Are the Assemblies of God Baptist Churches?

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Just ask them if they like fried chicken and cornbread. If so, they are sho' nuff' Baptists where I come from.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

No. not at all.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Does that sound Baptist to you? Not to me it doesn't. The gifts, of course, are presumably those mentioned in 1Cor.12.[/FONT]

And I don't believe there is a shred of Biblical, historical, or present day evidence that this is true.

Show me a faith healer today who can heal as Peter did in Acts 5:16?
There aren't any, and haven't been any since the first century.

That in and of itself should put the matter to rest.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

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...

 

[drfuss]

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.

 

[Yeshua1]

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!

 

[DHK]

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...

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.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.


Said the Baptist pope. Since you deny soul liberty, does that put you out of the Baptist camp?


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.

 

[glazer1972]

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

 

[glazer1972]

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.

 

[drfuss]

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.

 

[Salty]

I have a good friend who is AOG. I visited his church sometime ago -

Later, I told Mitch, your church is so quiet, I thought it was a Baptist church!

 

[DHK]

See my answer within your post.

Said the Baptist pope. Since you deny soul liberty, does that put you out of the Baptist camp?

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

 

[Aaron]

So, the only real distinction between Baptists and AG's was their doctrines concerning the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit.

What difference remains?

 

[Yeshua1]

So, the only real distinction between Baptists and AG's was their doctrines concerning the gifts and manifestations of the Spirit.

What difference remains?

that would pretty much be the main one!

 

[Jerome]

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

c. Right of self-government
. . . . .
d. Subordinate in matters of doctrine and conduct. A General Council affiliated assembly shall recognize that a district council or The General Council of the Assemblies of God has the right to approve scriptural doctrine and conduct and to disapprove unscriptural doctrine and conduct

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

p. 116

The services of both the General Council and district council are available to assist the General Council affiliated church in dealing with any of its problems, either internal or external, when requested by the pastor or a majority of the official board of the church or a petition signed by 30 percent of the voting members. . . . .District officers shall respond by investigating problems and, if necessary, recommending remedial actions to the responsible district governing entity, (e.g., district presbytery or district executive presbytery). At its discretion, that governing entity may act to bring the church under district supervision and, when necessary, revert it from General Council status to district affiliated status until the governing entity considers the problem resolved.

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

 

[Yeshua1]

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?

 

[Salty]

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 affiliated with them?

Well, A SBC church can decide to leave the local assoc, State, and or the SBC. They retain full title and ownership of any and all real and personal property.

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.)

 

[drfuss]

"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.

 

[Jerome]

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."

 

[Jerome]

Here you go Salty:

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

. . .the congregation voted sixty-three to three to leave the Assemblies of God. Subsequently, the District Council initiated formal disciplinary proceedings against Schneider; and the General Council stripped him of his credentials to serve as a minister in the Assemblies of God.

Since the vote to disaffiliate, the River of Life congregation has continued to occupy and possess the property. On October 15, 2003, the District Council and the three members of the congregation who remained loyal to the Assemblies of God (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed this action in the Richland County Court of Common Pleas for a declaratory judgment regarding the possession and control of River of Life's church property. . .

 

[DHK]

This is what you responded to Michael:

Originally Posted by DHK
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.

Said the Baptist pope. Since you deny soul liberty, does that put you out of the Baptist camp?

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.