I am interested in the AOG pentacostal church and I have a few questions.
Do they believe in eternal security?
No. If you're really interested in their position:
http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Position_Papers/pp_downloads/pp_4178_security.pdf
I haven't read it, but probably know all their Arguments. It's not something I have any concern over, however. A "Doctrine" (particularly a controversial one) offers no "REAL security" at all. I'm not going to base MY "Security" on which denomination/systematic has the "Better schools". That would be foolish.
"do YOU believe that tongues must accompany baptism in the holy spirit?"
I Believe that "tongues" are still the "Normative experience" for one who is Baptized in the Holy Spirit, and the AoG teaches tongues as "Initial physical evidence" as one of their 16 fundamental truths (#8). I've spoken in tongues for 39 years now.
"Are the AOGs much different from a decade or 2 ago"
BOY HOWDY!! Are they ever!!! I've been in the AoG since '63. Some years ago, Thomas Trask, who was the General Superintendent of the Denomination made the statement that: If the trend we see today continues, in a decade the Assemblies of God will be a "Pentecostal Denomination in NAME ONLY".
The trend HAS continued, and in the Dallas area, most AoG churches could be mistaken for Baptist churches that forgot to change their signs.
IN another respect, in the '60s the AoG was a VERY Legalistic, and "Clothesline Holiness" bunch, that spent a LOT of time trying to "Stay saved" (since one un-confessed sin would take you out of salvation - RIGHT NOW!!) according to "Wesleyan holiness" teachings. With the influx of Charismatics after the Charismatic outpouring ended in the late '70s, the Denomination, particularly in the U.S. "Liberalized", and became MUCH less legalistic, and started to understand the "Security of the believer" better.
Re- "Eternal Security:
I'm sure, that if you've been around much Bible teaching, you already know the following:
The "Standard way of developing a "denominational doctrine" is:
1) Find all the "Proof texts" that support what you want to believe, and Catalogue 'em as your "Artillery" to "convince" other people with.
2) THEN Find all the Texts that "Refute" what you want to believe, and invent reasonable sounding explanations for why they DON'T say what they say, and Catalogue 'em as your "answers to rendered objections" against what you want to believe.
Folks on the "opposite side" of your belief will do the same thing, except #2 becomes #1 for them - etc.
PERSONALLY (since the AoG doctrinal position on things doesn't "define mine")
I started out believing in, and teaching "Eternal security" since I was saved, and initially indoctrinated as a Baptist, and at the time, and for over a decade afterwards, I could argue it all the way from Noah's Ark (God shut the door and it was NEVER opened again) forward.
But then I realized that Both Arminians and Calvies agree essentially on the security issue -
"Ralph" gets gloriously SAVED, and start off in his Christian walk just right, in church everytime the doors are open, testifies, sings, prays - and after a while - maybe a LONG while - he "cools", and isn't seen at church as much, and a while later He's seen coming out of a bar with a lady that's not his wife, and after a while he's drunk most of the time, and won't even TALK about the Lord any more.
The "Eternal security advocate" then invokes the "Calvinist back door" and proclaims: "HE WAS NEVER REALLY SAVED" as he's required to do by his theology.
The Conditional Security advocate Proclaims "HE was saved, and but fell away!!" as he's required to do by his theology.
Both sides agree completely -
poor Ralph's not saved NOW, and needs to be reached for the Lord so that he doesn't perish.
"Eternal Security" as a doctrine, in fact, is useless to everybody EXCEPT the backslider, who's trying to define how LITTLE attention he can pay to the Lord, and still keep his "Fire insurance".
The Christian who's growing in the Lord, and deepening His relationship with Him, and learning of Him, and witnessing for Him doesn't give a second thought to "Doctrinal security" because he has a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with God that he's "Secure" in.
And personally, I'll take RELATIONAL security over any "Doctrinal Security" any day - In fact until I trashed "Eternal Security" as a "Belief", I really WASN'T ACTUALLY "Secure" at all.
Oh, and there's always the "Biggie" in Hebrews 6:
4 For it is impossible for those who were
once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6
"If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh," and put him to an open shame.
I used to remember the Calvie "Work-arounds" for this one - seems they were generally trying to claim that it's NOT a "Christian" that's being discussed here at all.
Of particular help to me back in the day, was Robert Shanks' book "Life in the Son". Shanks was a professor of theology at a Baptist College, and was charged with the writing of a scholarly treatise Scripturally DEFENDING "Eternal Security" as a doctrine. What he ended up writing was a defense of CONDITIONAL PERSEVERANCE, that was a great help to me in shedding the OSAS baggage I had carried from the Baptists for years.
Wiki has a nice section on "Conditional preservation" at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_preservation_of_the_saints