Baptist Preacher Uses Book of Mormon and Bible

[DavyCrocket2003]

Hello my friends. I was originally going to post this in the LDS DIR. But I realized there may be other Christians that would find this man and what he preaches fascinating. His name is Lynn Ridenhour and here is a link to his YouTube channel.

I was raised as part of "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" often referred to as Mormons.
That being said, I have many theological differences with most if not all of my brothers and sisters.

I have been blown away by this man and the way he preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ. It's refreshingly simple. Instead of "The Book of Mormon is true, so join our church, and follow everything we tell you" it's more of a "The Book of Mormon is true, so read it, and believe in Jesus."

The miracles he and his associates and friends are experiencing are cross-denominational. It gives me true hope for a day ahead when we won't care whether someone is Methodist, Catholic, Mormon or Pentecostal. When we will all come together as the body of Christ. It's not about who's right, after all, it's about what's right. I feel like it's a lot easier to share the Book of Mormon as a witness of Christ to someone when there are no strings attached.

In the words of Lynn Ridenhour in his video The Book of Mormon: How Baptist Can You Get?
"Lest you misunderstand me, it is never my intent to get you or anyone to believe in the Book of Mormon. Just as, as a Baptist minister, it is never my intent to get you or anyone to believe in the Bible. It is ALWAYS my intent to get you to believe in Jesus Christ."

Since I don't get on often if anyone wants to reach me they can use my email. [email protected]

 

[Brickjectivity]

Once in a while somebody does try to bridge between the two communities, but it is a wide one. This looks like just one baptist preacher, and usually they do want people to believe in 'The Bible'. It can vary, because many baptist churches are independent and can take different stances. The stance he takes in the video would not be acceptable in many places. He is not taking the typical fundamentalist stance which I'm familiar with. I think this is a one-hit wonder.

 

[Terry Sampson]

He is not taking the typical fundamentalist stance which I'm familiar with. I think this is a one-hit wonder.

"He is not taking the typical fundamentalist stance" ... Indeed, Ridenhour is not taking the typical fundamentalist stance.

• The Baptist Version of the Book of Mormon - by Lynn ridenhour
  • "I’m still a Baptist minister. To be exact, I’m "charismatic Baptist." That is, I still embrace the "born again" experience. I still believe you’re saved by grace. By the shed blood of Christ. Salvation is by faith alone in His finished work on Calvary. I still believe in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit. I believe and embrace those cardinal doctrines of Protestantism.
  • "a charismatic southern Baptist" who believes in the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the Spirit opens him-/herself to the possibility that that Church canon is or should be open. In fact, he wrote: "I have discovered, there are two extra-biblical teachings propagated by Protestantism that must be dealt with before most of us will take the Book of Mormon seriously: 1) the doctrine of canonization, and 2) the teaching of the rapture. Both are cardinal doctrines of Protestantism and both are extra-biblical teachings. That is, neither is supported by the Word of God."
  • There are several denominations which do NOT promote the rapture, but do hold that the canon of Scripture is closed. "The rapture" has to do with what has not yet happened. "Canonization" has to do with what has happened. Break down the "wall" inherent in the notion of "Canon", add the Baptism in the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the spirit, and I say all sorts of wild things can happen.
    • That, IMO, is along the lines of what the Baha'i want everybody to believe. Shall we also join the Baha'i?
    • And I wonder: any chance that the charismatic Baptist's ministry will reconcile Christians and Muslims or Christians and Jehovah's Witnesses and 7th Day Adventists?
  • What's next? Everyone praying and singing in the Spirit?
  • For the record: I was a bosom-brother with Catholic Charismatics in the mid 1970s and I am still partial to a Charismatic worship service.

 

[Clear]

I grew up baptist and discovered the restorational Christian movement (i.e. the attempt to returning to or restore early Christianity etc) a few years ago and while I think that revelation is the quickest and most efficient way to discover earlier foundational principles of early Christianity, I still like historical discovery of these same principles. I found that I did not have to give up any specific principle of knowledge of Jesus in adopting restorational Christian theology (LDS theology), but rather that it gave form to my historical interests.

For example, in the 20th century, we saw the discovery, translation and printing of more early Judeo-Christian texts than all other centuries combined (Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hamadi, Onchyrynchus, Elephantine - brooklyn papyri, molton and milligans koine discoveries, Jewish epigraphs, etc....) While religious historians are making absolutely wonderful discoveries and gaining insight into early Judeo-Christianity and what it might have been like, it is funneling us in similar directions to the restorational movements. For example, I was entertained to see Micheal Heiser, the wonderful hebraist and his Ph.D thesis in Hebrew and the early context of Elohim. He was accused of being a "closet Mormon" and found himself trying to distinguish his historical discoveries from LDS / mormon theology. Even in his appeal that he was not a member of the Church of Jesus Christ (of LDS) he offered what he thought were differences and the LDS respondants pointed out that he actually was in agreement with the LDS theology whether he was aware of it or not.

I also noticed in reading the 2000 page two volume set of Charlesworth that Charlesworth is converted to multiple LDS principles by virtue of his studies of early Jewish epigraphs. He is adopting these religious historical positions but I do not know if he is aware that they are LDS positions as well. Similarly, I as well, have known about the early Judeo-Christian belief in a pre-existence of spirits before birth and of the world of spirits after death but the LDS theology has the same doctrinal theology but in a much more mature and formed version. I do not really know how many years of historical study it saved me to use the LDS model to make sense of the early texts and how the various textual discoveries could be made coherent. It was a wonderful discovery for me.

Historians of early literature are simply being funneled in the LDS direction in specific areas as we learn more about what early Judeo-Christianity was like.

Clear

 

[MikeDwight]

Interestingly I don't need the Bible to not be a fan. Presbyterians adopt the end of Revelation and the completeness of that Revelation and that it is in the Bible, would put Mormons with the Pope in saying that God has a lot of other things said. Hooray for his active guiding role in our lives.

 

[Clear]

I think that I can see @MikeDwight 's point.

Regular "sunday school" type of Christians who are unaware of historical parallels or of restorational theology and it's value will often, NOT be either aware of or, generally, interested in the early Christian doctrines, nor how they differ from the later, more modern Christian movements with their various doctrines and worldviews.

While I am excited to see the wonderful historical discoveries regarding early Christianity and it's doctrines I expect that early Christianity may be somewhat disorienting to them. While I think, personally, that the earliest base Judeo-Christian doctrines of the earliest centuries are more logical and rational and intuitive than the later Christian theories, I do not think many of the "average" Christians will have been exposed to many of the early christian worldviews and doctrines and interpretations, and will not have the same type of appreciation for them as the religious historians and religious linguists. Often, they will even be antagonistic to early Christian doctrines and interpretations since the early Christian's held a different same religion than the later competing Christian movements adopted.

Another difficulty for individuals in the more modern Christian movements is that they cannot use the early Christian literature in the same manner as the restorationists since the doctrines have evolved so much. So, while restorationists are able to pick up 1st Enoch literature from 300 b.c. or the Apostolic Fathers from the first century a.d. and use such texts in their sunday school lessons without a doctrinal ripple, the later Christian movements will be unable to use much of the early Christian literature as it is is foreign to some of the more modern theological models and interpretations.

Clear
εισισιω

 

[MikeDwight]

I think that I can see @MikeDwight 's point.

Regular "sunday school" type of Christians who are unaware of historical parallels or of restorational theology and it's value will often, NOT be either aware of or, generally, interested in the early Christian doctrines, nor how they differ from the later, more modern Christian movements with their various doctrines and worldviews.

While I am excited to see the wonderful historical discoveries regarding early Christianity and it's doctrines I expect that early Christianity may be somewhat disorienting to them. While I think, personally, that the earliest base Judeo-Christian doctrines of the earliest centuries are more logical and rational and intuitive than the later Christian theories, I do not think many of the "average" Christians will have been exposed to many of the early christian worldviews and doctrines and interpretations, and will not have the same type of appreciation for them as the religious historians and religious linguists. Often, they will even be antagonistic to early Christian doctrines and interpretations since the early Christian's held a different same religion than the later competing Christian movements adopted.

Another difficulty for individuals in the more modern Christian movements is that they cannot use the early Christian literature in the same manner as the restorationists since the doctrines have evolved so much. So, while restorationists are able to pick up 1st Enoch literature from 300 b.c. or the Apostolic Fathers from the first century a.d. and use such texts in their sunday school lessons without a doctrinal ripple, the later Christian movements will be unable to use much of the early Christian literature as it is is foreign to some of the more modern theological models and interpretations.

Clear
εισισιω

The expected, rational conclusions, of the American 2nd Great Awakening and its fruits. This is definitely our own harvest. First the Methodists will say that the World is their Parish. There is no Fence in the world of Any religion the Methodist can't jump over, trespass with their evangelic camp meeting. The Baptists don't believe in anything but an adult's active conversion, no child baptism, so as to full heretically reject the 2 billion of Christ's followers with a 3 yardstick. The "sunday school" types of the 2000 year type in Europe and any thought of religion that anyone ever thought which is only with Us, totally rejected. @Clear is Exactly this school of mysterious Theologian , that myself, the common man, have been given no open forum, no conversation, no say, in their practices and their claims over the souls of Americans. Isn't that right?

 

[Clear]

Hi @MikeDwight


1) EARLY CHRISTIANS DESCRIBED IN EARLY WRITINGS, THEIR BELIEF, PRACTICES AND THEIR INTERPRETATIONS OF THEIR SCRIPTURES
My first point was that the early historical Judeo-Christians wrote a great number of texts, written by early Christians themselves, that describe their own understanding, and their own doctrines, and their own interpretations of scriptures and their own worldviews in their own language.


2) TEXTS WRITTEN BY EARLY AUTHENTIC HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY ARE MOST COMFORTABLE TO CHRISTIANITIES WITH SIMILAR DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES
The second point is that a restoration movement that seeks to readopt the earliest and most authentic Historical Christianity with their beliefs will be most able to comfortably use early Judeo-Christian texts that describe those early beliefs. A later Christian movement that has far different doctrines and practices will find such texts less comfortable and more disorienting to the degree that they are dissimilar in doctrine and practice with early Christianity and their textual descriptions.


MikeDwight said : "@Clear is Exactly this school of mysterious Theologian , that myself, the common man, have been given no open forum, no conversation, no say, in their practices and their claims over the souls of Americans. Isn't that right?" (post #7)

I honestly could not follow the logic of your post, nor even this specific comment and so am not really sure what you are trying to say. For example, you claim inside of an open forum that you have “no open forum”, and you claim inside of our present conversation that you have “no conversation” or when you claim inside your response that you have “no say”. These claims do not make obvious sense.

Can you re-explain in a logical, rational, way, what it is you are trying to say?

In any case I hope your spiritual journey in this life is wonderful and full of insights

Clear
τωειειω

 

[MikeDwight]

@Clear
We'll wake up and die having an authoritarian establishment of religion, my friend. The Faith Journey that Eisenhower imposed Religious Leadership in America, made Under God We Trust a US motto, and the Presbyterians established by suggesting a religious Pledge of Allegiance to the President? What a sick Faith Journey.
Put PCUSA with all the "Religions" of the skeptics put together in the United States alone. That'd include 8m Methodist, 16m Baptist, 6m LDS, lets do it in reverse, there's 75% of the United States claiming they're Christian and those from Europe, 8m Lutheran, 5m Presbyterian, 2m Anglican, 23m Catholic, that's 40 million of that not made in 200 years of the United States. What an insane country. Anyone in the world point and say, what an insane country.

The Early Christians for good reason should assume their world is about to end, that they need to gird their loins like the soldiers. That's not modernism, biblical interpretation, that's scholarship obviously. The establishment of the Rulership of Christ through the Peace of Christ in all the Nations already throughout Cyprus, Celicia, Greece, and Anatolia is recorded in the book Of Acts and how They, the original Jewish breakaway Scholars Decide that an international Church exists. What insight are you proposing?

 

[Clear]

@Clear
We'll wake up and die having an authoritarian establishment of religion, my friend. The Faith Journey that Eisenhower imposed Religious Leadership in America, made Under God We Trust a US motto, and the Presbyterians established by suggesting a religious Pledge of Allegiance to the President? What a sick Faith Journey.
Put PCUSA with all the "Religions" of the skeptics put together in the United States alone. That'd include 8m Methodist, 16m Baptist, 6m LDS, lets do it in reverse, there's 75% of the United States claiming they're Christian and those from Europe, 8m Lutheran, 5m Presbyterian, 2m Anglican, 23m Catholic, that's 40 million of that not made in 200 years of the United States. What an insane country. Anyone in the world point and say, what an insane country.

The Early Christians for good reason should assume their world is about to end, that they need to gird their loins like the soldiers. That's not modernism, biblical interpretation, that's scholarship obviously. The establishment of the Rulership of Christ through the Peace of Christ in all the Nations already throughout Cyprus, Celicia, Greece, and Anatolia is recorded in the book Of Acts and how They, the original Jewish breakaway Scholars Decide that an international Church exists. What insight are you proposing?

I am proposing that it is easier to understand and respond to logical and reasonable posts than ones that do not have logical and rational thought and data in them. I still don't understand what your posts mean or why you think they are relevant to historical Christianity and the restorational movement of historical christianity.

Clear