Featured Are the Assemblies of God Baptist Churches?

Naaa...where I come form, it's a corned beef sandwich on rye with some brown mustard.....or fogedboudit :thumbs:

 

Don't agree with their theology, was just stating that there were indeed "Full gospel" baptist churches!

and the Assemblies of God has officially repudiated things such as faith healers, word of faith, divine health and wealth, and they do NOT see physical healing in the Cross! they also would deny ANY additional revelation apart from the Bible comes today!

what is ironic in this is that the AOG appears to be baptist than the "Full Gospel" one!

baptists hold to the bible as ONLY revelation of God/Infallible for doctrines/practices?

We hold to saved by faith alone/grace alone

2 ordiances/baptism of believers by immersion/communion

We hold to govt by the congregation

many baptists Dispy/pre Mil pre trib

basically the AOG agrees with us, our differences lie in the issue of the working of the Spriit among us...

 

I agree. A good post.

However, there is a few isolated cases where the local AOG church has some in it that does agree with the faith healers, but most AOG Christians generally agree with the Baptists on most issues.

 

Think that if a baptist was to attend a service at an AOG, especially IF the pastor was seminary trained, and that church practice guidelines, would be shocked how close to being 'Baptist' they would be!

this is oh couse assumin one is 'free will" , not a reformed baptist!

 

If you look hard enough you can find Baptists that shouldn't carry the name "Baptist."
Baptist churches that are "Charismatic," that have a female pastor, that have a homosexual pastor, that are liberal (denying some of the fundamentals of the faith), etc. These don't deserve to be called Baptist, and yet they exist.

On the other hand, you seem to be looking for churches that have enough similarity in them to associate with them as "Baptists." Why? What is the point? One of our Baptist Distinctives concerns separation. To put it another way or more positively is that Baptists fellowship with churches of like faith and order. That would exclude the church under discussion. Our church would never have any formal fellowship with them. No one from their church would ever be found preaching in our pulpit, for example.

There is a greater resemblance between the Plymouth Brethren and the Baptists then there is to the Full Gospel Baptist. The Brethren I know are against the Charismatic movement, and are fairly sound doctrinally. They may be off in their ecclesiology, with teaching elders, but that is another matter.

Looking at the hierarchical structure of that Full Gospel Baptist is downright frightening, and something (on that one point alone), I could never live with. It certainly isn't Biblical.
Why look for churches similar in doctrine when you know that we as Baptists are only going to fellowship with churches of like faith and order, IOW other Baptists.

 

See my answer within your post.

 

Baptist...no, baptist...yes.

 

If the AoG would embrace the doctrine of "Security of the Believer" or in other words "Perseverance of the Saints" I would have very little reason to forbid fellowshiping with them.

 

The AOG agrees with the Free-will Baptists on the security of the believer issue, i.e. a Christian can forfeit their salvation by apostacy, but cannot lose their salvation while still believing.

 

Your answer is a false accusation not worth the space responding to.

 

that would pretty much be the main one!

 

The local Assemblies are not truly autonomous.

If you read the AG constitution, even the supposedly fully autonomous 'General Council affiliated churches' are declared to be "subordinate in matters of doctrine and conduct'' to "a district council or The General Council" (p. 98).

http://ag.org/top/about/constitution_bylaws.cfm

What's more, the supposedly fully autonomous 'General Council affiliated churches' are subject to being involuntarily converted into 'district affiliated churches':

p. 116

Any Baptist church you know have a 'district presbytery' or 'district executive presbytery'?

 

that much of a difference from say the SBC stating guidelines to holdto belief wise, and to step in if problems arise in a local church affliiated with them?

 

"If an AOG church wanted to leave the AOG, would they be allowed to retain all assets? (I don't know, would hope to hear an answer.)"

In general the answer is yes. I say in general yes, because there may be some churches that have a special provision in their constitution. Over the years, I know of several AOG churches that left the AOG.

Here in Virginia Beach, a large AOG church left the organization about 15 years ago, and is still doing well. If anything, that church went more in the Charismatic direction than before. Those not happy with leaving the AOG left that church and advertised that they were trying to start another AOG church. I don't know if they were successful.

The AOG controls the doctrine by requiring that all pastors of AOG churches must have credentials with the AOG.

Unlike most Baptist churches who ordain ministers, only the AOG officials can ordain AOG ministers. AOG does not ordain deacons as the Baptists do.

 

p.120:
"The General Council Credentials Committee delegates to the district councils the authority to examine, approve, and recommend candidates who qualify as certified ministers, licensed ministers, and ordained ministers. Final approval and issuance of the ministerial credential shall be made by the General Council Credentials Committee. All ordination services, with the laying on of hands, shall take place under the auspices of the district councils."

 

Here you go Salty:

ASSEMBLIES OF GOD v. RIVER OF LIFE, 643 SE 2d 104 - SC: Court of Appeals 2007

 

This is what you responded to Michael:

It seems you have a poor understanding of what soul liberty is.
On one hand soul liberty is like freedom of speech; the right for every individual to practice as he sees fit, including Mormons, J.W.'s and even Muslims and Hindus.

Soul liberty, however does not give that person the right to believe that which is against the doctrine of a said church. When a person denies the virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus Christ, that is not soul liberty, it is a denial of the fundamentals of our faith. You cannot be a Christian and deny those fundamental doctrines. There is no room for soul liberty. The same thing applies: You cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time. There is no soul liberty. One has to make a choice.

In the Full Gospel Baptist, it is my opinion that the same differentiation that is there. One cannot be "Full Gospel" or AOG and be a Baptist at the same time. This is my opinion. I am thankful I live in Canada where we are able to express our opinions freely in Canada and not be castigated and attacked as you did me, when you called me the Baptist Pope for simply stating my belief. What? Did they take away your freedoms in the U.S.A.??

The church has an hierarchical form of church government. I disagree on their church government.
The church believes that the spiritual gifts are operational today.
The church is a denomination. I don't believe in denominations. I belong to an IFB church and steer clear of anything that remotely resembles a denomination.
As demonstrated above: the General Council stripped him of his credentials to serve as a minister in the Assemblies of God.
There is nothing Baptist about that.
God calls a man. Man ordains a man that God has called simply recognizing God's call upon his life. The above is totally unscriptural
This Council is nothing more than a dumbed-down Catholic hierarchy IMO.
That is not the way the congregational government of a Baptist Church operates.

No, I don't believe that this church is representative in any way of a Baptist Church.