Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account
  •  



Doctrine of Subsequence


  • Please log in to reply

&nsbp;

#1 dogmadestroysdialogue

 
dogmadestroysdialogue

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 297 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
 

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:35 PM

I'm working through some thoughts on the classical Pentecostal and Charismatic doctrine of a subsequent definitive work of the Holy Spirit. Eventually I am going to write a paper on the topic that will be relating this doctrine in contrast with typical fundamentalism and oneness pentecostalism. I started this thread to hopefully ask some questions about peoples points of view and work through my thoughts.

To get the ball rolling, if we read through the epistles to the Church we find that the same language that second blessing people use to reference a second blessing (outpouring, receiving the Spirit, etc.) is used in reference to the initial event of justification. This can be seen in Titus 3 for instance where Paul speaks of salvation as synonymous with when God poured out the Holy Spirit on us.

Would those who hold to the doctrine of subsequence be willing to say that God pours out his Spirit on us when we get saved AND pours out his Spirit on us in the second blessing? Would you be willing to say that someone receives the Holy Spirit when they get saved AND receives the Holy Spirit at the second blessing?

Keeping Romans 8 in mind where we recognize that a person cannot be saved apart from personally having the Holy Spirit.

Thanks :)


#2 Fuego

 
Fuego

    Double Diamond Member

  • Administrators
  • 17,126 posts
  • 68 thanks
  • Skin: IP.Board
  • LocationCharlotte
 

Posted 19 December 2011 - 08:42 PM

I'm working through some thoughts on the classical Pentecostal and Charismatic doctrine of a subsequent definitive work of the Holy Spirit. Eventually I am going to write a paper on the topic that will be relating this doctrine in contrast with typical fundamentalism and oneness pentecostalism. I started this thread to hopefully ask some questions about peoples points of view and work through my thoughts.

To get the ball rolling, if we read through the epistles to the Church we find that the same language that second blessing people use to reference a second blessing (outpouring, receiving the Spirit, etc.) is used in reference to the initial event of justification. This can be seen in Titus 3 for instance where Paul speaks of salvation as synonymous with when God poured out the Holy Spirit on us.

Would those who hold to the doctrine of subsequence be willing to say that God pours out his Spirit on us when we get saved AND pours out his Spirit on us in the second blessing? Would you be willing to say that someone receives the Holy Spirit when they get saved AND receives the Holy Spirit at the second blessing?

Keeping Romans 8 in mind where we recognize that a person cannot be saved apart from personally having the Holy Spirit.

Thanks :)


First, just so I know how you are interpreting Romans 8, where does it say that a person cannot be saved apart from personally having the Holy Spirit?

Also, this post addresses it clearly also:

http://charismaticce...html#post276560


#3 Archbishop TT

 
Archbishop TT

    Double Diamond Member

  • Elite Member
  • 10,301 posts
  • 91 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
 

Posted 19 December 2011 - 11:11 PM

I'm working through some thoughts on the classical Pentecostal and Charismatic doctrine of a subsequent definitive work of the Holy Spirit. Eventually I am going to write a paper on the topic that will be relating this doctrine in contrast with typical fundamentalism and oneness pentecostalism. I started this thread to hopefully ask some questions about peoples points of view and work through my thoughts.




I will let you know the answer after reading my 'Bible for dummies'


#4 revkev

 
revkev

    revkev

  • Junior Member
  • 8,116 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
  • LocationCT
 

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:04 AM

The doctrine is not exclusive to Pentecostal/Charismatics. It goes back at least as far as James Arminius, later resurrected by William Law, John Wesley.

It's awesome because Jesus is awesome!


#5 Kenneth1361974842

 
Kenneth1361974842

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 1,703 posts
  • 0 thanks
 

Posted 20 December 2011 - 12:31 AM

I went to a Pentecostal Oneness church for quite some time several years ago. At least the one that I went to didn't believe there was a second filling of the Spirit. They said that it was all at once. When you accept Christ, you automatically have Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. If you don't speak in tongues, you're not really saved. I tried several times to get someone to tell me why they believe that, and give me Bible verses to back it up. Nobody ever did.
- Kenneth

When God gave us the Bible, he didn't say "Here's a pacifier, everything's going to be okay." He said, "Here's a sword. Get ready for war!"

#6 revkev

 
revkev

    revkev

  • Junior Member
  • 8,116 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
  • LocationCT
 

Posted 20 December 2011 - 02:15 AM

Old timers referred to it as "second blessing holiness", "second work of grace", "entire sanctification". Certainly it can be borne out biblically as we see the significant change in the disciples post-Pentecost. Theologically it represents the two fold nature of sin (inherited and committed), therefore needing a two- fold cure (salvation and sanctification), salvation as the initial or partial filling of the Holy Spirit which deals with committed sins, and sanctification fought by the baptism of the Holy Spirit Or the "fullness of the blessing" which deals with inherited or original sin.

It's awesome because Jesus is awesome!


#7 Charis2U

 
Charis2U

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 1,025 posts
  • 0 thanks
 

Posted 20 December 2011 - 02:53 AM

I have also been working through the subsequence issue or "second work of grace", I held to this belief early on in my christian walk but now I will be honest, I am not sure.

But there are scriptures that seemingly support it, when i ask some folks who don't hold to the doctrine the give a real scholarly thesis and some scriptures but i believe it can be refuted just as how they think our arguments can be, the problem I find though is that especially those in the reformed community tend to argue from the point of historic orthodoxy as it traditional orthodoxy is infallible, I believe EVERYTHING must be questioned in the light of God's word.

Let's look at a few scriptures; Act 19:1-6, Acts 8:14-18, Acts 9:1-18

Let me also say this I functioned in the word of knowledge and discerning of spirits 2yrs before I spoke in tongue which my Pentecostal say is the initial evidence of the subsequence or second work of grace


#8 revkev

 
revkev

    revkev

  • Junior Member
  • 8,116 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
  • LocationCT
 

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:34 AM

Well, let's just say that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is much more than just speaking in tongues.

It's awesome because Jesus is awesome!


#9 Charis2U

 
Charis2U

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 1,025 posts
  • 0 thanks
 

Posted 20 December 2011 - 02:15 PM

Well, let's just say that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is much more than just speaking in tongues.



Many Pentecostals and Charismatics dont get it, they will say the do but actions and how scripture is interpreted says other wise. John wimber manifested prophetic gifts 5yrs before speaking in tongues, Evan Roberts the same, A.B Simpson never spoke in tongues but had prophetic and healing gifts, heard Rick Joyner say the same thing.

However Speaking with other tongues is VERY important.

I prefer the term continued work of grace, because grace never ends it increases.


#10 revkev

 
revkev

    revkev

  • Junior Member
  • 8,116 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
  • LocationCT
 

Posted 20 December 2011 - 03:18 PM

Many Pentecostals and Charismatics dont get it, they will say the do but actions and how scripture is interpreted says other wise. John wimber manifested prophetic gifts 5yrs before speaking in tongues, Evan Roberts the same, A.B Simpson never spoke in tongues but had prophetic and healing gifts, heard Rick Joyner say the same thing.

However Speaking with other tongues is VERY important.

I prefer the term continued work of grace, because grace never ends it increases.



Battles within the holiness movement have been whether the second blessing is a crisis experience or a continuing gradual work of grace. I see it as both.

It's awesome because Jesus is awesome!


#11 Charis2U

 
Charis2U

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 1,025 posts
  • 0 thanks
 

Posted 20 December 2011 - 04:09 PM

Agree Kev, I am just very weary about the crisis part, it can be generally manufactured like keswick conventions or church planning a "revival meeting"

#12 revkev

 
revkev

    revkev

  • Junior Member
  • 8,116 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
  • LocationCT
 

Posted 20 December 2011 - 04:17 PM

Agree Kev, I am just very weary about the crisis part, it can be generally manufactured like keswick conventions or church planning a "revival meeting"


They just generally mean that something happened in a moment that changed a person. There's no question that the disciples were changed instantly in the Upper Room. That was instant and decisive. However, Peter wasn't perfect in his thinking, but over time he became more and more like Jesus. We should be able to say that about ourselves.

It's awesome because Jesus is awesome!


#13 dogmadestroysdialogue

 
dogmadestroysdialogue

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 297 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
 

Posted 23 December 2011 - 07:49 PM



First, just so I know how you are interpreting Romans 8, where does it say that a person cannot be saved apart from personally having the Holy Spirit?

Also, this post addresses it clearly also:

http://charismaticce...html#post276560


"If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.


#14 dogmadestroysdialogue

 
dogmadestroysdialogue

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 297 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
 

Posted 23 December 2011 - 07:50 PM

The doctrine is not exclusive to Pentecostal/Charismatics. It goes back at least as far as James Arminius, later resurrected by William Law, John Wesley.


Arminius believed in subsequence? Do you have a reference?


#15 dogmadestroysdialogue

 
dogmadestroysdialogue

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 297 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
 

Posted 23 December 2011 - 07:55 PM

I have also been working through the subsequence issue or "second work of grace", I held to this belief early on in my christian walk but now I will be honest, I am not sure.

But there are scriptures that seemingly support it, when i ask some folks who don't hold to the doctrine the give a real scholarly thesis and some scriptures but i believe it can be refuted just as how they think our arguments can be, the problem I find though is that especially those in the reformed community tend to argue from the point of historic orthodoxy as it traditional orthodoxy is infallible, I believe EVERYTHING must be questioned in the light of God's word.

Let's look at a few scriptures; Act 19:1-6, Acts 8:14-18, Acts 9:1-18

Let me also say this I functioned in the word of knowledge and discerning of spirits 2yrs before I spoke in tongue which my Pentecostal say is the initial evidence of the subsequence or second work of grace


All those scriptures present their receiving of the Spirit as subsequent. Paul received the Holy Spirit after repentence, journeying blind for days, Annanias calling him "brother" etc. He was surely saved. In Acts 8 the Samaritans received the Spirit after they already received the word of God and were baptized. In Acts 19 the disciples were not totally updated as to the outpouring and the Messiah similar to Appollos.


#16 Fuego

 
Fuego

    Double Diamond Member

  • Administrators
  • 17,126 posts
  • 68 thanks
  • Skin: IP.Board
  • LocationCharlotte
 

Posted 23 December 2011 - 09:42 PM

"If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.


The Spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit. They are two different things.

Before we were born again, we had the 'spirit of Adam.' Not his personal spirit, but a spirit born of him, in his likeness, born from his loins. When we get born again, we have the spirit of Christ, not His personal spirit, but a spirit born of him, born of his loins, just like we did the spirit of Adam before we were born again. The spirit of Christ is a reference to the new birth, i.e., "If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." Without having the spirit of Christ, being born of Him and having the same life in us that He had in Him, we are not born again, or we are not His. But that spirit is not the Holy Spirit. Now, we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and he gives the spirit of Christ, infuses the life of Christ into us, or the life of Christ to us when we receive Him. But the 'spirit of Christ' is not the Holy Spirit Himself.

Jesus' human spirit was not the Holy Spirit. He did not receive the Holy Spirit in baptism until about 30 years of age at the river Jordan. So when we are born again, the spirit of Christ we receive is a spirit born of that same life Jesus had. Then, in the baptism of the Holy Spirit we receive the Holy Spirit in His fullness.


#17 Charis2U

 
Charis2U

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 1,025 posts
  • 0 thanks
 

Posted 24 December 2011 - 12:24 AM

Soory Fuego it did not say the Spirit of Jesus but Christ, and in the context reading from Romans 6 through * the Spirit of Christ IS the Holy Spirit referred to here.

#18 dogmadestroysdialogue

 
dogmadestroysdialogue

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 297 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
 

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:34 PM



The Spirit of Christ is not the Holy Spirit. They are two different things.

Before we were born again, we had the 'spirit of Adam.' Not his personal spirit, but a spirit born of him, in his likeness, born from his loins. When we get born again, we have the spirit of Christ, not His personal spirit, but a spirit born of him, born of his loins, just like we did the spirit of Adam before we were born again. The spirit of Christ is a reference to the new birth, i.e., "If any man does not have the Spirit of Christ he is none of his." Without having the spirit of Christ, being born of Him and having the same life in us that He had in Him, we are not born again, or we are not His. But that spirit is not the Holy Spirit. Now, we are regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and he gives the spirit of Christ, infuses the life of Christ into us, or the life of Christ to us when we receive Him. But the 'spirit of Christ' is not the Holy Spirit Himself.

Jesus' human spirit was not the Holy Spirit. He did not receive the Holy Spirit in baptism until about 30 years of age at the river Jordan. So when we are born again, the spirit of Christ we receive is a spirit born of that same life Jesus had. Then, in the baptism of the Holy Spirit we receive the Holy Spirit in His fullness.


Are you saying that Christians who have not experienced a second work of grace do not have the Holy Spirit at all in any way? The Holy Spirit just made them alive and then left?

This whole argument about the loins and the Spirit of Christ not being the same as the Spirit of God which is the Holy Spirit sounds like a lot of unnecessary gobbley gook to me. Perhaps you can clarify your position?


#19 dogmadestroysdialogue

 
dogmadestroysdialogue

    Senior Member

  • Junior Member
  • 297 posts
  • 0 thanks
  • Skin: CC Default
 

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:35 PM

Soory Fuego it did not say the Spirit of Jesus but Christ, and in the context reading from Romans 6 through * the Spirit of Christ IS the Holy Spirit referred to here.


Agreed.


#20 Fuego

 
Fuego

    Double Diamond Member

  • Administrators
  • 17,126 posts
  • 68 thanks
  • Skin: IP.Board
  • LocationCharlotte
 

Posted 29 December 2011 - 08:53 PM

Are you saying that Christians who have not experienced a second work of grace do not have the Holy Spirit at all in any way? The Holy Spirit just made them alive and then left?

This whole argument about the loins and the Spirit of Christ not being the same as the Spirit of God which is the Holy Spirit sounds like a lot of unnecessary gobbley gook to me. Perhaps you can clarify your position?


Ok, I'll clarify. The Spirit of Christ and the Holy Spirit are not two different ways of saying the same thing. The 'gobbley gook' as you call it explains clearly if you read and understand what is really being said. I think I said that pretty clear already.

You don't agree, fine. I thought you were looking for discussion. It seems you're just looking for info that agrees with what you already believe as opposed to "working through some thoughts." Doesn't sound like you're working through anything at all. I'll leave the discussion now.