Assembly of God: what do they believe?

[greggy53]

If you read John Chapter 3, the whole chapter, God’s Word explains about being born again. You will clearly see that we must believe in Jesus. John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life. I don’t see how a baby can believe anything. Please read the whole Chapter, John 3 and I think you will understand it.
Love in Christ Jesus,
Tomjoans (Joan)

I have read the book of John. As a Catholic school boy (for 12 years) I was taught the scriptures, and Church interpretations of them very well. I have read the scriptures as an adult and I guess I can say that I understand them as well as any layman: Of course a baby cannot understand those things, but the process of the baby’s salvation begins with being re-born in the waters of baptism. To the Catholic salvation is not a one time event. Notice I used the word process. Salvation is a process that begins with the sacrament of baptism. It continues with the Holy Eucharist, and Confirmation. At that age we start to think more independently and as we grow we either accept God’s grace or we reject it…on a daily basis. It is a life long process and journey.
I must say also that this is not the first time I have been told by a Protestant brother or sister that “If I would only read this or that I might come to understand the true meaning etc.” I find it rather condescending even though I’m sure it’s not meant that way.

 

[tomjoans]

Amen!

John 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.”

1 Corinthians 13 :2 “And if I should have prophecy and should know all mysteries, and all knowledge, and if I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.”

Shoulf not Christians if nothing else love another?

How true that is. Amen
Love in Christ Jesus,
tomjoans(joan)

 

[tomjoans]

I have read the book of John. As a Catholic school boy (for 12 years) I was taught the scriptures, and Church interpretations of them very well. I have read the scriptures as an adult and I guess I can say that I understand them as well as any layman: Of course a baby cannot understand those things, but the process of the baby’s salvation begins with being re-born in the waters of baptism. To the Catholic salvation is not a one time event. Notice I used the word process. Salvation is a process that begins with the sacrament of baptism. It continues with the Holy Eucharist, and Confirmation. At that age we start to think more independently and as we grow we either accept God’s grace or we reject it…on a daily basis. It is a life long process and journey.
I must say also that this is not the first time I have been told by a Protestant brother or sister that “If I would only read this or that I might come to understand the true meaning etc.” I find it rather condescending even though I’m sure it’s not meant that way.

Hi Greggy, I’m sorry if I offended you in any way. You’re right it was not meant to offend anyone. That’s just what I got out of John 3 and about being Born Again…I guess you see it differently. My prayer is that God will lift any scales from all our eyes and that the Holy Spirit will lead us all into total Truth in Jesus’ Name. Amen
Love in Christ Jesus,
tomjoans(joan)

 

[greggy53]

Hi Greggy, I’m sorry if I offended you in any way. You’re right it was not meant to offend anyone. That’s just what I got out of John 3 and about being Born Again…I guess you see it differently. My prayer is that God will lift any scales from all our eyes and that the Holy Spirit will lead us all into total Truth in Jesus’ Name. Amen
Love in Christ Jesus,
tomjoans(joan)

No harm no foul. I know you meant it in the best way. I have had the opportunity to see thru the eyes of an AOG, and a Catholic. My wife and I attended an AOG church for about 3 years. When I decided to return to the Catholic faith my wife didn’t want to go, and she told the Pastor as much. To his credit he kicked her out of his church and told her to submit to her husbands authority / leadership. Neither one of us would dream of leaving the faith now. She is a cantor, and a catechist., and I am a minister of the word.

 

[Periannath]

I have read the book of John. As a Catholic school boy (for 12 years) I was taught the scriptures, and Church interpretations of them very well. I have read the scriptures as an adult and I guess I can say that I understand them as well as any layman: Of course a baby cannot understand those things, but the process of the baby’s salvation begins with being re-born in the waters of baptism. To the Catholic salvation is not a one time event. Notice I used the word process. Salvation is a process that begins with the sacrament of baptism. It continues with the Holy Eucharist, and Confirmation. At that age we start to think more independently and as we grow we either accept God’s grace or we reject it…on a daily basis. It is a life long process and journey.
I must say also that this is not the first time I have been told by a Protestant brother or sister that “If I would only read this or that I might come to understand the true meaning etc.” I find it rather condescending even though I’m sure it’s not meant that way.

To the credit of protestants who do not believe in infant baptisim I think it is meaningful to cross reference these verses in John 3 with those in the opening chapter, namely verses 12 and 13:
“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”

Who become children of God? “those who believed in his name.” It is very understandable to think a baby cannot “believe” or have faith and therefore baptisim is inapropriate until an age of understanding, or reason as some call it. However, I do not think it is possible for us to say definitivly a baby cannot understand or have faith- in reality we do not know. Looking at it from a psychological perspective one understands that an infant does not immediatly have self-understanding apart from the life of the mother. In fact, he is brought up in her- though he (or she) is his/her own life she is connected to the life of the mother, even her faith. At birth, the baby enters a sanctified household filled with faith (this is all assuming one or more of the parents is a believing Christian). Could it be possible that the child to a degree enters the faith of the parents and family and as it participates in this faith, an also the faith of the larger church community, baptisim could be appropiate? I don’t now. This is something I am thinking about though. Another thing is that many see baptisim as a sacrament were the Holy Spirit creates faith in us. Certaintly this is a possibility. Some Scriptures to consider:
Acts 16:13-15
Acts 16:31-34
Luke 1:14-16
1 Corinthians 7:12-14

 

[greggy53]

To the credit of protestants who do not believe in infant baptisim I think it is meaningful to cross reference these verses in John 3 with those in the opening chapter, namely verses 12 and 13:
“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”

Who become children of God? “those who believed in his name.” It is very understandable to think a baby cannot “believe” or have faith and therefore baptisim is inapropriate until an age of understanding, or reason as some call it. However, I do not think it is possible for us to say definitivly a baby cannot understand or have faith- in reality we do not know. Looking at it from a psychological perspective one understands that an infant does not immediatly have self-understanding apart from the life of the mother. In fact, he is brought up in her- though he (or she) is his/her own life she is connected to the life of the mother, even her faith. At birth, the baby enters a sanctified household filled with faith (this is all assuming one or more of the parents is a believing Christian). Could it be possible that the child to a degree enters the faith of the parents and family and as it participates in this faith, an also the faith of the larger church community, baptisim could be appropiate? I don’t now. This is something I am thinking about though. Another thing is that many see baptisim as a sacrament were the Holy Spirit creates faith in us. Certaintly this is a possibility. Some Scriptures to consider:
Acts 16:13-15
Acts 16:31-34
Luke 1:14-16
1 Corinthians 7:12-14

Catholics and AOG believe differently about what baptism is. To the Catholic baptism washes away original sin (among other things). I don’t think the AOG believe this. When an infant is baptized into the Catholic faith, and then perishes before he/she can receive the other sacraments their salvation is assured. But, when a child who has not been baptized dies what happens? They have not accepted the Lord, so what assurance can the AOG or other Protestants who do not believe in infant baptism give that the child is saved??? I would like to hear the AOG doctrine, and scriptural evidence for it.
Also, your quote from 1 Corinthians seems

 

[wisdomseeker]

To the credit of protestants who do not believe in infant baptisim I think it is meaningful to cross reference these verses in John 3 with those in the opening chapter, namely verses 12 and 13:
“Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”

Who become children of God? “those who believed in his name.” It is very understandable to think a baby cannot “believe” or have faith and therefore baptisim is inapropriate until an age of understanding, or reason as some call it. However, I do not think it is possible for us to say definitivly a baby cannot understand or have faith- in reality we do not know. Looking at it from a psychological perspective one understands that an infant does not immediatly have self-understanding apart from the life of the mother. In fact, he is brought up in her- though he (or she) is his/her own life she is connected to the life of the mother, even her faith. At birth, the baby enters a sanctified household filled with faith (this is all assuming one or more of the parents is a believing Christian). Could it be possible that the child to a degree enters the faith of the parents and family and as it participates in this faith, an also the faith of the larger church community, baptisim could be appropiate? I don’t now. This is something I am thinking about though. Another thing is that many see baptisim as a sacrament were the Holy Spirit creates faith in us. Certaintly this is a possibility. Some Scriptures to consider:
Acts 16:13-15
Acts 16:31-34
Luke 1:14-16
1 Corinthians 7:12-14

there is a big problem when one read Scriptures without the Church. the CC is the family of God. just like the Jews, we are One Family to God. our children become part of the family of God the moment the child is baptized. we bring them to the Church to present to the big family the Church and baptized them. as Jesus was presented to the Temple after eight days of being borne to be circuncized, so as our children must be brought in to the Church of the Living God, the Pillar and Bullwark of Truth. the Church is the New Israel. we are the people of God. i know is hard for you to understand this because you are not a Catholic. if you dont understand the relationship between God and Jews, we will never understand the relationship between God and the Catholic Church.

:byzsoc:

 

[Periannath]

Catholics and AOG believe differently about what baptism is. To the Catholic baptism washes away original sin (among other things). I don’t think the AOG believe this. When an infant is baptized into the Catholic faith, and then perishes before he/she can receive the other sacraments their salvation is assured. But, when a child who has not been baptized dies what happens? They have not accepted the Lord, so what assurance can the AOG or other Protestants who do not believe in infant baptism give that the child is saved??? I would like to hear the AOG doctrine, and scriptural evidence for it.
Also, your quote from 1 Corinthians seems

They do, and I am not sure if I believe what the AG teaches on baptism. However, to their credit, they do practice infant dedication which is based of off “letting the children come unto me,” and Jesus’ dedication in the temple and the like. In dialogue with the RCC the AG and RCC has reached and agreement that infant dedication is useful for protecting the child from the devil and his work and for bringing them into the faith community. The Pope, in going against the teaching of limbo (which is understand was never Catholic doctrine) that there is a firm basis for hope that the young child, unbaptized could be welcomed into the mercy of God (paraphrase). The AG, likewise, seems it very unlikely that a God who commands the protection of babies from being put into the fire of Molech, that he would intern place them into the fires of hell. AG’s understanding of original sin is also much more similar to the Greek churches in that it sees it as a disposition toward sin, not actual sin or guilt imparted through the line. Unable to understand right from wrong, and their need for a savior, children would not be guilty before God and deserving of hell. This is similar to the Catholic understanding of an age of reason that is relevant to determining when the sacrament of confession is appropriate.
Peace.

 

[greggy53]

They do, and I am not sure if I believe what the AG teaches on baptism. However, to their credit, they do practice infant dedication which is based of off “letting the children come unto me,” and Jesus’ dedication in the temple and the like. In dialogue with the RCC the AG and RCC has reached and agreement that infant dedication is useful for protecting the child from the devil and his work and for bringing them into the faith community. The Pope, in going against the teaching of limbo (which is understand was never Catholic doctrine) that there is a firm basis for hope that the young child, unbaptized could be welcomed into the mercy of God (paraphrase). The AG, likewise, seems it very unlikely that a God who commands the protection of babies from being put into the fire of Molech, that he would intern place them into the fires of hell. AG’s understanding of original sin is also much more similar to the Greek churches in that it sees it as a disposition toward sin, not actual sin or guilt imparted through the line. Unable to understand right from wrong, and their need for a savior, children would not be guilty before God and deserving of hell. This is similar to the Catholic understanding of an age of reason that is relevant to determining when the sacrament of confession is appropriate.
Peace.

Infant dedication then is used by the AG as a substitute for Baptism ? If so it may be similar in practice with other Protestant infant baptism, but not Catholic Baptism. You speak of infants not knowing right from wrong, being innocent, but in need of a savior …why? If they have committed no sin ? This is where the Catholic doctrine of Original sin comes into play, It is real sin that each of us are born with that Baptism washes away. The disposition to sin that you refer to is called Concupiscence which is taught by the Catholic Church. Are you saying that the AG embrace this? I thought most Protestants rejected Concupiscence believing it to be sin?

 

[Periannath]

Infant dedication then is used by the AG as a substitute for Baptism ? If so it may be similar in practice with other Protestant infant baptism, but not Catholic Baptism. You speak of infants not knowing right from wrong, being innocent, but in need of a savior …why? If they have committed no sin ? This is where the Catholic doctrine of Original sin comes into play, It is real sin that each of us are born with that Baptism washes away. The disposition to sin that you refer to is called Concupiscence which is taught by the Catholic Church. Are you saying that the AG embrace this? I thought most Protestants rejected Concupiscence believing it to be sin?

It is not a replacement of baptisim, but of infant baptism. Baptism is still practiced for belivers (like Baptists) but infant dedication is in place of what infant baptisim serves (specifically for an infant) besides baptisim itself. I guess the question is, are infants in need of a Savior? If they have not actual sin, what seperates them from God? I do believe they are in need of a Savior because their nature is sinful but I do not think that God’s mercy for the child who is unable to understand right from wrong and their need for a savoir is limited to water baptisim.

As far as concupiscence, I am not familiar with protestants rejecting this idea as a sin. I am not square yet on what I believe personally in these regrads but as far as I understand their is diversity of opinion in the AG. I have been told by one AG minister that original sin does not exist, since it is not in the Bible. Original sin, in this conversation, was considered actual sin. I do not see this in the Bible. If orginal sin is humanity’s sinful nature then I do believe it but not if it is actual sin. This is not a protestant invention either, it is clearly the teaching of the Scritpures and also what the Greek Orthodox teach concerning original sin.

 

[greggy53]

As far as concupiscence, I am not familiar with protestants rejecting this idea as a sin. I am not square yet on what I believe personally in these regrads but as far as I understand their is diversity of opinion in the AG. I have been told by one AG minister that original sin does not exist, since it is not in the Bible. Original sin, in this conversation, was considered actual sin. I do not see this in the Bible. If orginal sin is humanity’s sinful nature then I do believe it but not if it is actual sin. This is not a protestant invention either, it is clearly the teaching of the Scritpures and also what the Greek Orthodox teach concerning original sin.

As I understand it the Catholic teaching is that concupiscence is not sin, but the tendency toward sin. The AG and other Protestants reject that teaching believing it is sin. If you see the AG minister that told you original sin does not exist because it is not in the Bible, tell him that the rapture does not exist because that is not in the Bible either. The Trinity as well cannot be found in the Bible. Not the words at least. Certainly the theological concepts for all of them stem from scripture. You either accept that particular concept or you don’t. But that is why Baptism is not the same for the AG as it is for Catholics. The differences between “dedication” and “baptism” are minimal in the Protestant view. Original sin is the sin of Adam and Eve, and we all as their children inherit it. Baptism in the Catholic view washes away this sin. This is why the scriptures tell us to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin. Human nature and concupiscence, the tendency towards sin remain. The infant needs a savior because the infant carries the sin of our first parents.

 

[greggy53]

The Catholic encyclopedia refernces the Book of Romans, and the Book of Wisdom for evidence of Original sin.

Romans 5: 12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. 13 For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not. 14 But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even over them also who have not sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who is a figure of him who was to come. 15 But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died; much more the grace of God, and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

 

[Periannath]

As I understand it the Catholic teaching is that concupiscence is not sin, but the tendency toward sin. The AG and other Protestants reject that teaching believing it is sin. If you see the AG minister that told you original sin does not exist because it is not in the Bible, tell him that the rapture does not exist because that is not in the Bible either. The Trinity as well cannot be found in the Bible. Not the words at least. Certainly the theological concepts for all of them stem from scripture. You either accept that particular concept or you don’t. But that is why Baptism is not the same for the AG as it is for Catholics. The differences between “dedication” and “baptism” are minimal in the Protestant view. Original sin is the sin of Adam and Eve, and we all as their children inherit it. Baptism in the Catholic view washes away this sin. This is why the scriptures tell us to be baptized for the forgiveness of sin. Human nature and concupiscence, the tendency towards sin remain. The infant needs a savior because the infant carries the sin of our first parents.

I understand, now, what you mean when you say that protestants view concupiscence as a sin. I thought you meant that those who believe in the teaching of concupiscence is what protestants viewed as a sin. And by the way, please don’t talk down to me. I know that the word rapture, trinity and the like are not actual words in the Bible (although rapture comes from raptura in the Vulgate, and thus is in the Bible) but the teaching of them is. What I meant was that the teaching of original sin in the sense that it is actual sin is not in the Bible, not only is it not in the Bible it is against what the Bible teaches.
"Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.” (2 Kings 14:6, NIV)

On an Orthodox view of original sin:

“Here we must use caution when speaking of Original Sin. The non-Orthodox teach that Original Sin is the Personal sin and guilt of Adam transmitted from him to all mankind. The Church does not agree with this teaching. Original sin is the “sinful state” of our nature with which we are born. Because of the fall, human nature is disposed toward sinfulness: human nature is corrupt and that which we refer to as man, is really less than man: human nature has been weakened, therefore, the ability to resist every temptation (without the special Graces of God) has been taken away.” (Fr. Stephen Fraser, Original Sin - an Orthodox View )

Notice the similarities between the Orthodox and Evangelical views, both come from Scripture.
Peace.

 

[greggy53]

I understand, now, what you mean when you say that protestants view concupiscence as a sin. I thought you meant that those who believe in the teaching of concupiscence is what protestants viewed as a sin. And by the way, please don’t talk down to me. I know that the word rapture, trinity and the like are not actual words in the Bible (although rapture comes from raptura in the Vulgate, and thus is in the Bible) but the teaching of them is. What I meant was that the teaching of original sin in the sense that it is actual sin is not in the Bible, not only is it not in the Bible it is against what the Bible teaches.

I was not talking down to you. Lecturing maybe :shrug:When some one says “that’s not in the Bible” that is a very subjective statement. Different religions have gleaned very different meanings from the very same scripture. AG and others of the same bend teach theology that the Catholics don’t read into the Bible. Conversely, Catholics teach theology that others don’t see in the Bible. The Church has been teaching the existence of original sin since the first millennium. I know you don’t care how long it has been a Christian teaching if you don’t think you see it in the Bible. Yet I rely on the history and the teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of truth and is the only Church with the authority to interpret scripture. The Catholic Church’s interpretation of any scripture is the only correct one.
1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

 

[tomjoans]

I understand, now, what you mean when you say that protestants view concupiscence as a sin. I thought you meant that those who believe in the teaching of concupiscence is what protestants viewed as a sin. And by the way, please don’t talk down to me. I know that the word rapture, trinity and the like are not actual words in the Bible (although rapture comes from raptura in the Vulgate, and thus is in the Bible) but the teaching of them is. What I meant was that the teaching of original sin in the sense that it is actual sin is not in the Bible, not only is it not in the Bible it is against what the Bible teaches.
"Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the LORD commanded: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.” (2 Kings 14:6, NIV)

On an Orthodox view of original sin:

“Here we must use caution when speaking of Original Sin. The non-Orthodox teach that Original Sin is the Personal sin and guilt of Adam transmitted from him to all mankind. The Church does not agree with this teaching. Original sin is the “sinful state” of our nature with which we are born. Because of the fall, human nature is disposed toward sinfulness: human nature is corrupt and that which we refer to as man, is really less than man: human nature has been weakened, therefore, the ability to resist every temptation (without the special Graces of God) has been taken away.” (Fr. Stephen Fraser, Original Sin - an Orthodox View )

Notice the similarities between the Orthodox and Evangelical views, both come from Scripture.
Peace.

That’s why God’s Word says in John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. v 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit. v 7 Marvel not that I said unto thee (you must be Born Again).
Also, in James 4:7 God’s Word says Submit yourself therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. To me that means
we must be born of the Spirit of God to be able to enter the kingdom of God, and if we draw close to God and resist the devil, he will flee from us in Jesus Name, by His Precious Blood.

Love in Christ Jesus,
tomjoans(joan)

 

[telmab7]

I did not know there was an Assemblies of God thread on Catholic answers
GOOD there needs to be one I found many of the posts to be inaccurate and heretical

The first place to start is an objective text book that will refute the majority of what was said here by using the actual history and statistical analysis and cross referenced interviews with many A of G pastors. It’s called “Assemblies Of God at the Cross Roads” by Margaret Paloma

Secondly I would say that posting their statement of Faith is of no use because by their own by-laws they are required to review and revise it every year
A side by side comparison of it’s ever changing doctrine of the past three decades would be enlightening using their “statements of Faith”
They have Presbyterian form of government by general assembly vote
They vote on doctrine !

Next how anyone can let their salvation depend on the theology of a false theologian person like Jacobus Arminius without knowing who he we was and what he stands for and what is the heresy of Arminianism is mind boggling to me
You can read what our Church magisterium had to say about Arminiansim to get to the heart of the heresy.

They de-emphasize the Trinity - God the Father is rarely if ever discussed because Pentecostalism is rooted in it’s adopted theology from unitarianism even though A of G and the majority of the denominations that have broken away from A of G and their have been several have been rooted in even more extreme versions of unbalanced deitism.
The religion is less than 100 years old and it is a derivative of Methodism and it was the Holiness movement that untied with both the AZ movement and the NY movement
just prior to WWI and took root after many came back from WWI in the total shock and blood bath that was WWI

Thirdly
Answering the question as to whether they are anti-Catholic
They believe at the core of their doctrine that the Catholic Church is “harlot of destruction described in the book of revelation”

I’m a devout Catholic I’ve been to their services at least a half dozen times and two bible classes trying to defend a fiance’ with ardent apologetics work in The truth

You want to know about their mega Churches and their mission come to me I will tell the Truth they are destroying Christianity they are seeds of division

PEOPLE THEY ARE FARMING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH the majority of their adherents are ex- Catholics that were by majority improperly catechized Catholics and or products of divorce and remarriage and forced into a self imposed category of the fallen away . The organization is professionally trained in proselytism and it is coming to a neighborhood near you to call on your families and what the scriptures call “The Faith of your Fathers”

Know your scriptures
Know that every doctrine and every tradition of the Faith and the Church established by Jesus Christ himself has a solid scriptural substantiation ALL despite what some may think
2 Peter 1:20 Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation

The prophesy of the different Jesus and the different Gospel we warned of that would come to “divide” Christians and prepare the way for the false prophet that is Muhammad has come If you don’t see it your not studying the scriptures

2 Cor 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not received; you might well bear with him. 5 For I suppose that I have done nothing less than the great apostles.

AND there is OH so much more !