I think AoG—as I was reared . . .
are typically quite broadly generous, kind, inclusive of a wide diversity of people—come as you are . . . mostly at least the better ones . . . strongly supportive of the family, Biblical inerrancy, basic doctrines of the faith; Acts 2; I Cor 12-14 etc.
They can be fairly narrow and rigid on their view of their distinctives—speaking in tongues being—at least used to be—THE test of “being Spirit filled.” That’s the one main one I disagreed with.
Yet, they do suffer a fairly diverse range of teachings as long as their ministers support the basic doctrines of Christianity and are NOT cessationists . . . and PREACH SCRIPTURE STRAIGHTFORWARDLY.
They are not—or were not when I was in them—overly rigid about the Rapture. And a lot of other things they may believe but hold loosely and are not dogmatic about.
There is a lot of encouraging individuals to go to The Bible and study for themselves vs just taking what the preacher says.
I like that.
Insert pic: RoseAnn Roseannadana
It's always something. There's the rubber meeting the road. Premise: A "Bible only" church gets a lot right but is "off" on a few things. Next move should be to look elsewhere for less wrong.
Then one can find that a "small wrong thing" in the new church was a big right thing in the previous church. I cite the example of water baptism.
Some "Bible only" faith traditions claim it is essential to salvation. Others teach that while baptism should be done, that its reception is not essential to salvation.
I have tried, sporadically, over the years on this board, for someone who defends sola scriptura to rationalize this. I have never seen it done.