Introducing The Baptist Mormon Preacher

[Gwen]

<div class='quotemain'>

i'll admit i read through this very quickly. so if i missed the answer i'm sorry. just wondering, have you ever lived in alabama and have you ever attended an lds chruch? :)

Never lived in Alabama. I've ministered in Alabama. In Huntington, to be exact. And yes, I've attended an lds church.

Lynn

then i guess you aren't the Sis. Ridenhour i knew. lol

[miztrniceguy]

Dr. Lynn, my wife asks if you consider yourself a Trinitarian?

[roman]

BTW, I emphasize a lot the unity within the often chaotic seeming Protestant world. But, there are differences. If I were to do any of the following:

1. Become divorced and then remarry

2. Baptize someone in the name of Jesus only

3. Deny that speaking in tongues in the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism

4. Knowingly officiate a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian

I would have my credentials as a minister revoked.

I beg to differ on #1&4. While they are greatly discouraged, they are not an automatic reason to revoke your credentials. But are revieable on a case by case study.

[john doe]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

i'll admit i read through this very quickly. so if i missed the answer i'm sorry. just wondering, have you ever lived in alabama and have you ever attended an lds chruch? :)

Never lived in Alabama. I've ministered in Alabama. In Huntington, to be exact. And yes, I've attended an lds church.

Lynn

then i guess you aren't the Sis. Ridenhour i knew. lol

It has always been my understanding that Lynn is also person of the male gender. But I could be wrong.

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

BTW, I emphasize a lot the unity within the often chaotic seeming Protestant world. But, there are differences. If I were to do any of the following:

1. Become divorced and then remarry

2. Baptize someone in the name of Jesus only

3. Deny that speaking in tongues in the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism

4. Knowingly officiate a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian

I would have my credentials as a minister revoked.

I beg to differ on #1&4. While they are greatly discouraged, they are not an automatic reason to revoke your credentials. But are revieable on a case by case study.

In the AOG, ministers who have been divorced, regardless of reason (i.e. the other person could be 'at fault') are not allowed to be remarried and retain their credentials. Likewise, we are not to knowingly officiate a wedding between a believer and an unbeliever. You might know of exceptions to these rules, but these are rules in my fellowship.

I know of one case where a minister never consumated his marriage. His new wife had not disclosed serious childhood traumas. It took him three years for the church to recognize the annulment, and grant him permission to remarry.

[roman]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

BTW, I emphasize a lot the unity within the often chaotic seeming Protestant world. But, there are differences. If I were to do any of the following:

1. Become divorced and then remarry

2. Baptize someone in the name of Jesus only

3. Deny that speaking in tongues in the initial physical evidence of Spirit baptism

4. Knowingly officiate a wedding between a Christian and a non-Christian

I would have my credentials as a minister revoked.

I beg to differ on #1&4. While they are greatly discouraged, they are not an automatic reason to revoke your credentials. But are revieable on a case by case study.

In the AOG, ministers who have been divorced, regardless of reason (i.e. the other person could be 'at fault') are not allowed to be remarried and retain their credentials. Likewise, we are not to knowingly officiate a wedding between a believer and an unbeliever. You might know of exceptions to these rules, but these are rules in my fellowship.

I know of one case where a minister never consumated his marriage. His new wife had not disclosed serious childhood traumas. It took him three years for the church to recognize the annulment, and grant him permission to remarry.

Hey PC thanks for the reply.

I have been AOG since 1992 and it may be just a little different here in the Big D. Each case is judged on its own merits.

Would you mind getting your Constitution and Bylaws out and giving me a reference . I realize that By-laws may differ. I site Article VIII section 1 on Christian marriage, with a follow-up on Article IX section 5 for marriage and divorce.

I would be interested in your take, as My District here has moved away from the hard line and I believe that the General Council has too

[prisonchaplain]

Hey PC thanks for the reply.

I have been AOG since 1992 and it may be just a little different here in the Big D. Each case is judged on its own merits.

Would you mind getting your Constitution and Bylaws out and giving me a reference . I realize that By-laws may differ. I site Article VIII section 1 on Christian marriage, with a follow-up on Article IX section 5 for marriage and divorce.

I would be interested in your take, as My District here has moved away from the hard line and I believe that the General Council has too

I double-checked the bylaws. There is a section called "ministerial credentials." It says says the only exception to the no divorce and remarriage is if the divorce occured prior to conversion. And, you are right, this exception is a softening of the former stance, where no exception was allowed. BTW, THIS PROHIBITION IS ONLY FOR CLERGY. MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO DIVORCE AND REMARRY ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

I do not have the bylaw for officiating marriage. However, when I last researched it, I found that I could officiate the wedding of two believers or of two nonbelievers, but not when one of the party is a Christian and the other is not.

[roman]

<div class='quotemain'>

Hey PC thanks for the reply.

I have been AOG since 1992 and it may be just a little different here in the Big D. Each case is judged on its own merits.

Would you mind getting your Constitution and Bylaws out and giving me a reference . I realize that By-laws may differ. I site Article VIII section 1 on Christian marriage, with a follow-up on Article IX section 5 for marriage and divorce.

I would be interested in your take, as My District here has moved away from the hard line and I believe that the General Council has too

I double-checked the bylaws. There is a section called "ministerial credentials." It says says the only exception to the no divorce and remarriage is if the divorce occured prior to conversion. And, you are right, this exception is a softening of the former stance, where no exception was allowed. BTW, THIS PROHIBITION IS ONLY FOR CLERGY. MEMBERS ARE ALLOWED TO DIVORCE AND REMARRY ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

I do not have the bylaw for officiating marriage. However, when I last researched it, I found that I could officiate the wedding of two believers or of two nonbelievers, but not when one of the party is a Christian and the other is not.

I know we are taking only about clergy, but for the sake of discusion I know a man who was a district official in Colo. His wife left him and divorsed him. 3 years later he remarried applied for reinstament and was granted his credentials back. But these are special and not ordinary run of the mill AOG ways. He had to go thru quite alot with the district

I asked a pastor who is a sectional presberter. That an AOG minister could marry a believer to a non believer, under certain special circumstances put that minister would have to get permission from the district office, before preforming the ceramony.

So things may be a bit different here in Dallas

[prisonchaplain]

Roman, we both agree that the exceptions are rare. It may be that we are merely discussing the difference between "case by case" and "in rare cases." I know of a youth pastor, who's wife left him for a doctor, after three years. He was in his mid-twenties, and had to decide whether God had called him to a life of single service as a credentialed minister, or whether he should seek to serve God in other ways, and tender his resignation. Also, I can imagine that if a couple came to the pastor, the girl was a long time member who "had made a few mistakes," and now had a child by the man. The man loves her and is willing for her to be active in the church, but has no interest himself--maybe some districts would allow the pastor to marry such a couple. I'm not personally aware of such a case, but I could envision it.

[a-train]

Would the credentials and the ministerial powers permitted therein that are extended or revoked by the organization be viewed as authority to represent the organization or to represent God? And, after a revocation, would certain works such as baptisms or christenings performed by the individual whose credentials have been withdrawn be acknowledged by the organization as valid in the sight of God, but simply not performed by the organization? Or, would such performances have necessity to be done again by a duly recognized minister?

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

Would the credentials and the ministerial powers permitted therein that are extended or revoked by the organization be viewed as authority to represent the organization or to represent God?

Excellent question! And again, this shows a difference in our views of church governance. The ordaination process is viewed as church leaders "confirming what God has already done." (calling someone to a life of ministry). At the same time, we are a "voluntary fellowship," and do not view ourselves as the only church going. So, in that sense, the revokation of credentials, is viewed as an organizational matter.

It is not unheard of for a minister who's wife divorces him, to tender his resignation, and seek credentialing by another pentecostal denomination, that allows such. Likewise, when I was seeking ordination, I and my classmates were told that if we had difficulties with certain key teachings, we ought to be honest about it, and not proceed. In fact, if our reservations were insurmountable, we could agree to disagree, and our leaders would direct us to denominations where we could serve with honesty and integrity.

And, after a revocation, would certain works such as baptisms or christenings performed by the individual whose credentials have been withdrawn be acknowledged by the organization as valid in the sight of God, but simply not performed by the organization? Or, would such performances have necessity to be done again by a duly recognized minister?

-a-train

Any officiating the minister did while credentialed would remain valid. Furthermore, should an AOG minister tender his resignation, then seek credentialing from a different church, we would recognize any ordinances or sacraments he would perform under that new church. Baptist baptisms are recognized by AOG churches, and we do not require new members to be re-baptized, for example. We do not require those who married in other churches (or even by secular authority) to be remarried by us.

[BenRaines]

Well I was baptized as a Baptist long before I was baptized LDS so my bases are covered. I think that is what my friend said who grew up Catholic. Hey I never asked my name to be removed so if I am mistaken my bases are covered. :)

Ben Raines

[prisonchaplain]

I always thought Ben had some Baptistic tendencies. hmmm

[BenRaines]

I remember vividly as a child at summer revival going forward and kneeling at the front and accepting Christ as my Savior. Later being baptized by Pastor Bob Rawlings in San Martin, California. The beginning of a life of service.

Ben Raines

[roman]

Roman, we both agree that the exceptions are rare. It may be that we are merely discussing the difference between "case by case" and "in rare cases." I know of a youth pastor, who's wife left him for a doctor, after three years. He was in his mid-twenties, and had to decide whether God had called him to a life of single service as a credentialed minister, or whether he should seek to serve God in other ways, and tender his resignation. Also, I can imagine that if a couple came to the pastor, the girl was a long time member who "had made a few mistakes," and now had a child by the man. The man loves her and is willing for her to be active in the church, but has no interest himself--maybe some districts would allow the pastor to marry such a couple. I'm not personally aware of such a case, but I could envision it.

Thanks PC for your answers. I think we are pretty much on the same page. My point was that #1&4 were not reasons for immediate credential removal--------if you worked with your sectional and district officials.

Thanks again-----Merry Christmas

[dr.lynn]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

i'll admit i read through this very quickly. so if i missed the answer i'm sorry. just wondering, have you ever lived in alabama and have you ever attended an lds chruch? :)

Never lived in Alabama. I've ministered in Alabama. In Huntington, to be exact. And yes, I've attended an lds church.

Lynn

then i guess you aren't the Sis. Ridenhour i knew. lol

I'm a guy.

Lynn

[dr.lynn]

Dr. Lynn, my wife asks if you consider yourself a Trinitarian?

You ask no small question.

In fact, I would say – the nature & makeup of the godhead is perhaps one of the most (if not the most) contentious disagreements that exists between evangelicals and Mormons.

How do I deal with that?

Here's the way I look at it. I give you four reasons why I think the way I do:

1) I'm not one hundred percent certain the "good guys" won at the Council of Nicaea. I've heard impressive arguments on both sides. I know the two camps (LDS & Evangelicals) are polarized on the issue of the godhead; i.e., trinitarian versus modalism and the god with a body.

But to really take a "dug-in" position, as I see it, suggests a bit too much audacity on our part. Regardless of which side you’re on. Here’s why.

2) Can the clay say to the Potter? I’m saying—come on, we’re discussing the grandest of all theological mysteries here. The godhead! Can the creature know entirely the nature of its Creator? Without question? Beyond a shadow of a doubt?

I think our position as created beings should be similar to that of Job when the Creator gave Job a pop quiz. In chapters 38 - 40 the Creator of all the universes begins asking Job some mighty grand epistemological, phenomenological, ontological, existential questions:

“Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said, ‘Who is this who darkens counsel by words without knowledge [ouch!]?’” The Lord continues: “Now prepare yourself like a man. I will question you, and you shall answer me. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding…” [ouch again!] (vs.1-4)

And then it goes from bad to worse. The pop quiz gets extremely probing.

The Lord asks a string of anthropology questions, moral questions, ontological questions, and epistemological questions to Job. The questions seem never-ending. Finally, Job in chapter 40 reluctantly responds. Check out his answer:

“Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer you?”(vs.4).

3) I really honestly do think it’s a bit too presumptuous of us to think that we can get a finite grasp on an infinite subject such as the nature and makeup of the godhead.

4) On a more practical note, my position is,…when I get to heaven, and the Lord Jesus walks up to me and says, “Brother Lynn, I want to introduce you to our Father. Come.” And Jesus takes me by the hand, walks me into the Father’s presence and I’m standing before the Father’s throne…my eyes are closed...when I look up and see that the Father has a physical body (or doesn’t have), I guarantee you, I’m not going to slap my thigh with a tinge of arrogance and utter, “Hot damn! I knew I was right all along!”

O, no! Never in a million years.

I will fall before the Father’s throne with a heart swelling with mixed emotions—feelings I’m sure of dread, reverential fear and love and acceptance and joy--all wrapped up into one. Feelings of grand humility rolling over me like a tsunami, my heart swept away by the emotion that I’m home at last. Home at last.

I made it.

Lynn

[a-train]

Wow! You know, this was actually a position often held in the time of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young: the position of ''Tis a Mystery to man!' Somehow it has lost a great deal of support in the last 150 years or so. Of course, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young felt they had additional information which gave license to a more distinct position. Joseph received revelation on the subject of whether the Father and Son have seperate bodies and whether or not they be physical, corporeal tabernacles.

For me, even without modern revelation, the scriptures seem impossible to interpret in a manner that would yield the absence of a physical body for the resurrected Jesus. Within my lifetime, this has always been the question unanswerable it seems by those who are of the position that Jesus has no body today. Questions of 'Where did He lose it, and does that invalidate the resurrection?' come into play.

What has long kept me shocked into laughter has been the use of two key verses together to subtantiate the position of God without a body. The classic anti-mormon set up goes like this:

John 4:24 clearly states: 'God is a Spirit.'

Luke 24:39 says just as plainly: 'a spirit hath not flesh and bones'.

Joseph Smith said: 'The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also'. D&C 120:22

'You see!', they say 'those Mormons reject the true God of the Bible!'

Here is an example of the use of this tactic in a pamphlet. (So kill me, I linked an anti page). I have long seen and heard the use of Luke 24:39 as a Biblical 'proof' of God's bodiless existance.

What a joke! Are they serious? Do the people who read that fail to read those verses! What did the resurrected Jesus say in Luke 24:39? Said He: 'Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.' (emphasis mine)

The Mormons believe the Jesus of the Bible, the one who said he HAS flesh and bones.

To me, it is a further curiousity when I consider also Trinitarianism, Modalism, and other explanations of the Godhead which make the oneness of the Father and Son more poignant than the LDS view. If any of these are right, then God certainly has a body of flesh and bone according to the scriptures. Especially if the modalists are right, then the one Being, the one God, Jesus Only, has a body according to Luke 24:39.

Throughout my mission and throughout my life, I have used Luke 24:39 to demonstrate that God has a body to my investigators and friends and it has never served otherwise, for this purpose I marvel that the antis have the audacity to insult the intelligence of others so greatly as to use that same verse in an out-of-context, butchered fashion. I have yet to meet anyone that supports a reading of that verse that would yield a Jesus without a body of flesh and bone.

-a-train

[prisonchaplain]

I believe most Christians believe that Jesus has a body. In fact, many believe he continues to bare the scars from his crucifixion.

[a-train]

I believe most Christians believe that Jesus has a body. In fact, many believe he continues to bare the scars from his crucifixion.

I think your right. I personally have yet to know a Christian that told me otherwise.

-a-train