Why I'm Not a Baptist Brider
I'm a Baptist and I'm happy to be one. I have a part of the Baptist legacy with great preachers such as the great Charles H. Spurgeon, John Gill (who were Reformed Baptists) and Jonathan Edwards. Today, aside from the problem of churches who call themselves "Baptist" but aren't Baptists there's also the Baptist Bride heresy. I'm also very disappointed at how some Independent Fundamental Baptists may reject Antinomianism and easy believism but they have become Briders. What's worse is that some King James onlyists have bought the Baptist Bride heresy. I may be a KJV only advocate but I don't accept the Baptist Bride heresy to be biblical doctrine.
What's the Baptist Bride heresy? According to Bible Believers in the article "The Plain Truth about the Baptist Bride Heresy", here's what it says:
A "Baptist Brider" is an extreme Baptist who believes that "The Baptist Church" is the Bride of Christ. All other Christians supposedly make up the FAMILY of God, but are not part of THE BRIDE. The details of this heresy differ from one group to the next, but the general teaching is that The Baptist Church (whatever that is!) has existed since the time of Christ (some say John the Baptist) and that "approved" water baptism actually places a believer into the bride. Water baptisms that are not approved are considered "alien" baptisms and are not honored by the Baptist Bride churches. This leaves "aliens" like Bob Jones Sr., John Wesley, George Whitfield, and Martin Luther out of the bride, while the Bridegroom rides off into the sunset with His proud and conceited Baptist sweetheart. However, finding someone who will ADMIT to being a "brider" is not an easy task. Just like the Campbellites, they hate the name, but love the doctrine.
Just reading the definition from a BAPTIST had made me dizzy thinking about how the Baptist Briders misinterpret Scripture. Just the mere thought that all other Christians are supposedly just part of the "family of God" but not the Bride is nowhere in Scripture. Worse, some of them even misquote Scriptures concerning John the Baptist to justify the Baptist Bride heresy. The term Baptist means baptizer, not the denomination. The heresy is just as stupid as misinterpreting Matthew 16:16-18 to justify the papacy or to misinterpret Isaiah 24:15 to justify the claims of the Iglesia Ni Cristo denomination. So much for criticizing cults for misinterpreting Scriptures.
I.) The argument relies on a deductive logical fallacy
I.) The argument relies on a deductive logical fallacy
As I said earlier, any Baptist Brider tries to claim John the Baptist is the founder of the Baptist denomination but it's really built on sinking sand. The claim is just as outrageous as claiming that Peter is the first Pope. It's so stupid how Baptist Briders laugh at Roman Catholics for misinterpreting Matthew 16:16-18 or claim Peter is the first Pope because the argument is outrageous BUT they're giving John the Baptist the exact same treatment. To claim John the Baptist even founded a denomination called "Baptist" is stupid. If that were so, why didn't Jesus appoint the office of first pastor to John the Baptist but to Peter? Take note that Matthew 16:16-18 doesn't also justify the papacy either.
The logical fallacy goes like this, "All people baptized by the Baptist Church are Baptist. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. Therefore Jesus is a Baptist." This is also part of chronological error because the earliest Baptist groups (who came before Roman Catholicism or the Reformation) only existed centuries after John the Baptist died. While Baptists stand by apostolic doctrine but they were merely another group of Christians like the Bereans of the Waldenses. The Baptists may have called themselves as such because they insisted on baptism by immersion done by John the Baptist but there's no way that their supposed "founder" was their founder because he was long gone into glory before the Baptist group of Christians ever existed. If the Roman Catholics can't account for a lot of non-existent Popes then can the Baptist Briders account for all the non-existent successors of John the Baptist?
The more I read the Bible the only time I see "Baptist" is only when it's John the Baptist is mentioned. Do I need to emphasize that when a person is saved they're automatically baptized into the body of Christ? The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper were not intended for salvation but for sanctification. To receive the sacraments (or as others prefer to use the term ordinances) is because you're already saved not to be saved or to stay saved. Getting baptized in a Baptist church doesn't make you a Baptist. Baptism is not how anybody becomes part of the Body of Christ and neither is church membership. To say that a Christian can't be part of the bride until they're baptized or having church membership is utterly confusing. Going to church and having fellowship with other believers, getting baptized and attending the Lord's supper happen because a person is already saved.
The more I read the Bible the only time I see "Baptist" is only when it's John the Baptist is mentioned. Do I need to emphasize that when a person is saved they're automatically baptized into the body of Christ? The sacraments of baptism and the Lord's supper were not intended for salvation but for sanctification. To receive the sacraments (or as others prefer to use the term ordinances) is because you're already saved not to be saved or to stay saved. Getting baptized in a Baptist church doesn't make you a Baptist. Baptism is not how anybody becomes part of the Body of Christ and neither is church membership. To say that a Christian can't be part of the bride until they're baptized or having church membership is utterly confusing. Going to church and having fellowship with other believers, getting baptized and attending the Lord's supper happen because a person is already saved.
II.) Jesus NEVER said that we must be Baptists or any particular denomination
If Jesus never said we must be Roman Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Charismatics or Iglesia Ni Cristo or whatever cultic denominations or any non-Baptist Christian groups (such as the Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Plymouth Brethren and Anglican to name some) then why should Baptist Briders even claim that Jesus called us to be Baptists? True John the Baptist wasn't called John the Catholic or John the Mormon but John the Baptist but he was only called Baptist because he was baptizing people. While the word Baptist today can refer to a denomination of Christians but the word originally meant baptizer.
If we're to think about it some people can belong to the Baptist denomination but they're not Christians. It's also to time to think of what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:3 that "You must be born again." The Greek uses the term "born from above" but doesn't change the fact that you must be born again from above. While Roman Catholics chew themselves whenever they use the Greek to say, "Ha, it's not born again in the Greek." (then why aren't they calling themselves Born From Above then?) then the Baptist Briders might as well look for the Greek to justify that Jesus really said, "You must be a Baptist." to Nicodemus.
Need I mention that the term Christian wasn't officially given until later in Acts 11:26? It didn't say "They were first called Baptists but they were first called Christians." If Roman Catholics can't even find it saying, "And they were first called Catholics." or "And they were first called Roman Catholics," then I don't see any reason to even use that verse to justify the Baptist Bride Heresy. Also Acts 26:28 has King Agrippa saying, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." not "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Baptist." and 1 Peter 4:16 has Peter using the word "Christian" and not "Baptist". This even makes Baptist Briders almost as silly if not just as silly as Roman Catholics in their faulty interpretation of Scriptures. Worse, the faulty interpretation is done by their religious leaders!
What should also be considered stupid is that some Baptists may be heckling Roman Catholics into proving that the Christians were first called Catholics but they can't prove their side. If Roman Catholics can't prove that early Christians were first called Catholics so where is the evidence that the early Christians were first called Baptists?
If we're to think about it some people can belong to the Baptist denomination but they're not Christians. It's also to time to think of what Jesus said to Nicodemus in John 3:3 that "You must be born again." The Greek uses the term "born from above" but doesn't change the fact that you must be born again from above. While Roman Catholics chew themselves whenever they use the Greek to say, "Ha, it's not born again in the Greek." (then why aren't they calling themselves Born From Above then?) then the Baptist Briders might as well look for the Greek to justify that Jesus really said, "You must be a Baptist." to Nicodemus.
Need I mention that the term Christian wasn't officially given until later in Acts 11:26? It didn't say "They were first called Baptists but they were first called Christians." If Roman Catholics can't even find it saying, "And they were first called Catholics." or "And they were first called Roman Catholics," then I don't see any reason to even use that verse to justify the Baptist Bride Heresy. Also Acts 26:28 has King Agrippa saying, "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." not "Almost thou persuadest me to be a Baptist." and 1 Peter 4:16 has Peter using the word "Christian" and not "Baptist". This even makes Baptist Briders almost as silly if not just as silly as Roman Catholics in their faulty interpretation of Scriptures. Worse, the faulty interpretation is done by their religious leaders!
What should also be considered stupid is that some Baptists may be heckling Roman Catholics into proving that the Christians were first called Catholics but they can't prove their side. If Roman Catholics can't prove that early Christians were first called Catholics so where is the evidence that the early Christians were first called Baptists?
III.) Not all contributions in Christendom were all done by Baptists
I could start to mention about the hostility towards Calvinism in general. There are some non-Calvinist Baptists out there like David W. Cloud of Way of Life who can embrace Calvinists as brothers and sisters if they show signs of true conversion. There's the problem of hostility towards Calvinism without knowing that a lot of songs in the hymnals were written by Calvinists, that many commentaries used today are written by Calvinists or that the King James Version of the Bible was done by Calvinist scholars. To say that non-Baptist Christians are just part of the family but not the bride also belittles the contributions.
I remembered reading much on Spurgeon where he heartily commended the Matthew Henry Commentary saying:
I remembered reading much on Spurgeon where he heartily commended the Matthew Henry Commentary saying:
First among the mighty for general usefulness we are bound to mention the man whose name is a household word, Matthew Henry. He is most pious and pithy, sound and sensible, suggestive and sober, terse and trustworthy. You will find him to be glittering with metaphors, rich in analogies, overflowing with illustrations, superabundant in reflections. He delights in apposition and alliteration; he is ususally plain, quaint, and full of pith; he sees right through a text directly; apparently he is not critical, but he quietly gives the result of an accurate critical knowledge of the original fully up to the best critics of his time. He is not versed in the manners and customs of the East, for the Holy Land was not so accessible as in our day; but he is deeply spiritual, heavenly, and profitable; finding good matter in every text, and from all deducing most practical and judicious lessons. His is a kind of commentary to be placed where I saw it, in the old meeting-house at Chester--chained in the vestry for anybody and everybody to read. It is the poor man's commentary, the old Christian's companion, suitable to everybody, instructive to all.
Henry was a Presbyterian and not a Baptist. Other useful commentaries weren't necessarily written by Baptists. While I'm currently reading the John Gill Commentary but I admit that I've also read through Matthew Henry and I use John Calvin's study notes every now and then for verses I have a hard time understanding. Another of my favorite commentaries are by Dr. Vernon McGee a Presbyterian. John Newton the writer of "Amazing Grace" was an Anglican clergyman. Other important contributors of Christianity like Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox and Huldrych Zwingli were considered Protestants but not Baptists. Historically, Baptists aren't Protestants (because they already existed before the Reformation) but a Baptist Christian and a Protestant Christian is a Christian. Need I warn there are also nominal Baptists who are Baptists in name but are just as lost as the members of pseudo-Christian groups?
This also places an important emphasis on the fact that while Christianity is organizationally divided but they're still spiritually united. Here's what Gerry Soliman of Solutions Finder Apologetics stated in his article "Refuting a Roman Catholic Pamphlet":
Protestants or Evangelicals are divided organizationally but not spiritually. A Baptist considers a Lutheran his brother is Christ. Born Again Christians from all denominations consider Christ as their head and they love one another. This love is what unites all true Christians. All the Roman Catholic apologists are seeing is the organizational set up of each denomination and they don't look anywhere else.
I would agree. The Church is one in spirit. All saved believers Baptist or not belong to the Church. So why should truly saved and born again Christians be involved in any kind of division to say "You're not a Baptist so you're not Bride, you're just family."? The whole issue is that being a Baptist is just one part of the Bride and not the whole picture. I'm a Baptist and I love my denomination but I hate the Brider deception that causes division.