleansing blood" touching anyone.

It's weird. When I got the Holy Ghost, at the time I didn't know that was what it was called (the Baptism with the Holy Ghost). But I spoke in tongues, praised God, and got funny looks from the Baptist preacher lol.

Looking back, I believe I was 'entirely sanctified' in that experience. I had all the 'symptoms' if you will of what those holiness preachers called 'sanctification'. Of course, at the time, I had ZERO idea what that was all about. But I cannot help but believe that 'whatever you need from God it's in the holy Ghost'.

Interestingly enough, Durham said when he got the holy Ghost, from that moment on he could never preach sanctification as a 'SECOND' work, but had to believe everything is available by faith as soon as you are able to believe.

It's been a long journey since then, and unfortunately I cannot claim to have 'held onto' everything I got the entire time since then. But I know He who began a good work in me will complete it unto the end.

Praise the name of the Lord.

Luke · #72 09-20-2013, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aquila

Exactly. So... how do we sanctify ourselves? What rules must we follow?

Not rules rather it is by faith in Jesus and in His blood.

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.

Hebrews 13:12 Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate.

mizpeh · #73 09-22-2013, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Originalist

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"?

Boyd understands this verse to be saying that when someone believes that they are instantly sealed with the Spirit. I understand this verse as saying that those who believed were sealed sometime after their initial belief in Christ. If we go to Acts we can see how this worked out in Acts 8, 9, 10, and 19. It was only in Acts 10 that new believers were instantly sealed.

mizpeh · #74 09-22-2013, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esaias

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.

Do those who teach the doctrine of subsequence say that receiving the Spirit is different than baptism of the Spirit? If not, then you have built an excellent strawman.

Luke · #75 09-22-2013, 03:54 PM

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This verse is one that screams a second work. Notice that the scripture is to those who have escaped the corruption that is in the world and to them have been given exceeding great and precious promises that these they MIGHT (or are enabled) be partakers of the divine nature. The passage clearly shows that though they are saved they still retain their carnal nature but because they are saved they have been given promises that are not given to the lost and by these promises they can partake of the divine nature. This shows that before one can partake of the divine nature they must first be saved but it also shows they don't partake of the divine nature at the point of salvation.

mizpeh · #76 09-22-2013, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

oooooh..... ok got ya
And where does Jesus Name baptism fit into this?

I don't think I have ever met anyone who was Oneness that believe sanctification and Baptism of the Holy Ghost as distinct works. I'm kinda curious bout this..lol

Luke holds to a PCI view of salvation. The PCI and PAJC merged in 1945. They agreed to 'fellowship the differences' in their doctrines of salvation and the new birth.

Esaias · #77 09-23-2013, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

This verse is one that screams a second work. Notice that the scripture is to those who have escaped the corruption that is in the world and to them have been given exceeding great and precious promises that these they MIGHT (or are enabled) be partakers of the divine nature. The passage clearly shows that though they are saved they still retain their carnal nature but because they are saved they have been given promises that are not given to the lost and by these promises they can partake of the divine nature. This shows that before one can partake of the divine nature they must first be saved but it also shows they don't partake of the divine nature at the point of salvation.

I believe you are interpreting this and the other passages in view of or in light of or in accordance with the doctrine of sanctification being a 'second work'. But I still have to ask - where did the apostles actually teach 'there are two works - the first is salvation, the second is sanctification'? Where is this doctrine STATED in scripture?

This passage can be interpreted another way.

1. Vs 3 says 'According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:" Thus, we have already been given 'all things that pertain unto life and godliness'. If this is not a clear declaration of the 'finished work' of Christ then I don't what could be.

2. The passage in question can be understood to mean that we partake of the divine nature through the knowledge of Christ, because we have escaped the corruption in the world that is through lust.

By the 'knowledge of him that hath called us' we are given great and precious promises. By those promises we partake of the divine nature. To suggest that the recipients of Peter's epistle had not partaken of the divine nature seems unwarranted.

If one is born again, one must by definition have 'partaken of the divine nature'. That which is born of the spirit is spirit, etc.

Furthermore, Paul says that we are not in the flesh but in the spirit if we have the Spirit. Therefore those who have the Spirit of Christ are not in the flesh, but in the spirit. (Romans 8) How is that not partaking of the divine nature?

Again, Peter is saying that through the promises we are enabled to partake of the divine nature. This is not a 'subsequence', but a reason or 'cause' or 'condition' upon partaking of the divine nature. That is to say, participation in the divine nature comes via the promises which are found in the knowledge of Christ.

In any event, there is not found in this verse the stated doctrine of 'sanctification as a second, definite work'. It may be interpreted that way, but it may also with propriety be interpreted another way.

Esaias · #78 09-23-2013, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Do those who teach the doctrine of subsequence say that receiving the Spirit is different than baptism of the Spirit? If not, then you have built an excellent strawman.

I do not see it being a strawman even if they claim 'receiving the spirit is the same as the baptism with the spirit'. I believe I pointed out that those who teach subsequence believe a person has the spirit 'in regeneration' prior to a baptism with the Holy Spirit. Thus, they initially received the Spirit. If they call the baptism the 'receiving the Spirit' then they are saying one can receive the spirit before they receive the spirit!

In any event, the apostles did not speak of receiving the spirit as distinct from the baptism with the spirit. In other words, the Bible speaks of receiving the spirit in the baptism with the spirit, and if our doctrine is the same as theirs, we will speak the same way they did about it.

Luke · #79 09-23-2013, 10:04 AM

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1. Who is this verse speaking to?
If we go back to verse one Peter there tells us that it is to those of like precious faith. Also it tells us in this verse that they babe escaped the corruption that is in the world. Therefore it is obvious from the context and from the scripture it self that it is addressed to Christians.

2. To whom were the promises given? Christians .

3. Why were they given? That by these ye MIGHT be partakers of the divine nature.

Just by simply examining each part of the scripture it is obvious that there is something spoken of here beyond salvation that is offered to Christians but not to sinners.

If people are partakers of the divine nature at the point of salvation what is the purpose of the exceeding great and precious promises. Why would Peter say that by these promises those who are saved might be or are enabled to partake of the divine nature if they already had. Also why would he specifically make having escaped the corruption that is in the world (being saved) a condition to receive these promises if we already received what the the promises offered?

Originalist · #80 09-23-2013, 10:14 AM

Paul is talking to PEOPLE

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke

2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

1. Who is this verse speaking to?
If we go back to verse one Peter there tells us that it is to those of like precious faith. Also it tells us in this verse that they babe escaped the corruption that is in the world. Therefore it is obvious from the context and from the scripture it self that it is addressed to Christians.

2. To whom were the promises given? Christians .

3. Why were they given? That by these ye MIGHT be partakers of the divine nature.

Just by simply examining each part of the scripture it is obvious that there is something spoken of here beyond salvation that is offered to Christians but not to sinners.

If people are partakers of the divine nature at the point of salvation what is the purpose of the exceeding great and precious promises. Why would Peter say that by these promises those who are saved might be or are enabled to partake of the divine nature if they already had. Also why would he specifically make having escaped the corruption that is in the world (being saved) a condition to receive these promises if we already received what the the promises offered?

Paul is writing to PEOPLE who were once sinners, but had received these promises.