I know the assemblies of God church is a pentecostal church that believes in the gifts of tongues. But what is their stance on who should or when we should speak in tongues? Do they follow the classical pentecostal approach that tongues are the initial evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit? Or do they see the spirit giving gifts as he wills. Meaning he might or might not give the gift of tongues, and that there shouldn't be an expectation of speaking in tongues as proof of Holy Spirit baptism. I have heard from some people that their official stance is classical pentecostal, but in practice many of their pastors don't follow through with it, or at least don't emphasize it much. Is this true? And if so, is there conflict in the denomination about this issue?
What is the Assemblies of God church stance on tongues?
- Thread starter SamLovesJesus1990
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I knew an assemblies of God fellowship and though they believed in tongues, what do you do when not
everybody speaks in tongues but does have faith.
Bethel is also an example of contradictions.
One guy testified to going to the church for over a year, and though there were claims that all diseases
would be healed and great miracles would be performed they saw nothing.
There is a group for people who have come out of the NAR, new apostolic reformation.
The most common experience is people claim the power of God but do not see it.
One pastor talked about how he preached believing what was not visible, but after 10 years of seeing
nothing, finally gave up and started following Jesus. He could not believe how he could claim so much
and yet see so little and still believe.
This all demonstrates faith is stronger than our experience, but we need to temper our faith with
what God says and what we see and know. They all need to work together, else we end up deceived
and lost.
everybody speaks in tongues but does have faith.
Bethel is also an example of contradictions.
One guy testified to going to the church for over a year, and though there were claims that all diseases
would be healed and great miracles would be performed they saw nothing.
There is a group for people who have come out of the NAR, new apostolic reformation.
The most common experience is people claim the power of God but do not see it.
One pastor talked about how he preached believing what was not visible, but after 10 years of seeing
nothing, finally gave up and started following Jesus. He could not believe how he could claim so much
and yet see so little and still believe.
This all demonstrates faith is stronger than our experience, but we need to temper our faith with
what God says and what we see and know. They all need to work together, else we end up deceived
and lost.
-
2
- Show all
My wife and I used to attend a Christmas program at an Assemblies of God church in the city I grew up in and here is a statement below from "Our Beliefs" on their website.
"We believe the initial physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is ‘speaking in tongues,’ as experienced on the day of Pentecost and referenced throughout Acts and the Epistles."
"We believe the initial physical evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit is ‘speaking in tongues,’ as experienced on the day of Pentecost and referenced throughout Acts and the Epistles."
-
2
-
1
- Show all
Sam: "Do they follow the classical pentecostal approach that tongues are the initial evidence of baptism of the Holy Spirit? Or do they see the spirit giving gifts as he wills. Meaning he might or might not give the gift of tongues, and that there shouldn't be an expectation of speaking in tongues as proof of Holy Spirit baptism."
The pattern in Acts is decisive for AOG doctrine. On 4 occasions, seekers are filled with the Spirit and clearly receive the Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues in 3 of the 4 cases. In the 4th case Acts 8), speaking in tongues is not mentioned. But the AOG believes the Samaritan seekers also spoke in tongues because an observer, Simon the Magician, offers Peter money to give him the gift of imparting so supernatural an experience.
Every AOG member is taught to expect to be baptized in the Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. The problem is that they also recognize that the Holy Spirit is sovereign and will "baptize in the Spirit" when we are spiritually ready, when we are willing to tarry a long time to receive this "baptism," and when the Spirit in His mysterious timing chooses to "baptize" us.
Sam: "I have heard from some people that their official stance is classical pentecostal, but in practice many of their pastors don't follow through with it, or at least don't emphasize it much. Is this true? And if so, is there conflict in the denomination about this issue?"
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada are the Canadian equivalent of the American AOG. In my 21 years of attending Calvary Temple (a PAOC church), I can't recall a single sermon on speaking in tongues! Some members complained that we weren't Pentecostal enough. Why is a doctrine that important not emphasized as much as one might expect? For at ;east 2 reasons:
(1) Many AOG Pentecostals get very frustrated by the failure of the people they pray for to speak in tongues. So they wrongly encourage seekers to "just step out in faith" and open their mouths and speak in tongues. This pressure promotes uninspired jibberish and when the seeker looks back and realizes that he spoke jibberish, he can get disillusioned with the quest to "receive the baptism." My own Dad was a fervent Pentecostal who became disillusioned with his quest to speak in tongues precisely because of this pressure.
(2) One of the unique aspects of AOG worship is the powerful sense of the Holy Spirit's presence during worship services. But some members get so overwhelmed with joy that they blurt out in uninterpreted tongues, something Paul forbids during corporate worship. This biblical violation unconsciously leads to a deemphasis of tongues to ensure greater church order.
(3) There is a more sinister reason for an AOG deemphasis of tongues. Ours is an age of short attention spans; so seekers lack the patience and disciplines to seek God for long periods with the focused attention needed to receive the gift of speaking in tongues.
I moved to the USA after I attended an American seminary and grad school. Here are 2 reasons why I no longer associate myself with AOG churches:
(1) I owe Pentecostalism a debt of gratitude because I needed the experience of Spirit baptism with the evidence to speaking in tongues to prevent me from losing my faith. I was far too skeptical for my faith to survive in a non-charismatic denomination. In my thread on speaking in tongues I share a tongues experience at age 16 that is by far the spiritual high point in my life, an experience that I still draw strength and spiritual nourishment from by merely recalling the indescribable glory of that magical day! But I no longer believe that speaking in tongues is a necessary condition for Spirit baptism (see 1 Corinthians 12:13).
(2) I was so plagued by doubt as a boy that my hunger for the real thing became so intense that God gave me the gift of spiritual discernment. This meant that when a message in tongues followed by its interpretation interrupted our service, I instantly had 1 of 2 violent reactions during the message: either I was moved to tears because I was so blessed by the risen Lord's words or I froze as if confronted b a cobra. But my discernment was most often negative and I grew intolerant of the uncriticai acceptance of all these messages in tongues with no discernment. I estimate that about 90% of messages in tongues are of the flesh. But the 10% that is real makes me grateful that I didn't grow up in a non-charismatic church, where I don't sense the Spirit's brooding presence at all.
The pattern in Acts is decisive for AOG doctrine. On 4 occasions, seekers are filled with the Spirit and clearly receive the Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues in 3 of the 4 cases. In the 4th case Acts 8), speaking in tongues is not mentioned. But the AOG believes the Samaritan seekers also spoke in tongues because an observer, Simon the Magician, offers Peter money to give him the gift of imparting so supernatural an experience.
Every AOG member is taught to expect to be baptized in the Spirit with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues. The problem is that they also recognize that the Holy Spirit is sovereign and will "baptize in the Spirit" when we are spiritually ready, when we are willing to tarry a long time to receive this "baptism," and when the Spirit in His mysterious timing chooses to "baptize" us.
Sam: "I have heard from some people that their official stance is classical pentecostal, but in practice many of their pastors don't follow through with it, or at least don't emphasize it much. Is this true? And if so, is there conflict in the denomination about this issue?"
The Pentecostal Assemblies of Canada are the Canadian equivalent of the American AOG. In my 21 years of attending Calvary Temple (a PAOC church), I can't recall a single sermon on speaking in tongues! Some members complained that we weren't Pentecostal enough. Why is a doctrine that important not emphasized as much as one might expect? For at ;east 2 reasons:
(1) Many AOG Pentecostals get very frustrated by the failure of the people they pray for to speak in tongues. So they wrongly encourage seekers to "just step out in faith" and open their mouths and speak in tongues. This pressure promotes uninspired jibberish and when the seeker looks back and realizes that he spoke jibberish, he can get disillusioned with the quest to "receive the baptism." My own Dad was a fervent Pentecostal who became disillusioned with his quest to speak in tongues precisely because of this pressure.
(2) One of the unique aspects of AOG worship is the powerful sense of the Holy Spirit's presence during worship services. But some members get so overwhelmed with joy that they blurt out in uninterpreted tongues, something Paul forbids during corporate worship. This biblical violation unconsciously leads to a deemphasis of tongues to ensure greater church order.
(3) There is a more sinister reason for an AOG deemphasis of tongues. Ours is an age of short attention spans; so seekers lack the patience and disciplines to seek God for long periods with the focused attention needed to receive the gift of speaking in tongues.
I moved to the USA after I attended an American seminary and grad school. Here are 2 reasons why I no longer associate myself with AOG churches:
(1) I owe Pentecostalism a debt of gratitude because I needed the experience of Spirit baptism with the evidence to speaking in tongues to prevent me from losing my faith. I was far too skeptical for my faith to survive in a non-charismatic denomination. In my thread on speaking in tongues I share a tongues experience at age 16 that is by far the spiritual high point in my life, an experience that I still draw strength and spiritual nourishment from by merely recalling the indescribable glory of that magical day! But I no longer believe that speaking in tongues is a necessary condition for Spirit baptism (see 1 Corinthians 12:13).
(2) I was so plagued by doubt as a boy that my hunger for the real thing became so intense that God gave me the gift of spiritual discernment. This meant that when a message in tongues followed by its interpretation interrupted our service, I instantly had 1 of 2 violent reactions during the message: either I was moved to tears because I was so blessed by the risen Lord's words or I froze as if confronted b a cobra. But my discernment was most often negative and I grew intolerant of the uncriticai acceptance of all these messages in tongues with no discernment. I estimate that about 90% of messages in tongues are of the flesh. But the 10% that is real makes me grateful that I didn't grow up in a non-charismatic church, where I don't sense the Spirit's brooding presence at all.
