Assembly of God vs. Baptist

A set of rules? You mean like telling you how long your hair can be, etc? Not only does that not describe the church I went to, but you will not find it in the AOG doctrine. There are many different Baptists as well. I was raised in an American Baptist church, which had very different beliefs than say the southern baptists. My baptists church didn't allow dancing. I am not saying this to disrespect them, I have fond memories of that church. But when I really became committed to the Lord, I started reading scripture in much greater depth than I ever had before, and I realized that the church I grew up in just skipped right over many verses. Pretty much the entire book of Acts, actually. So quit pointing your finger at AOG. As I said earlier, they are really just trying to be obedient to scripture. The Baptists certainly aren't perfect either, but you won't find me making fun of them, or finger pointing, because they are trying to be obedient to scripture as well.

mlqurgw said:

I have done some reasearch into them myself. Unfortunately all of my reasearch is on the hard drive of my computer that crashed.
As far as the word sancitify goes it has basically three meanings in the Scriptures; to sepreate as holy, to declare holy and to make holy. If I remember my reasearch all of the Charasmatic/Pentecostals originated from the Azuza Stret revivals back in the early 1900's in particular and Wesley's Methodism in general.

Click to expand...

This is true. All Pentecostal groups emerged from the Azusa Street revival and all came out of the Wesleyan tradition. Charismatic groups (I'm fairly certain) came out of Catholicism.

I am old enough to remember when they did actually teach perfectionism and were called holy rollers.

Click to expand...

The United Pentecostal Church broke off from the AOG due to this and other things. The AOG denied this teaching among other things and a significant faction in the denom disagreed to the point of starting their own group. I tried to find this perfectionism doctrine on the AOG website and couldn't. It isn't a part of their 16 Fundamentals of Truth and I don't ever recall reading about this (and I have a lot of books on the movement...but you can bet I'll be looking it up soon just to be sure). http://ag.org/top/Beliefs/Statement_of_Fundamental_Truths/sft_short.cfm

As far as the legalism goes if they give you a set of rules to live by, which all of the AOG I have ever known do, they are legaists.

Click to expand...

Do they? News to me. I was raised in the AOG, my grandfather was a minister and the Superintendent for his District, my mother graduated from an AOG college, and my parents still attend an AOG church. So, even though I'm not a Protestant or a Pentecostal anymore, I do know an awful lot about this particular group having been raised in it. If you are referring to holiness standards such as hair cutting, no makeup, dress wearing, no mixed bathing, no dancing, etc. then you are greatly mistaking the AOG for other Pentecostal groups.

If you are referring to agreeing to certain doctrines and lifestyle before you can become a member of an AOG church, then you might have a valid point. I remember signing that as a member of the church I wouldn't drink or smoke (it wasn't any more detailed than that other than that those particular things tend to lead to sin more often than not and should be avoided). In becoming a member, I also agreed that the initial baptism of the Holy Spirit was the evidence of speaking in tongues (which later became my main point of contention when I left the denomination). My second point became the pretrib rapture.

Whatever my disagreements with the AOG I feel very blessed to have been raised in an environment where I learned a love for scripture and Christ. And there are a few things that I feel they do get right that other groups have wrong (such as it being possible to lose one's salvation).

(Just stumbled across this and I hope it is okay for me to post here considering I'm neither Baptist nor AOG. Well, I am a former AOG as well as a former Southern Baptist, if that counts for anything.)

JPPT1974 said:

Well all church denominationals aren't the same my friend
They have different set of ways and rules
In which that they are run!

Click to expand...

Oh I know, I wasn't trying to generalize.

Romanseight2005 said:

Lifting hands is something I have a strong desire to do, my entire arms in fact. It is a way of reaching up to God, it is also a sign of surrender. Think about it, what do people do when someone points a gun at them, and they surrender, they hold up their arms. God doesn't have to hold a gun to me, I want to surrender all, especially during worship.

Click to expand...

Just don't call them "holy hands" because nothing about us is holy, only that which God applies to us through the blood of Christ.

mesue said:

When they are clean before the Lord.

Click to expand...

.. that is "never in this life." In the flesh, we are less than we should be, and will not realize our completion/perfection until the other side of this life, in heaven.

The 1 Tim 2:8 passage is misunderstood in its poor English translation, too, not "poor" because it is translated badly in all renderings, but because there isn't really an equivilent English word for what it means. The Greek word cheir ("hands") is actually referring to the agency or assistance of a third party, and in the Bible, it most generally refers to God's hands, not our own. Strong's defines it thusly:

1. by the help or agency of any one, by means of any one 2. figuratively applied to God symbolising His might, activity, power a) in creating the universe, b) in upholding and preserving (i.e., God is present, protecting and aiding someone) c) in punishing, d) in determining and controlling the destinies of men.

In saying, "lifting up holy hands" Paul is telling his young mentee to call upon, or appeal ("lift up" a supplication, as it were) to, the Lord. The 2b definition above is the concept of the passage. There is nothing about the passage, or its context, to suggest Paul is saying our own hands are ever holy and pure.

You guys are making me think here. I have never thought of myself as holy. We definitely are in corrupt flesh. However, God has really been showing me the awe of His Spirit in us. WE have a Holy Spirit in us! Wow! It truly is amazing. I know that my body isn't holy, if it were I don't think it would get sick and die. However, have any of us ever really grasped the awesomeness of the Holy Spirit in us? We are imperfect temples of the Holy. When you look back in the OT where God describes the requirements for His temple, He was very specific. There was no room for error. Only the high priest was allowed in. If he was unclean before the Lord, he was struck down. So the fact that our corrupt bodies can house the Holy totally gives me goose bumps. I wonder if we will ever understand the enormity of this.

IisJustMe said:

Just don't call them "holy hands" because nothing about us is holy, only that which God applies to us through the blood of Christ.

Click to expand...

I have never called them holy hands. I have never even heard that until I saw this thread.

1 Tim 2:8
8 I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands , without wrath and doubting.
KJV

I stand corrected.


I was just looking in the concordance, and I think I may see where the problem lies. There are a few different words that all translate into "holy." The word used in this passage is hosíous.

hosios
NT:3741 hosios (hos'-ee-os); of uncertain affinity; properly, right (by intrinsic or divine character; thus distinguished from NT:1342, which refers rather to human statutes and relations; from NT:2413, which denotes formal consecration; and from NT:40, which relates to purity from defilement), i.e. hallowed (pious, sacred, sure):
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

So we can see that there are variances in what we call holy. However, that being said, we can also see that hosios still carries with it the meaning of a divine nature.

I think that we all should be
Set apart from the world as
Christ was set apart from the world
As we are to act like His children
Not be of this world even though
We live in this world!

AOG twists scriptures to fit an emotional Christianity and base decisions on how they feel, not Doctrine.

Go with the Baptist Church, we interpret scripture correctly, not so we can "speak in tongues" but lack an interpreter.

AOG twists scriptures to fit an emotional Christianity and base decisions on how they feel, not Doctrine.

Go with the Baptist Church, we interpret scripture correctly, not so we can "speak in tongues" but lack an interpreter.

Click to expand...

I would have to disagree with you in a way. I would have to say some baptist churches are just as bad, but in a different way. I've been to some baptist churches that twist the scripture, so it will sound the way they want it to sound. I'm not putting all baptist churches down, but we all have our problems. We are all part of the body of Christ, and Jesus doesn't have favorites of which denomenation he likes better.

TheUltimateWarrior said:

AOG twists scriptures to fit an emotional Christianity and base decisions on how they feel, not Doctrine.

Go with the Baptist Church, we interpret scripture correctly, not so we can "speak in tongues" but lack an interpreter.

Click to expand...

examples please?

First example is speaking in tongues during a public worship service. Paul warns agaisnt it, and yet AOG does it anyway, pretty consistantly too, which is totally against the fact that its suppose to be spontaneous and without warning.

TheUltimateWarrior said:

First example is speaking in tongues during a public worship service. Paul warns agaisnt it, and yet AOG does it anyway, pretty consistantly too, which is totally against the fact that its suppose to be spontaneous and without warning.

Click to expand...

I have seen this exact same thing in the CoG also.

Can i ask, does this really matter to us? Is this your church that has been false teaching and lead under a corrupt leadership? When it comes down to it, what help in our relationship with god does it have? I'm not saying we shouldn't sweep it under the carpet-we should be warned of it, but we still shouldnt be extensivley talking about it. And who are we to judge? Most of the information presented is from the internet of from word of mouth-should we really be beleiving everything we hear and see? I beleive its between the leadership of the church and god, no one else.

TheUltimateWarrior said:

First example is speaking in tongues during a public worship service. Paul warns agaisnt it, and yet AOG does it anyway, pretty consistantly too, which is totally against the fact that its suppose to be spontaneous and without warning.

Click to expand...

Rarely have I heard tongue speaking in a service, and the few times it has happened it has been one person speaking in tongues, followed by an interpretation. What's odd to me is that so many denominations take a passage of scripture that so clearly talks about using the gifts in an orderly way, instead of in a chaotic one, so that the body may be edified as opposed to missing something God has for us, because too many things are going on at once, and decides there can be no tongues spoken at all. It would be like if you were running a meeting, and everyone was talking at once. You wouldn't say no one can talk, you would simply apply rules for it.

By the way, Paul never says that it is evil to do the things you mentioned, nor does he call it sin, he was trying to grow them up a bit.

TheUltimateWarrior said:

First example is speaking in tongues during a public worship service. Paul warns agaisnt it, and yet AOG does it anyway, pretty consistantly too, which is totally against the fact that its suppose to be spontaneous and without warning.

Click to expand...

Paul puts restrictions on it to maintain order during a serivice. Even though the Spirit of God does not need man made restrictions, the following verse still says that the gifts we recieve from the Spirit, still need to be used with discernment and discipline. But they are to be used.

1Co 14:26-28
(26) Then how is it, brothers? When you come together, each one of you has a psalm, has a teaching, has a tongue, has a revelation, has an interpretation. Let all things be for building up.
(27) If one speaks in a language, let it be by two, or at the most three, and in succession. And let one interpret.
(28) But if there is no interpreter, let him be silent in a church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

The use of tongues in or out of a church setting is clearly taught in the bible. I have yet to see any real biblical opposition to it. Do we allow the Holy Spirit to reign in our churches, or man?

1Co 14:18
(18) I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

1Co 14:21-22
(21) In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people; and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
(22) Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

1Co 14:37-40
(37) If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.
(38) But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
(39) Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues.
(40) Let all things be done decently and in order.