A/G Statement on Modern Revivals

[Pastor Gary]

This site contains a video clip (buggy... often freezes) and the written transcript of a statement on "various revivals or ministries held in both Assemblies of God and non-Assemblies of God churches" issued by Assemblies of God General Superintendent George O. Wood with the concurrence of the Executive Presbytery of The General Council of the Assemblies of God.

Wisdom at work, and long overdue.

Quotes:

"The Assemblies of God is irrevocably committed to the inspiration of Scripture, that the Bible provides the assessment tools needed for evaluating doctrine and experience, and is deeply hungry for the continued filling and empowerment of the Holy Spirit."

"...it is well for us to look at the safeguards the Bible provides in helping us "test everything."

"...the focus for any lasting revival always must be on Jesus. The Holy Spirit has not come to glorify Himself, or any human or angelic personality."

"...a doctrinal test for any revival is whether the content of the preaching is the same as Jesus and the apostles. The Word of God stands over personal viewpoints. Any Biblical revival must "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). If so-called truth is being proclaimed that cannot be found in Scripture, then that proclamation violates the specific announcement of Scripture that the faith "was once for all entrusted" and such a proclamation also deviates from the apostles' fidelity to preach the Word, and from the early Church's devotion to the apostles' doctrine."

"Miraculous manifestations are never the test of a true revival - fidelity to God's Word is the test. Jesus Himself said there would be many who would do miracles in His name and even cast out demons..."

"In summary, the message must always be examined. If the message and the messenger line up with God's Word, then the revival is on safe Biblical ground and it should and must be embraced. If not, then even though miracles and manifestations occur, it should be avoided."

[paul]

PG

This is a good balanced statement. I can whole heartidly support it. It rises above the name calling, finger pointing,
It makes it statement, says why, then goes on. It does not attack individuals. It shows the right approach and the right Spirit of Christ. (IMHO)

[THE RAzEr]

PG

This is a good balanced statement. I can whole heartidly support it. It rises above the name calling, finger pointing,
It makes it statement, says why, then goes on. It does not attack individuals. It shows the right approach and the right Spirit of Christ. (IMHO)

I think you are correct. There might be some small part of the statement, I would not have said exactly, but the tone of the statement and it key emphasis is supportable.
Ray

[Pastor Gary]

This is a link to a LIST of links to the Assemblies of God Position Papers on various doctrinal and controversial issues. The more of them I read, the greater my respect for the A/G.

I have, in the past, been troubled that so much wackiness, charismania and general nuttiness seems to have either originated in or been perpetuated and promoted by A/G congregations. It is refreshing and reassuring to read that the organization is more Biblically centered than some of their local churches reflect.

And, what a great idea: how about a series of Scripturally sound position papers on cogop.org reflecting rational, Biblical, well-thought-out positions on these issues? Can we just copy theirs?

[CantBCoy]

I have, in the past, been troubled that so much wackiness, charismania and general nuttiness seems to have either originated in or been perpetuated and promoted by A/G congregations. It is refreshing and reassuring to read that the organization is more Biblically centered than some of their local churches reflect.

I think the strength of the A/G is that each of it's local bodies don't tend to be cookie cutter versions of what their organization has set out for them. One of the reasons I feel that the COGOP has had trouble being relevant is that for too long there was a sense that ALL of our churches had to do the SAME thing. While for some people it was comforting to visit a COGOP anywhere and get the same experience as they had in their home church, this is not a way for churches in general to be successful in their mission to reach the lost of their particular community.

It is assured that by allowing both churches and pastors the freedom to become all things to some, that you'll get your Bentley's and the like. But didn't the early church allow the same thing? Wasn't the church in Jerusalem much different from the church in Corinth? And when Paul had issues with a particular church his recommendation wasn't to become more like the church in Jerusalem or to adopt a certain program. It was to become more like Christ in a manner that would reach the people around them. Not sure if I really have a complete thought here to finish out my statement, but wanted to share my thoughts on this.

[Pastor Gary]

Not sure if I really have a complete thought here to finish out my statement, but wanted to share my thoughts on this.

You had an excellent thought there. Good stuff.

[Gerald Creasy]

This site contains a video clip (buggy... often freezes) and the written transcript of a statement on "various revivals or ministries held in both Assemblies of God and non-Assemblies of God churches" issued by Assemblies of God General Superintendent George O. Wood with the concurrence of the Executive Presbytery of The General Council of the Assemblies of God.

Wisdom at work, and long overdue.

Quotes:

"The Assemblies of God is irrevocably committed to the inspiration of Scripture, that the Bible provides the assessment tools needed for evaluating doctrine and experience, and is deeply hungry for the continued filling and empowerment of the Holy Spirit."

"...it is well for us to look at the safeguards the Bible provides in helping us "test everything."

"...the focus for any lasting revival always must be on Jesus. The Holy Spirit has not come to glorify Himself, or any human or angelic personality."

"...a doctrinal test for any revival is whether the content of the preaching is the same as Jesus and the apostles. The Word of God stands over personal viewpoints. Any Biblical revival must "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints" (Jude 3). If so-called truth is being proclaimed that cannot be found in Scripture, then that proclamation violates the specific announcement of Scripture that the faith "was once for all entrusted" and such a proclamation also deviates from the apostles' fidelity to preach the Word, and from the early Church's devotion to the apostles' doctrine."

"Miraculous manifestations are never the test of a true revival - fidelity to God's Word is the test. Jesus Himself said there would be many who would do miracles in His name and even cast out demons..."

"In summary, the message must always be examined. If the message and the messenger line up with God's Word, then the revival is on safe Biblical ground and it should and must be embraced. If not, then even though miracles and manifestations occur, it should be avoided."

I only wish that these statements were reflected at the local level.

MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:

Some of the defenders of all forms of Pentecostal Nuttery here on Jude 2 are products of AOG.

The large Local AOG -whos pastor sometimes appears on TBN-- is known for having every nut movement that comes down the pike appear there.
If there was a new movement/gimmick like the holy laughter, gold dust gold teeth type thing, they're on it like a hen on a june bug.

At work there are three AOG members. Not a single one of them have a discernment bone in their body. It's like trying to talk to Gomer Pyle.

I was told YESTERDAY, after returning to work and finding one gone, that: that's the reason he retired early...he was going down to Florida to that Revival cause it was a mighty move of God.


I hope Todd Bentley kicks him in the face with his biker boot (as Bentley claims God told him to physically attack one old woman).