Pentecostalism (Assemblies of God)

Baptism in the Holy Spirit as a SECOND, distinct experience subsequent to conversion — an empowering for witness and service separate from being born again (they affirm every believer already has the indwelling Spirit; this is an added enduement of power).

Their basis
The narrative pattern in Acts: the disciples believed, then were told to wait and were filled at Pentecost (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4-5; 2:4); the Samaritans believed under Philip, then later received the Spirit when Peter and John came (Acts 8:14-17); Paul asked the Ephesian disciples, 'Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?' and laid hands on them (Acts 19:2-6). From this they teach a two-stage order — regeneration, then a later Spirit-baptism for power.

Scripture answers
Scripture teaches that every believer is baptized in the one Spirit into the body of Christ AT conversion, not in a later second stage: 'For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body' (1 Cor 12:13); 'if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to him' (Rom 8:9); believers are 'sealed with the promised Holy Spirit' the moment they believe (Eph 1:13-14); the Spirit is received 'by hearing with faith' (Gal 3:2-3; Titus 3:5-6). The Acts sequences are transitional accounts of the gospel crossing to new groups (Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles, disciples of John), not a normative two-step formula — and Cornelius's household received the Spirit the very moment they believed, before any laying on of hands (Acts 10:44-47).

1 Cor 12:13Rom 8:9Eph 1:13-14Gal 3:2-3Titus 3:5-6Acts 10:44-47

In fairness: They are rightly reacting against a cold, merely intellectual faith. The Spirit's empowering IS real, and Scripture genuinely describes fresh fillings AFTER conversion — Ephesians 5:18 commands 'be being filled' (continuous), and the already-Spirit-filled believers of Acts 4:31 were filled again. So subsequent experiences of the Spirit's power are biblical; the error is only in making one such experience a required, separate second 'baptism,' when the New Testament ties the Spirit's indwelling to the moment of faith itself.

Speaking in tongues as the 'initial physical evidence' — the uniform, expected sign that a person has received the baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Their basis
In Acts, tongues accompany the outpouring of the Spirit in the clearest cases (Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19:6). From these they infer that tongues is the consistent initial physical evidence, so a believer who has not spoken in tongues has not yet been Spirit-baptized.

Scripture answers
Paul's rhetorical questions in 1 Cor 12:29-30 — 'Do all speak with tongues?' — are framed in Greek to expect the answer NO; the Spirit 'apportions to each one individually as he wills' (1 Cor 12:11), and no single gift is given to all. When the Samaritans received the Spirit (Acts 8:17), no tongues are even mentioned. The Bible's own test of whether the Spirit indwells someone is the fruit of the Spirit — love, joy, peace, patience (Gal 5:22-23) — and the Spirit's inner witness that we are God's children (Rom 8:16), not one particular sign gift. Making tongues the required proof binds a rule tighter than Scripture does and can leave sincere Christians doubting a salvation that is already theirs.

1 Cor 12:111 Cor 12:29-30Acts 8:14-17Gal 5:22-23Rom 8:16

In fairness: Tongues really does appear repeatedly in Acts at moments of Spirit-outpouring, so they are not inventing it. And Paul himself values the gift — 'I want you all to speak in tongues' (1 Cor 14:5), 'do not forbid speaking in tongues' (1 Cor 14:39) — so their refusal to despise the gift is more biblical than a blanket dismissal of it. The overreach is only in universalizing one gift as the mandatory evidence.

Divine healing as a present-day provision — physical healing is included in the atonement and is to be expected through prayer and the prayer of faith.

Their basis
'By his wounds we are healed' (Isa 53:5), which Matthew applies to Jesus's healing ministry (Matt 8:16-17); the promise of James 5:14-15 to anoint the sick and pray the prayer of faith; the signs of Mark 16:17-18; and 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever' (Heb 13:8).

Scripture answers
God truly does heal, and James 5:14-15 commands the church to pray for the sick — the AG is right about that. But Scripture never guarantees healing in this life on demand: Paul's thorn was left unremoved after three prayers, with grace given instead (2 Cor 12:7-9); Paul left Trophimus sick at Miletus (2 Tim 4:20); told Timothy to take wine for his stomach (1 Tim 5:23); and Epaphroditus nearly died of illness (Phil 2:27). Peter applies 'by his wounds you have been healed' to healing from SIN (1 Pet 2:24). The full redemption of the body is a resurrection hope, not a present entitlement (Rom 8:23). The danger to guard against is any teaching that blames the still-sick for a lack of faith — Jesus explicitly denied that sickness always traces to the sufferer's fault (John 9:3).

James 5:14-152 Cor 12:7-92 Tim 4:201 Tim 5:23Phil 2:271 Pet 2:24Rom 8:23John 9:3

In fairness: They are right to reject a cold naturalism that denies God still heals — He does, and the church that never prays for the sick disobeys James 5. To the AG's credit, its official position rejects the extreme 'name-it-claim-it' prosperity teaching that it is always God's will to heal and that failure proves insufficient faith. The tradition becomes binding only where expectation hardens into guarantee.

The 'Blessed Hope' — belief in an imminent premillennial (pre-tribulation) rapture of the church followed by a literal thousand-year reign, held within a dispensational end-times framework.

Their basis
'The Lord himself will descend... and we will be caught up' (1 Thess 4:16-17); 'waiting for our blessed hope' (Titus 2:13); the trumpet and the changed body (1 Cor 15:51-52); the thousand years of Rev 20:1-6; the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24).

Scripture answers
The certainty of Christ's personal, visible, glorious return is true and is shared by the whole church (Acts 1:11; John 14:3; 1 Thess 4:16-17) — this is not a dividing line. But the specific timetable (a pre-tribulation rapture, a literal 1,000-year interval as opposed to amillennial or postmillennial readings) is a matter on which faithful, Bible-honoring Christians have long differed, and Jesus said no one knows the day or hour and that it is not for us to know the times (Matt 24:36; Acts 1:7). The wise course is to hold the fact of His return firmly and the chart of its stages humbly — describe where Scripture is plain, and don't impose where it isn't.

Acts 1:111 Thess 4:16-17Titus 2:13Matt 24:36Acts 1:72 Pet 3:9-13

In fairness: Their eager, watchful expectation of Christ's return is thoroughly biblical — 'stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming' (Matt 24:42) — and the core hope they proclaim is the church's universal confession. Only the detailed end-times schematic is disputable, and there they hold one honorable option among several, not an error of the gospel.