Gary W. Summers
Recently, a 17-page document was given me which sets forth the 16 doctrines of The Assemblies of God. Following a look at their introductory comments will be a brief analysis of these teachings. After the “Preface” comes a “Background” section in which the author(s) begin with: “When the Assemblies of God formed in 1914…” (1). Immediately, these words tell us some important facts.
1) The Assemblies of God is not the New Testament church which began on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2. We know they are not because they say they formed in 1914—which makes them nearly 1900 years too late to be the church that Jesus established in the Bible.
2) The Assemblies of God is a religious group that was founded by men not God. Is the church Jesus built (Matt. 16:18) insufficient for some reason? Who shed His blood that the Assemblies of God might come into existence (Acts 20:28)?
3) The founders of the Assemblies of God apparently had no qualms about ignoring Jesus’ plea for unity (John 17:20-21) and therefore bought into the notion that denominationalism is all right. Their insistence that they are “a loosely knit fellowship” instead of a denomination (2) is only rhetoric. The world does not need a new religion. The New Testament teaches that Jesus is Head over one body—His church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18). There is but one church (Eph. 4:4).
4) The founders of the Assemblies of God deemed it necessary to establish 16 doctrines, which presumably is a creedal statement. Is there something wrong with using the New Testament as our source of teaching? Paul said that all Scripture was given by inspiration of God and was profitable for doctrine. We must have New Testament authority for what we teach and practice (Col. 3:17). Are there only 16 doctrines in the entire New Testament?
They do make the following proviso: “Furthermore there is no pretense that this statement contains all of the Bible’s truth”—only “some basic fundamental teaching.” They also include a disclaimer that they do not believe that their statement is divinely inspired (4). Admittedly, then, these 16 doctrines are not divinely inspired and contain only some of the “truth.” As we have already said: it constitutes a man made creed.
It was in 1916 that these 16 doctrines were established after some had begun to teach water baptism “only in the name of Jesus” (3). Of course, this group claims to speak in tongues, be baptized in the Holy Spirit, and affirms the existence of modern-day miracles. Nevertheless, with all of their alleged Holy Spirit help and guidance, there was a split, with some claiming that Jesus is the only person in the God-head. How can God be endorsing with miracles and tongues-speaking two groups with diametrically op-posed doctrines? The Assemblies of God correctly believe in all three members of the Godhead (5), but their “Holy-Spirit filled” cronies vehemently deny this fundamental tenet.
They say that the current 16 principles have only had “minor adjustments in wording and clarification”: “Based on the eternal inerrant Word of God, the Statement needs no alteration of the truth it proclaims” (3). It is true that God’s Word needs no alteration; we will not challenge their minor changes. Again, however, the value of this “basis” for their “fellowship and unity” must be questioned. Could people be saved prior to these sixteen points being written and adopted in 1916? Could fellowship and unity exist prior to their inception? Again, then, why are they necessary? Either the Bible is all-sufficient, or it is not: If it is, no one needs a manmade creed; if it is not, God has been made a liar (2 Peter 1:3).
Doctrines 1-4
Everyone ought to agree with the first doctrinal point: The Bible is inspired. Modernists, like Bishop John Shelby Spong (of the Episcopal Church) and others of the “Jesus Seminar,” do not agree. Many “clergymen” no longer accept the Scriptures as either Divine or accurate, but this rejection does not alter the Truth. We appreciate and agree with this sentence: “If we do not agree that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16) and is therefore infallible and authoritative, we have no dependable standard on which to base our lives” (5).
The second doctrine deals with the fact that there are three who share the Divine essence, and the writers set forth an abundant amount of evidence to establish this truth (5). Teaching #3 proclaims that Jesus is part of the Godhead and fully God (6). (While on earth He was also fully human.)
The Fall of Man is the subject of doctrine #4. The writers avoided Calvinistic expressions such as total depravity. They deal more with the loss of innocence than the alleged “lack of ability” man supposedly has to respond to God. They were not specific enough concerning this teaching (either way) for the reader to perceive which view they take. Nothing was mentioned regarding children and the “sinner at birth” philosophy.
Doctrine # 5: The Salvation of Mankind
Below this heading the reader finds the following: “(*one of four cardinal doctrines).” Not only have we learned that the entire Bible can be reduced to sixteen fundamental doctrines (although God never specified them), we now find that the Bible, according to the Assemblies of God, also sports four cardinal doctrines. What can we expect next: Two Supreme Principles or One Overriding Truth? The word cardinal means “of foremost importance; pivotal.” So, some doctrines are more important than others. Jesus ranked two commandments as first and second; therefore one might consider some teachings more important than other.
That being the case, one might think that the first three doctrines presented would be at the head of the list: What could be more fundamental than the inspiration of the Scriptures or the nature of God? But the writers of this document chose salvation (with which we would all agree), “The Baptism in the Holy Spirit,” “Divine Healing,” and “The Blessed Hope.” Does this suggested hierarchy seem a little strange? How can the so-called “baptism in the Holy Spirit” be “of foremost importance”—even above the essence and work of the Holy Spirit in the first place? And “divine healing,” a purported benefit to people, is more important than remembering the Lord’s death by means of the Lord’s Supper? These “cardinal doctrines” reveal an important truth: These religious people value “personal experience,” feelings, and emotion more than the objective Word of God and truly “cardinal” teachings.
What do they teach about salvation?
Salvation is received as a person (1) repents before God for his sins and sinful nature or inclinations, and (2) believes or has faith in the fact that the death and resurrection (supernatural restoration to life) of Jesus Christ removes and brings forgiveness for his sin (7).
The Bible teaches that faith and repentance are both necessary for a person to be saved (Heb. 11:6; Luke 13:3), but they have excluded any other requirement. Have they not read what Peter said on the day of Pentecost when the Jews asked him what they should do? He answered, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:38). How could they have missed this verse, linking baptism to repentance? How could they have missed Mark 16:16 which joins together faith and baptism—both of which precede salvation?
Presumably, the men who put together these 16 doctrines were very knowledgeable in the Scriptures. At times they demonstrate a familiarity with the Word (the section on God, for example). They cannot be unaware of the two texts previously mentioned. Mark 16:9-20 is a text whose authenticity has been questioned (although the evidence is abundant for its inclusion). Serious Bible students know the contents of the passage. Acts 2:38 does not go unread (so much as unheeded). The events on the Day of Pentecost reach a peak with the question and answer already quoted.
In other words, the omission of baptism for the forgiveness of sins is not an accident; it is omitted by design. Why do the Assemblies of God want to ignore this vital part of the salvation process? Salvation does not occur as a person repents and believes; it occurs at a precise moment—when he is baptized. Baptism is the likeness of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Rom. 6:3-7). Any religious group that refuses to teach the truth regarding salvation is preaching “another gospel,” and they stand accursed (Gal. 1:6-9).
Furthermore, they say that “the inner evidence of salvation is the direct witness of the Holy Spirit giving one the assurance that God has accepted him (Rom. 8:16)” (8). First, the reader will notice that they could not extract this principle from the book of Acts, where all the conversions are recorded. Second, their appeal to Romans 8:16 is faulty: The verse does not say that the Spirit bears witness to our spirit (which is the way they are misapplying the verse); it says the Spirit bears witness with our spirit. This passage does not teach that we know we are saved by means of a subjective, emotional experience. We know we are saved because the Word of God teaches us what we must do; when we then proceed to do so “from the heart” (Rom. 6:17-18), then we have assurance that we are saved. We have lovingly obeyed, and the Holy Spirit bears witness to God that we have.
Doctrine #6: The Ordinances of the Church
Under “Baptism in Water” these men state:
The ordinance of baptism by immersion in water (not sprinkling) is commanded in the Scriptures (Mark 16:16). All who repent and believe on Jesus Christ as personal Savior and Lord are to be so baptized. This act of baptism symbolically declares to everyone that the old sinful life and life-style of the baptized believers died with Christ at salvation and a new spiritual being has been raised with Christ (in His resurrection) to live a new life (Matthew 28:19; Mark 16:16; Acts 10:47-48; Romans 5:4) (8-9).
First of all, please note that the Bible does not call baptism a church “ordinance.” This terminology was invented by man. Second, they are familiar with the existence of Mark 16:16, but they reject its meaning. To whom does Jesus promise salvation? “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. The verse does not say, “He that believeth is saved and is commanded to be baptized,” which is the way the Assemblies of God have presented it. The promise of salvation is given to those who (1) believe and (2) are baptized. Third, the Bible nowhere calls baptism a “symbolic” act—that too reflects the ideas of man instead of the wisdom of God.
One further comment is made about baptism:
Water baptism is a one-time event in which the new believer announces publicly that he is now a child of God who has identified with Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection (9).
One wonders if those who read documents such as “Our 16 Doctrines” ever notice that Scriptures are provided for many of the teachings but are conspicuously absent for others. Sometimes a writer may choose not to substantiate a point that he knows everyone agrees with (such as the Bible’s teaching on grace and love). No one claiming to be a Christian has ever challenged these teachings. This is not, however, the rationale be-hind omitting a verse here. The reason is that no passage in the New Testament supports this assertion.
Did Peter encourage people to be baptized to announce publicly they are children of God? No, he told those on Pentecost to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins (Acts 2:38). The Assemblies of God have assigned the wrong purpose for baptism. Furthermore, this position clearly contradicts what we read about conversions in the New Testament. Consider, for example, the queen’s treasurer, who was baptized in the wilderness. To whom was he announcing publicly that he was a child of God, besides perhaps a driver or an attendant? Paul baptized the Philippian jailer and his household some time between midnight and dawn—to what audience were they making a proclamation? These are the actions of those lost in sin who realize that baptism is vital to salvation.
Under “Holy Communion” the writers said:
The Lord’s Supper or Communion, consisting of bread and the fruit of the vine (grape juice), is a memorial of Christ’s suffering and death (1 Corinthians 11:26). In eating and drinking the symbols of Christ’s suffering and death, the believer expresses his awareness that through salvation he (1) has been made right with God, and (2) shares the nature of eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:4). The ordinance also looks forward to Christ’s second coming (1 Corinthians 11:26) for it is a reminder to proclaim the Lord’s death “until He comes!” (9).
The last citation is the Scriptural one. The first two reasons for communion that they cite are not mentioned anywhere in the Bible; 2 Peter 1:4 is not even discussing the Lord’s Supper. The observance is for the purpose of remembering that Christ’s body was broken for us and that His blood was shed for us. All who partake are to first examine themselves (1 Cor. 11: 28). They did correctly define the fruit of the vine as grape juice and not wine, but it is curious that they did not mention that the bread was unleavened, since that is the only type of bread that would have been available during the Passover.
A final comment on this subject is:
Communion is a periodic (often monthly) reminder that the believer has received his free salvation through the suffering, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ (9).
The writers here do not offer an explanation for their decision of a monthly observance of the Lord’s Supper. Does the Bible teach that the Lord’s Supper is to be a periodic reminder? Would the writers settle for a periodic offering? Do they periodically sing? On what basis do they meet every Sunday but only remember the Lord’s death periodically?
The Lord’s day, the first day of the week, is not the Sabbath day (the seventh day). God did not require all of the ordinances with respect to Sunday that He did with Saturday. Nothing in the New Testament, for example, forbids Christians from working on the first day of the week (although it advantageous not to do so). But one thing about the Lord’s day is similar to the Sabbath—every week has one in it. God expects His children to gather each first day of the week.
Furthermore, no one can read 1 Corinthians 11:18-34 and conclude that the brethren there remembered Christ monthly. The problem they had regarding the Lord’s Supper occurred when they came together in the church (v. 18)—in other words, each Lord’s day. Paul waited to speak to brethren on the first day of the week, knowing they would come together then to break bread (partake of the Lord Supper) (Acts 20:7). The only examples we have in the New Testament regarding frequency are those showing that observance of the Lord’s Supper was practiced every week.
Having examined the background, introduction, and the first six of the sixteen doctrines subscribed to by the Assemblies of God, we now want to conclude this study by considering the final ten doctrines, beginning with the seventh, which is “The Baptism of the Holy Spirit,” one of their four “cardinal” doctrines.
All believers are entitled to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and therefore should expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ (9).
What verse says that all believers will receive this baptism? Where did Jesus command all believers to seek this baptism? John the Immerser promised that the One Who came after him would baptize with the Holy Spirit (Matt. 3:11). In Acts 1:4, before His ascension into Heaven, Jesus commanded His apostles to wait in Jerusalem, that they might receive the promise of the Father, and then he cited John’s earlier statement (v. 5). Jesus did not command them to be baptized in the Holy Spirit; He commanded them to wait in Jerusalem so that they might receive the promise.
Baptism in water is commanded; baptism in the Holy Spirit was a promise. Baptism in water is for all people of all ages, because it is part of the salvation process (Matt. 28:18-20). Baptism in the Holy Spirit was never promised to all believers but was fulfilled when the few for whom it was designed received it. Jesus specifically promised the eleven they would receive it if they did not depart from Jerusalem.
The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the normal experience of all believers in the early Christian church. With the experience comes the provision of power for victorious Christian living and productive service. It also provides believers with specific spiritual gifts for more effective ministry (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31) (10).
First of all, the baptism of the Holy Spirit was not a normal experience of the church; no passage so states. In fact, it was non-existent after the apostles received it until the time of Acts 10, when Cornelius and those gathered with him received it. In order to demonstrate to the Jews that the Gentiles were also invited to obey the Gospel and become part of the church, the Holy Spirit was given to them. No one, therefore, could argue against Divine approval. Peter, in relating this incident to his fellow Jews, said:
And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning. Then I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, “John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 11:15-16).
Notice that what occurred here brought Peter’s memory all the way back to the beginning of the church and to the same statement of Jesus from Acts 1:4-5 that we already examined. If baptism of the Holy Spirit were the “normal experience,” then why did not Peter tell the Jews that Cornelius and those with him were baptized in the Holy Spirit—just like every Christian is? The reason is that every Christian did not receive it—only the apostles did.
Second, except for the apostles and those with Cornelius, spiritual gifts were imparted by the laying on of the apostles’ hands. When Philip preached in Samaria, they believed him and “both men and women were baptized” (Acts 8:12). Although Philip could do miraculous things, he could not empower others to do so. Peter and John were sent there for the purpose of imparting spiritual gifts, which they did by laying their hands on them (v. 17). Simon saw the way they received these gifts and wanted to buy that ability, for which he was rebuked (vv. 18-22).
Third, baptism in the Holy Spirit is never called an “experience” in the Word of God, and it was not designed to provide power for victorious Christian living and productive service. Its purpose was to provide the ability for the apostles to work miracles, signs, and wonders, as well as to grant that power to others.
Fourth, the passages cited do not establish any of the points claimed by the writers. Luke 24:49 recounts Jesus’ instruction to the eleven “to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high,” which is repeated in Acts 1:4-5. The spiritual gifts discussed in 1 Corinthians 12 did not come from “baptism in the Holy Spirit,” which is nowhere mentioned in the text. The Holy Spirit gave these gifts, to be sure (v. 11), but there is no indication that He gave them in connection with Holy Spirit baptism.
Fifth, the very next section of 1 Corinthians (chapter 13) shows that these spiritual gifts are inferior in two ways to something else—love. Love is better in terms of quality—its very nature is superior to the spiritual gifts (vv. 1-3). Those who had the spiritual gifts in Corinth could obviously be guilty of envy, parading themselves, being puffed up, behaving rudely, or being unkind, but those who possess love for God and others cannot behave in such a manner (vv. 4-8). Love is superior by virtue of its quality.
Love is also superior because of its permanence. It endures and will be present throughout eternity. Spiritual gifts were not designed to transcend the first century. They will cease when “that which is perfect is come.” When the full revelation of the New Testament was completed, then there was no need for the spiritual gifts (which the Corinthians so eagerly sought) to continue. Some of the gifts (the word of knowledge, prophecy, speaking in tongues, and interpreting tongues) had to do with the revelation of God’s Word. Once it was entirely revealed, these abilities were no longer necessary. Other gifts endorsed God’s messenger (healing, working of miracles) so that, as in the case of Jesus, people would know they could trust the message. Once the New Testament was entirely revealed and endorsed, the gifts would pass away. There is no Holy Spirit baptism today, and no one possesses a spiritual gift that involves the miraculous.
Doctrine #8: The Initial Physical Evidence Of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit
The baptism of Christians in the Holy Spirit is accompanied by the initial sign of speaking in other tongues (unlearned languages) as the Spirit of God gives them audible expression (Acts 2:4) (10).
It is true that, after the apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit, they were able to speak in tongues, and we appreciate the fact that this statement acknowledges that these tongues were actual languages, although the text makes clear that they were (Acts 2:4-11). Since this passage provides this definition of speaking in tongues, all other references are viewed in light of it.
In Acts 10 Cornelius and his friends also were able to speak in tongues after being baptized in the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44-46). But these are the only two specific instances of such an event in the New Testament. In Acts 19 twelve men did speak in tongues, but it was after Paul laid his hands on them—not as the result of baptism in the Holy Spirit (v. 6). None of these passages says anything about the continuation of this supernatural ability, and in fact, as we have already shown, it was designed to come to an end shortly.
What is “experienced” by people today is not what the Bible refers to as speaking in tongues. In the first place, they do not speak in actual languages which they have never studied or heard. Many of the utterances have been tested by linguists who have been unable to identify them with any known language in the world. Second, when these people go to other countries, they must prepare by studying those languages, which would be unnecessary if baptism in the Holy Spirit and speaking in tongues were still occurring. Third, what they experience is a form of emotional ecstasy, and pagan cults had the same utterances in the first century. Unfortunately, many get “Hooked on a Feeling” and cannot be persuaded otherwise.
Doctrine #9: Sanctification
The Bible does teach that Christians are to devote themselves to becoming holy (Rom. 12:1-2). We would object to the following statement if by it they are referring to direct help: “Living in holiness is possible by the power of the Holy Spirit” (12). Does the Holy Spirit help the Christian? He absolutely does—through His Word (Acts 20:32) and through Providence. Does He provide direct, immediate, His-Spirit-to-our-spirit help? This position is absolutely false whether taught by those of the Pentecostal persuasion or by brother Mac Deaver.
Doctrine #10: The Church and Its Mission
This document says: “The Church includes all Christians and has no boundaries as to age, race, gender, or denomination” (12). Two of these are singled out in Galatians 3:27-28. No New Testament passage mentions denominations because there were none! It is an assumption that God accepts such divisions. Although all acknowledge that Jesus prayed for unity (John 17: 20-21) and that Paul advocated brethren being perfectly joined together in the same mind and the same judgment (1 Cor. 1:10; cf. Phil. 1:27), they fail to apply these principles. He even called those who accepted the idea of division carnal (1 Cor. 3:1-5). Denominationalism is simply unacceptable.
The baptism in the Holy Spirit, the Assemblies of God teach, enables believers to “evangelize in the power of the Spirit with accompanying supernatural signs (Mark 16:15-20; Acts 4:29-31, Hebrews 2:3-4)” (14). The question everyone should ask is, “Why, in the 87 years since this position was stated, have we never seen evangelism accompanied by such signs?”
Doctrine #11: The Ministry
One should ask a question about a sentence in this section, also: “These specially ordained ministers today include pastors, evangelists, and teachers of the Word.” We agree, but what about the apostles and prophets mentioned in the same verse—Ephesians 4:11? If they insist upon having the baptism in the Holy Spirit, such as the apostles received, why do they not have apostles (or at least prophets) too?
Doctrine #12: Divine Healing
Divine healing from God is an integral part of the gospel. Deliverance from sickness is provided in the Atonement (Christ’s suffering and death for our reconciliation with God). Healing is a privilege of all believers (Isaiah 53:4-5; Matthew 8:16-17; James 5:14-16) (14).
It is sad when any Biblical teaching cannot even square itself with reality. Thirty years ago this writer, when visiting a nearby hospital, browsed through the card file supplied for preachers. The hospital made available a box divided by religious denominations. Any one who went to visit someone there could check the information and see if any members were there who had checked that particular religious preference. It was obvious that there were just as many sick people from the Assemblies of God as any other religious group in town. Even the “pastor’s” wife was frequently on the list. Why did she not claim her healing privilege? How embarrassing for her husband to have to speak about doctrine #12 while his wife was in the hospital! Incredibly, they admit this problem.
“Though we cannot explain why some are healed while others are not…. The fact that some are not healed does not destroy the fact that God can and does heal” (14-15). This is a “cardinal” doctrine, which they affirm is true but cannot explain why it sometimes fails. It does not work because God does not heal miraculously today. No one on the face of the earth has seen anything remotely akin to what occurred in the days of Jesus and the apostles. Does anyone walk into a hospital and leave with all the patients completely whole? Jesus, in effect, did (Mark 6:54-56); so did Peter (Acts 5:15-16) and Paul (Acts 19:11-12).
If Divine healing were a privilege for all believers, who would not want to be a Christian? How many really enjoy pain and suffering? Jesus said that God “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matt. 5:45). For that reason we find that Christians often suffer and the ungodly enjoy good health. The verse from Isaiah and quoted by Matthew is part of the description of the Christ which does not relate to His atonement. His lack of physical beauty is described in verse two; His compassion regarding our grief’s and sorrows is mentioned in verse four. While it is true that Isaiah 52:13-53:12 deals primarily with our Lord’s atoning work, not every phrase does. This doctrine stands on faulty ground.
Doctrines 13-16: Eschatology
The thirteenth doctrine, “The Blessed Hope,” is the last of the four “cardinal” doctrines. The writers correctly say that Christians who have died “will one day rise from their graves and will meet the Lord in the air.” They add that Christians yet alive will also be caught up to be with the Lord (15). These statements are fine as far as they go, but the fourteenth teaching is: “The Millennial Reign.”
The second coming of Christ includes the rapture of all Christians, which is our blessed hope, followed by the visible return of Christ with His saints to reign on the earth for 1000 years (Zechariah 14:5; Matthew 24:27, 30; Revelation 1:7, 19:11-14, 20:1-6). This millennial (1,000-year) reign will bring the salvation of Israel as a nation (Ezekiel 37:21-22; Zephaniah 3:19-20; Romans 11:26-27) and the establishment of universal peace (Psalm 72:3-8; Isaiah 11:6-9; Micah 4:3-4) (16).
If the reader will look up all of these passages, he will discover that only one of them mentions one thou-sand years and it is found in a book filled with symbols (Rev. 20:1-6). Making this a literal period of time involves an unwarranted conclusion. The passage says not a word about the city of Jerusalem or the nation of Israel. The verses from Matthew 24 pertain to the destruction of Jerusalem—not a so-called millennial reign. This teaching is one of the hokiest ever devised.
A few New Testament verses destroy the entire concept. First, Jesus rejected the idea of being king (John 6:15). Second, He told Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Why do some, then, insist that he be an earthly king? Jesus came to establish a spiritual kingdom, which He made known at the very start of His ministry: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand…” (Mark. 1:15). The kingdom which the Lord established was a spiritual kingdom, the church (Matt. 16:18).
“The Final Judgment” (doctrine #15) is correct when it says that the wicked shall receive everlasting punishment (16-17). The sixteenth doctrine involves: “The New Heavens and the New Earth.” Somewhat surprisingly they say that, after the Millennium (about which they are mistaken), “all Christians will dwell forever with God and have access to a beautiful, restored universe.” Peter’s words are figurative not literal (2 Pet. 3:13). One wonders how they square this with the new Jerusalem described in Revelation 21:2. But even more remarkable is the fact that in these last four sections, dealing with the end of the earth and our future hope, the word Heaven is not mentioned once. What is the reason for that? It is a Biblical concept and a Biblical word, appearing 284 times in the New Testament, including 1 Peter 1:4, which speaks of our incorruptible and undefiled inheritance, reserved in Heaven.
We have shown that the Assemblies of God began in 1914—not on the day of Pentecost. They do not teach the truth regarding salvation, worship, the Holy Spirit, and the end of time. To be pleasing to God, we must faithful follow the plain teachings of the Scriptures on all of these fundamental doctrines.
