Baptist Brider Position?

I would be very careful with any church that believes in the Baptist Bride position. I feel people take this position because of pride. Let me tell you there is no such thing as good pride.
Gratefullness to God should always take the place of pride. Pride always lifts yourself up rather than God.

Just my 2cents.

Phil

 

I am not one who holds to this position, but I think it would be helpful to say that some people may confuse some churches which hold to a 'closed' communion to be the same as a 'Baptist Brider' church. I was briefly part of an independent Sovereign Grace Baptist church here in Florida that held to closed communion, but was sometimes accused of being a Baptist Brider church. Baptist Bride churches are also known as "Landmark" Baptist churches, hence 'Landmarkism'. I don't think that anything in Scripture would support Landmarkism, and it is generally considered to be heresy.

 

I never held to it, but my dad believed it. Something about the other denominations being the guests and John the Baptist being the best man. Also he believed that the Baptists could trace their history back to Christ without going through the RCC. And that meant that the baptist church was a spotless bride.

 

I had a very similar experience myself. I was a member of a "baptist bride" church some years ago. I did not know anything about this doctrine when I joined, but I soon grew confused and discussed this with my pastor. We were unable to reconcile this difference so I ended up leaving the church. Although I do not agree with this doctrine, the people at this church were some of the best Christians I have known. I did not have any hard feelings with anyone and left on good terms. Sometimes I still miss the compassion that church showed to its members.

 

Hi,I was a member of a church for 3yrs that was not founded on this belief.However a new pastor was called who was a baptist brider all the way.From that time on no one was allowed into the membership that was not baptised in a baptist church.Chaos soon errupted.
Years later while a member of a different baptist church,our pastor told of an experience he had at a preachers conference he was asked to speak at.He opened his message with a short testimony and told of how he was saved as a child in a pentecostal church.Immediately most of the preachers present closed their bibles and faced the back til he finished.As far as they were concerned he wasn't even saved.

 

I thought the 'bride of Christ' was ALL saved people as opposed to a specific church?

 

I wonder if it could be pride that causes us to believe others hold their doctrines based on pride, while we believe we hold our own based on conviction??

Also, a clarification on "Baptist Briders" and "Landmarkers" - the two are not the same. "Baptist Briders" are always "Landmarkers", but all "Landmarkers" do not hold the "Baptist Bride" position. And as LRL71 noted, many Baptists can be "closed communion" Baptists without being either "Landmarkers" or "Baptist Briders".

 

Sounds like "if you don't belong to my church, then you aren't saved."
Same thing the RCC says, and we berate them for it.

 

Debby, some "Baptist Briders" do believe that, or at least make statements that would lead to that conclusion. While they would be wrong and need to be corrected, they might nevertheless hold that belief out of conviction that the Bible teaches it, rather than holding it out of pride. That doesn't make them right, but those of us who assume we hold our beliefs out of a conviction that it is what the Bible teaches ought to afford others the same courtesy. Therefore, our argument should be that the Scriptures do not substantiate their position, not that believe what they do because they are proud.

Most "Baptist Briders", however, though they may hold some weird positions about others and the marriage supper, etc., do not believe they or their church are the only people who are saved.

 

Just thought about this. There is a little booklet that I see around the internet and on e-bay that someone might be interested in, and only costs a couple of bucks. Whether it is worth it or not is your call. Information on this site: Blunders and Boo-Boos of Baptist Briders
or
try a search on e-bay; you might get it for a buck.

 

I think that another booklet that is used by such churches is called "The Trail of Blood" by B.H. Carroll. It seems that some Landmark Baptist churches are also baptist brider churches, and one can see how the two have married (pun intended!) into each others teachings. Baptist successionism + baptist brider = heresy. Ugh....

 

The Trail of Blood was written by James Milton Carroll, brother of Benajah Harvey (Carroll).

 

Emily: This is an interesting topic, however, we must abide by the Posting Rules of the BB that we all read and agreed to when we joined.

Thanks,
§ue

 

Depends on how you define Baptist Brider.
Some go as far as putting pulpit affiliations etc and trying to reace their local church and its beginnings back to the Apostles etc. almost or simialr to a geneology.
That would be a hard line to follow for a particular church.

I and many, many IFB believe that all saved people will be at the marriage of the Lamb.
The Bible does say that the wedding will be furnished with guests Matt. 22:10
There is a bride and a bride groom
John The Baptist is a friend of the Bride

So - who are the guests?

In order to be a member of a local New Testament Baptist Church - one must give evidence of Salvation and then be Scripturally Baptized.

As a Bible Believing Baptist - I believe that this baptism is Scriptural. If the baptism I administer through this local church is Un-Scriptural, then I had better get Scriptural baptism.

Believing that the Church started before Pentecost by Jesus Himself when He "called out" of all of His disciples, 12 Apostles and with them, He started/began the 1st New Testament Church. It is a local, visible church and not a universal, invisible church as many Baptist teach which is not Bible doctrine but rather Roman Catholic teachings/theology.

Only the local church has the right to administer Baptism. If the church is not Scriptural, then its baptism can not be scriptural.

For us and many, many, many IFB churches and many SBC churches as well as others; we cannot take Pentecostal baptism - they are into tongues and losing salvation. Methodist immersion as they are way off in many doctrines - catholic; mormon; SDA; J.W's; etc. We do not take or accept Bible Church baptism - They may immerse, but most receive baptism from such unscriptural churches. Many say that they do not recognize such baptisms and only receive members with out their baptism .... presents 2 basic problems.
1. A church member with NO baptism 2. a church member ... even though Bible Church will not recognize their baptism re/catholic/ pentecostal etc ... that member came into that Bible church with such baptism.

Only those with scriptural baptisms will be in the Bride of Christ and that only leaves Bible believing Baptists.

Our history is one of persecution for sticking by Bible doctrines. Our detractors have put us back to the times of the Apostles and some put us back to the 1st century. etc.
As Baptists ... we did not come out of Rome; we are NOT Protestants.

If I am not (I'm not) eccumenical, then why be ecumenical in baptisms and the Lord's Table?
Don't make sense to me.

The problem with many who do not agree is that most of them are universal church and/or church started on Day of Pentecost. Both theories are just that --- theories and cannot be proven in Scripture.

Hope this helps

 

All those Bible Churches are just out of luck huh?
Somebody ought to tell the people of John MacArthur's church their not really baptized. Sounds so Roman Catholic.

 

Would someone give me evidence that "Baptists" existed in, say, 1179 AD.

It is impossible because the baptist denomination did not exist then.
To believe that it did is to believe in a fairy tale. Sounds nice, but has no historical backing.

To believe that we were hidden baptists in other cults and heretics such as the waldenisians, paulicians, albigenses, and donatists, is no worse believing that baptists came out of the catholic church.

All believed some strange things.

Also the booklet "trail of blood" is not true church history.
Just wishful thinking.

It is impossible for a local church to trace their lineage back to Christ. Try it. I did.
I got back over a hundred years but that was it.

In order to do it you'd have to believe in a universal church. Which baptist briders don't.
neither do those that believe they are pedigree baptists.

In the "Trail of Blood" Carroll writes, on pg. 9. "Mark well! That neither Christ nor His apostles, ever gave to his followers, what is know today as a denominational name, such as "Catholic," "Lutheran," "Presbyterian," "Episcopal," and so forth- unless the name given by Christ to John was intended for such...."

Show me where Christ was the first to call John "the Baptist"

He was called "the Baptist" because he baptized.

Study true church history before you believe fairy tales.

For some to say they are not protesting the Catholic church and then turn around and say that the Catholic church is full of heresey is double-talk. I am a protestant. I protest heresy.

I am also Baptist and proud of it.