Baptist Brider? By Les Potter PhD Updated May 7, 2020
My son has been corresponding with the daughter of a missionary family in Wyoming (by
mutual consent of parents). They seem to be quite interested in each other. The young lady was
deeply concerned, however, because she was told we are Baptist Briders. Fortunately, she asked
my son outright about it and was greatly relieved at my son\u2019s answer. Having heard such an evil
rumor, she feared that we may be among those who think they are the only people going to
heaven. Personally, I was somewhat amused at the rumor.
I remember hearing of Baptist Brider heretics as a young Christian. These were nutty people to
be avoided. Nobody really knew how to describe them specifically. But it was sufficient to know
they were a mean-spirited, pharisaical cult who twisted Scripture to promote their heresy. It is
said that they even believe in a special rapture just for themselves!
So, why is there a rumor that I am one of these heretics? Evidently there is some doctrinal
difference which someone misunderstands and needs to label. To be sure, I believe that the
popular Protestant ecclesiology (which many modern Baptists accept without question) differs
from Biblical ecclesiology. However, my position on Biblical ecclesiology is identical to what
Baptists have always historically held. It is sad, but the Biblical doctrine that made us Baptists is
now an anomaly among Baptists! There was a time, however, when the Protestant version was
all I knew. As I grew in the Lord I studied Scripture and realized what the words and grammar of
the Bible taught on the New Testament church. This was a difficult time because it was different
from what my peers or mentors believed. I was very much alone. I resigned to follow the Lord
on this as I kept re-checking to see where I might be wrong. As this solidified in me, I discussed
what I had found in the grammar and context of Biblical passages with others. I was shocked to
meet brethren who dismissed it as \u201cBaptist Brider\u201d doctrine. Putting Bible words in such evil
light seemed pretty ignorant to me. Eventually, I decided to dispel the ignorance and prove the
difference between the historic Baptist position and \u201cBriderism.\u201d However, finding accurate<\/p>\n\n\n\n
information on these Briders was not as easy as I would have thought. Even the most avid anti-
\nbrider experts could not give a definitive answer of how Briders differ from historic Baptists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The only consistent thing I could pin down about this sect is that they are despised. My only
\nrecourse was to find men who are known and reputed to be \u201cBrider heretics\u201d and ask them what
\nthey believed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As I corresponded with a number of men of this reputation, I was surprised that NONE of them
\nbelieved ANY of the heresies that Briders are supposed to believe. They did not believe they are
\nthe only ones saved, nor did any of them believe in a special rapture for Baptists. Nor did any of
\nthese demonstrate a nasty or cultish spirit; quite the opposite. I began to suspect that either I was
\nnot dealing with real \u201cbriders\u201d or this term was just a paper tiger.(After all, I also had been called<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Page 2
\na \u201cBrider\u201d by the same people that labeled these men). Every one of these men were
\nindependent, unaffiliated Baptists. There is no \u201cBaptist Brider\u201d headquarters of any kind that I
\ncould find. One thing they held in distinction from evangelicals is that they have not adopted the
\nProtestant (Catholic) concept of a universal church of any kind. They form their ecclesiology
\nfrom the Bible as I do also – and as historic Baptists always have. Those I have met are as
\nindividualistic as anyone else. Each has their own personality, experiences and convictions.
\nSome even have quirks. (After all, they are Baptists). But I found nothing uniformly common
\nthat could be Biblically challenged. I have found also that most of those who are derogatorily
\ncalled \u201cBriders\u201d do not identify by the label. They simply consider themselves to be Historic
\nBaptists. The \u201cBrider\u201d term is one of derision (just like Baptist used to be). That term has a lot of
\nbaggage that has nothing to do with the beliefs of those whom I met. Furthermore, I never saw
\nany undue emphasis on the bride of Christ or how it metaphorically represents the church. I
\ncannot see how that would be a problem to anyone anyway.
\nThe second surprise I found among those reputed to be \u201cBrider heretics\u201d was the sweet spirit and
\nservant attitude they had. I am sure there are some who do not possess this. Even the best of men
\nare only human. But there is no doubt in my mind that the so-called \u201cBrider heretics\u201d I have met
\noverall possess a much greater Christ-like spirit than their detractors. If there is any common
\npersonality characteristic I could find among them, it was that.
\nThese \u201cBrider heretics\u201d were kind, charitable and thoughtful in their dialog. They seemed apt to
\nshow you from Scripture what they believe without feeling challenged. I know some
\n\u201cfundamentalist\u201d fellowships (which hold to Protestant ecclesiology) that have the opposite
\nspirit. Some seem to think truth exists only in their midst. If you question why – you must be
\neither liberal or deficient in spiritual wisdom. Their own bombastic spirit is exactly what they
\npresume others to have.
\nThe third surprise I found among several of these Brider heretics is that they actually
\ndemonstrate their beliefs of the Priesthood of believers and Individual soul liberty. This is
\nsomething that is only rhetoric among many modern Baptists. The concept that a preacher is
\nspecially endowed above the people is a serious heresy. This Catholic\/Protestant doctrine is
\ncalled Nicolaitanism in Revelation 2. It is unknown whether there was ever a group that
\nidentified themselves as \u201cNicolaitans.\u201d We understand their heresy primarily by the descriptive
\nname the Lord used for them. It is derived from \u201cNico\u201d meaning dominance and
\n\u201cLaos\u201d (\u201cLaity\u201d) meaning \u201cpeople.\u201d The Lord commended the church of Ephesus for hating the
\n\u201cdeeds of the Nicolaitans which thing I also hate.\u201d (That is pretty strong language). The church
\nof Pergamos was rebuked for having those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Catholicism
\nand Protestantism openly hold the doctrine of Nicolaitanism. There are Baptists today who
\ndenounce the doctrine in rhetoric, while making full use of it in practice (deeds). These are like
\nthose whom the Ephesians rightly rejected and whose deeds the Lord hates. It is common for
\nthem even to use the term \u201claymen\u201d (from laity) to denote non-preacher underlings. If they truly
\ndo not believe in a class of clergy, then there is no such thing as a laity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Page 3 Page 4 <\/p>\n\n\n\n Baptist Brider? By Les Potter <\/strong>Older Version <\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe practice (deeds) of Nicolaitanism is usually rationalized in reaction to the heresy of the other
\nditch which is \u201cLaodiceanism.\u201d That is, \u201claity (people) rule.\u201d While these two concepts react
\nagainst each others abuses and heresies, the true New Testament church is a world away from
\nboth. In a New Testament church, The Lord is the head (Eph. 5:23; Col 1:19 & 2:19). He will
\nnot share this position with anyone or anything. When the people rule – the Lord does not. The
\nNicolaitan remedy for this prevalent heresy is Pastoral headship. This actually becomes a
\npractical necessity. After all, somebody must occupy that position when the Lord vacates it. The
\nresult, however, is simply clergy rule (though Baptists reject the term itself). A Nicolaitan will
\ndwell on verses such as Heb. 13:17 (\u201cObey them that have the rule over you, and submit
\nyourselves: . . .\u201d), defining \u201crule\u201d privately to the exclusion of New Testament context. Verses
\nsuch as Matthew 20:25-27. Mark 10:42-45. Luke 22:25-26 and 1 Peter 5:3 specifically forbid
\npastors from exploiting lordship. The Baptist variety of a Nicolaitan will procure immunity by
\nproclaiming Christ is the head of the church, while acting in His stead. When the lordship of
\nChrist upon a member conflicts with that of the Nicolaitan pastor, they are anathematized as a
\nrebel to Christ\u2019s church. If a pastor pontificates in Christ\u2019s stead (as the Vicar of Christ), he fails
\nto discern the body of Christ. He has made himself the head of the body (in deed if not by
\ndoctrine).
\nIn contrast, a true New Testament body of Christ is the optimal organism. The Head directs and
\noperates all<\/em> the members. This is necessary for any body to function properly. The Lord adds
\nmembers as it pleases Him and equips them with gifts for its edification. Historic Baptists have
\nalways believed that Christ is the literal head of their local New Testament church. Because of
\nthis, they tend to fear and shun the \u201clord of the flock\u201d mentality. Allowing this would paralyze
\nthe body and eventually deprive them of His presence. Interestingly enough, one of the chief
\ncriticisms we hear against those who are maligned as \u201cBrider heretics\u201d is that their pastors are
\ncultic dictators. That certainly may be true of some, but it is not distinctive to those whom I
\nobserved that were reputed to be \u201cBaptist briders.\u201d (Perhaps the so-called \u201cBriders\u201d I met were
\nfalsely labeled). Not surprisingly, however, that practice is more prevalent among brethren of the
\nneo-baptistic, universal-church doctrine.
\nHaving personally researched this subject beyond the label, it is only fair that I ask a logical
\nquestion. I have witnessed the label appended with impunity upon brethren who neither believe
\nnor behave anything like their detractors claim. So it is without any pretense or obfuscation, I
\nmust ask \u201cWhat is a Baptist Brider?\u201d If the term truly denotes a heretical cult of Baptists that
\nwrest the Scripture in any way, let us define it and warn the world against them. This should be
\nexceptionally easy to do and it would serve to keep the label from being ignorantly misapplied to
\nbrethren suspected of heresy.
\nIf, on the other hand, the label is simply an ambiguous tool of derision for those that need a
\nstraw-man, lets look into why. If it is truly that simple, there are obviously some underlying
\nissues that compel it to be so. Whether by remarkable coincidence or revealing observation, there
\nis a common denominator this author has seen among those who suggest the loathsome moniker
\nof \u201cbrider\u201d on brethren of whom they disagree. In every case to date, the dreaded term is<\/p>\n\n\n\n
employed by brethren that possess a doctrinal dichotomy. They will voice strong convictions for
the \u201clocal church\u201d and how adamantly \u201cBaptist\u201d they are. At the same time, they repudiate the
Baptist ecclesiology and embrace the Protestant concept of a mystical, invisible body of Christ.
These will boldly state their rejection of a universal church while teaching that \u201cthe true church\u201d
is an invisible, universal body composed of all believers. (George Orwell must have gotten his
inspiration from these brethren).
While the family of God is a collective reference to the saints on earth, it is never referred to as
\u201cchurch\u201d in Scripture. The Catholic concept of considering salvation as synonymous with
church is not only un-biblical, it was at the root of much Protestant and Catholic persecution of
Baptists throughout history. Historic Baptists went to the stake for not colluding with this
doctrine.
Today, there are those who love to call themselves Baptist that have the same revulsion for
Baptist doctrine that their Protestant brethren did. They may be just as saved by the grace of God
as any other. But they cannot admit the distinction between the NT church and the family of God.
The doctrine of the Lord\u2019s church is more than an academic truth. It is clearly a spiritual issue as
well. These brethren love to brandish the Baptist name; basking proudly in Baptist heritage;
setting themselves apart from Protestant brethren and wearing a cloak of rhetoric while
proclaiming their militancy for the \u201clocal church.\u201d But the moment they encounter the Scriptural
light of Baptist doctrine, their revulsion (and exposure) become apparent. At that moment, their
reaction is patently predictable. Any other strain of Protestant or neo-Baptist would just shrug it
off. But these fundamental brethren are cornered by their own profession. Thus, you can almost
trace their lips as the term \u201cBaptist Brider\u201d rolls off their tongue.
So, are YOU a Baptist brider? If you happen to believe the New Testament church began with
the Lord\u2019s earthly ministry and continues as He promised, you may have already been called a
\u201cbrider.\u201d If so, it was probably by a neo-Baptist that belongs to the mystical invisible
\u201cchurch\u201d (and claims to be strongly local church in doctrine). In that case, you might be in good
company even if you have never heard the term before. by Les Potter<\/p>\n\n\n\n
My son has been corresponding with the daughter of a missionary family in Wyoming (by mutual consent of parents). They seem to be quite interested in each other. The young lady was deeply concerned, however, because she was told we are Baptist Briders. Fortunately, she asked my son outright about it and was greatly relieved at my son’s answer. Having heard such an evil rumor, she feared that we may be among those who think they are the only people going to heaven. Personally, I was somewhat amused at the rumor.
I remember hearing of Baptist Brider heretics as a young Christian. These were nutty people to be avoided. Nobody really knew how to describe them specifically. But it was sufficient to know they were a mean-spirited, pharisaical cult who twisted Scripture to promote their heresy. It is said that they even believe in a special rapture just for themselves!
So, why is there a rumor that I am one of these heretics? Evidently there is some doctrinal difference which someone misunderstands and needs to label. To be sure, I believe that the popular Protestant ecclesiology (which many modern Baptists accept without question) differs from Biblical ecclesiology. However, my position on Biblical ecclesiology is identical to what Baptists have always historically held. It is sad, but the Biblical doctrine that made us Baptists is now an anomaly among Baptists! There was a time, however, when the Protestant version was all I knew. As I grew in the Lord I studied Scripture and realized what the words and grammar of the Bible taught on the New Testament church. This was a difficult time because it was different from what my peers or mentors believed. I was very much alone. I resigned to follow the Lord on this as I kept re-checking to see where I might be wrong. As this solidified in me, I discussed what I had found in the grammar and context of Biblical passages with others. I was shocked to meet brethren who dismissed it as “Baptist Brider” doctrine. Putting Bible words in such evil light seemed pretty ignorant to me. Eventually, I decided to dispel the ignorance and prove the difference between the historic Baptist position and “Briderism.” However, finding accurate information on these Briders was not as easy as I would have thought. Even the most avid anti-brider experts could not give a definitive answer of how Briders differ from historic Baptists. The only consistent thing I could pin down about this sect is that they are despised. My only recourse was to find men who are known and reputed to be “Brider heretics” and ask them what they believed.
As I corresponded with a number of men of this reputation, I was surprised that NONE of them believed ANY of the heresies that Briders are supposed to believe. They did not believe they are the only ones saved, nor did any of them believe in a special rapture for Baptists. Nor did any of these demonstrate a nasty or cultish spirit; quite the opposite. I
began to suspect that either I was not dealing with real “briders” or this term was just a paper tiger.(After all, I also had been called a “Brider” by the same people that labeled these men). Every one of these men were independent, unaffiliated Baptists. There is no “Baptist Brider” headquarters of any kind that I could find. One thing they held in distinction from evangelicals is that they have not adopted the Protestant (Catholic) concept of a universal church of any kind. They form their ecclesiology from the Bible as I do also – and as historic Baptists always have. Those I have met are as individualistic as anyone else. Each has their own personality, experiences and convictions. Some even have quirks. (After all, they are Baptists). But I found nothing uniformly common that could be Biblically challenged. I have found also that most of those who are derogatorily called “Briders” do not identify by the label. They simply consider themselves to be Historic Baptists. The “Brider” term is one of derision (just like Baptist used to be). That term has a lot of baggage that has nothing to do with the beliefs of those whom I met. Furthermore, I never saw any undue emphasis on the bride of Christ or how it metaphorically represents the church. I cannot see how that would be a problem to anyone anyway.
The second surprise I found among those reputed to be “Brider heretics” was the sweet spirit and servant attitude they had. I am sure there are some who do not possess this. Even the best of men are only human. But there is no doubt in my mind that the so-called “Brider heretics” I have met overall possess a much greater Christ-like spirit than their detractors. If there is any personality characteristic I could find among them, it was that.
These “Brider heretics” were kind, charitable and thoughtful in their dialog. They seemed apt to show you from Scripture what they believe without feeling challenged. I know some “fundamentalist” fellowships (which hold to Protestant ecclesiology) that have the opposite spirit. Some seem to think truth exists only in their midst. If you question why you must be either liberal or deficient in spiritual wisdom. Their own bombastic spirit is exactly what they presume others to have.
The third surprise I found among several of these Brider heretics is that they actually demonstrate their beliefs of the Priesthood of believers and Individual soul liberty. This is something that is only rhetoric among many modern Baptists. The concept that a preacher is specially endowed above the people is a serious heresy. This Catholic\/Protestant doctrine is called Nicolaitanism in Revelation 2. It is unknown whether there was ever a group that identified themselves as “Nicolaitans.” We understand their heresy primarily by the descriptive name the Lord used for them. It is derived from “Nico” meaning dominance and “Laos” (“Laity”) meaning “people.” The Lord commended the church of Ephesus for hating the “deeds of the Nicolaitans which thing I also hate.” (That is pretty strong language). The church of Pergamos was rebuked for having those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Catholicism and Protestantism openly hold the doctrine of Nicolaitanism. There are Baptists today who denounce the doctrine in rhetoric, while making full use of it in practice (deeds). These are like those whom the Ephesians rightly rejected and whose deeds the Lord hates. It is common for them even to use the term “laymen” (from laity) to denote non-preacher underlings. If they truly do not believe in a class of clergy, then there is no such thing as a laity.
3
The practice (deeds) of Nicolaitanism is usually rationalized in reaction to the heresy of the other ditch which is “Laodiceanism.” That is, “laity (people) rule.” While these two concepts react against each others abuses and heresies, the true New Testament church is a world away from both. In a New Testament church, The Lord is the head (Eph. 5:23; Col 1:19 & 2:19). He will not share this position with anyone or anything. When the people rule – the Lord does not. The Nikolaitan remedy for this prevalent heresy is Pastoral headship. This actually becomes a practical necessity. After all, somebody must occupy that position when the Lord vacates it. The result, however, is simply clergy rule (though Baptists reject the term itself). A Nicolaitan will dwell on verses such as Heb. 13:17 (“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: . . .”), defining “rule” privately to the exclusion of New Testament context. Verses such as Matthew 20:25-27. Mark 10:42-45. Luke 22:25-26 and 1 Peter 5:3 specifically forbid pastors from exploiting lordship. The Baptist variety of a Nicolaitan will procure immunity by proclaiming Christ is the head of the church, while acting in His stead. When the lordship of Christ upon a member conflicts with that of the Nicolaitan pastor, they are anathematized as a rebel to Christ’s church. If a pastor pontificates in Christ’s stead (as the Vicar of Christ), he fails to discern the body of Christ. He has made himself the head of the body (in deed if not by doctrine).
In contrast, a true New Testament body of Christ is the optimal organism. The Head directs and operates all<\/em> the members. This is necessary for any body to function properly. The Lord adds members as it pleases Him and equips them with gifts for its edification. Historic Baptists have always believed that Christ is the literal head of their local New Testament church. Because of this, they tend to fear and shun the “lord of the flock” mentality. Allowing this would paralyze the body and eventually deprive them of His presence. Interestingly enough, one of the chief criticisms we hear against those who are maligned as “Brider heretics” is that their pastors are cultic dictators. That certainly may be true of some, but it is not distinctive to the group by my observation. (Perhaps the so-called “Briders” I met were falsely labeled). Not surprisingly, however, that practice is more prevalent among brethren of the neo-baptistic, universal-church doctrine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So, why is there a rumor that I am one of these heretics? Evidently there is some doctrinal difference which someone misunderstands and needs to label. To be sure, I believe that the popular Protestant ecclesiology (which many modern Baptists accept without question) differs from Biblical ecclesiology. However, my position on Biblical ecclesiology is identical to what Baptists have always historically held. It is sad, but the Biblical doctrine that made us Baptists is now an anomaly among Baptists! There was a time, however, when the Protestant version was all I knew. As I grew in the Lord I studied Scripture and realized what the words and grammar of the Bible taught on the New Testament church. This was a difficult time because it was different from what my peers or mentors believed. I was very much alone. I resigned to follow the Lord on this as I kept re-checking to see where I might be wrong. As this solidified in me, I discussed what I had found in the grammar and context of Biblical passages with others. I was shocked to meet brethren who dismissed it as “Baptist Brider” doctrine. Putting Bible words in such evil light seemed pretty ignorant to me. Eventually, I decided to dispel the ignorance and prove the difference between the historic Baptist position and “Briderism.” However, finding accurate information on these Briders was not as easy as I would have thought. Even the most avid anti-brider experts could not give a definitive answer of how Briders differ from historic Baptists. The only consistent thing I could pin down about this sect is that they are despised. My only recourse was to find men who are known and reputed to be “Brider heretics” and ask them what they believed.
As I corresponded with a number of men of this reputation, I was surprised that NONE of them believed ANY of the heresies that Briders are supposed to believe. They did not believe they are the only ones saved, nor did any of them believe in a special rapture for Baptists. Nor did any of these demonstrate a nasty or cultish spirit; quite the opposite. I
began to suspect that either I was not dealing with real “briders” or this term was just a paper tiger.(After all, I also had been called a “Brider” by the same people that labeled these men). Every one of these men were independent, unaffiliated Baptists. There is no “Baptist Brider” headquarters of any kind that I could find. One thing they held in distinction from evangelicals is that they have not adopted the Protestant (Catholic) concept of a universal church of any kind. They form their ecclesiology from the Bible as I do also – and as historic Baptists always have. Those I have met are as individualistic as anyone else. Each has their own personality, experiences and convictions. Some even have quirks. (After all, they are Baptists). But I found nothing uniformly common that could be Biblically challenged. I have found also that most of those who are derogatorily called “Briders” do not identify by the label. They simply consider themselves to be Historic Baptists. The “Brider” term is one of derision (just like Baptist used to be). That term has a lot of baggage that has nothing to do with the beliefs of those whom I met. Furthermore, I never saw any undue emphasis on the bride of Christ or how it metaphorically represents the church. I cannot see how that would be a problem to anyone anyway.
The second surprise I found among those reputed to be “Brider heretics” was the sweet spirit and servant attitude they had. I am sure there are some who do not possess this. Even the best of men are only human. But there is no doubt in my mind that the so-called “Brider heretics” I have met overall possess a much greater Christ-like spirit than their detractors. If there is any personality characteristic I could find among them, it was that.
These “Brider heretics” were kind, charitable and thoughtful in their dialog. They seemed apt to show you from Scripture what they believe without feeling challenged. I know some “fundamentalist” fellowships (which hold to Protestant ecclesiology) that have the opposite spirit. Some seem to think truth exists only in their midst. If you question why you must be either liberal or deficient in spiritual wisdom. Their own bombastic spirit is exactly what they presume others to have.
The third surprise I found among several of these Brider heretics is that they actually demonstrate their beliefs of the Priesthood of believers and Individual soul liberty. This is something that is only rhetoric among many modern Baptists. The concept that a preacher is specially endowed above the people is a serious heresy. This Catholic\/Protestant doctrine is called Nicolaitanism in Revelation 2. It is unknown whether there was ever a group that identified themselves as “Nicolaitans.” We understand their heresy primarily by the descriptive name the Lord used for them. It is derived from “Nico” meaning dominance and “Laos” (“Laity”) meaning “people.” The Lord commended the church of Ephesus for hating the “deeds of the Nicolaitans which thing I also hate.” (That is pretty strong language). The church of Pergamos was rebuked for having those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans. Catholicism and Protestantism openly hold the doctrine of Nicolaitanism. There are Baptists today who denounce the doctrine in rhetoric, while making full use of it in practice (deeds). These are like those whom the Ephesians rightly rejected and whose deeds the Lord hates. It is common for them even to use the term “laymen” (from laity) to denote non-preacher underlings. If they truly do not believe in a class of clergy, then there is no such thing as a laity.
3
The practice (deeds) of Nicolaitanism is usually rationalized in reaction to the heresy of the other ditch which is “Laodiceanism.” That is, “laity (people) rule.” While these two concepts react against each others abuses and heresies, the true New Testament church is a world away from both. In a New Testament church, The Lord is the head (Eph. 5:23; Col 1:19 & 2:19). He will not share this position with anyone or anything. When the people rule – the Lord does not. The Nikolaitan remedy for this prevalent heresy is Pastoral headship. This actually becomes a practical necessity. After all, somebody must occupy that position when the Lord vacates it. The result, however, is simply clergy rule (though Baptists reject the term itself). A Nicolaitan will dwell on verses such as Heb. 13:17 (“Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: . . .”), defining “rule” privately to the exclusion of New Testament context. Verses such as Matthew 20:25-27. Mark 10:42-45. Luke 22:25-26 and 1 Peter 5:3 specifically forbid pastors from exploiting lordship. The Baptist variety of a Nicolaitan will procure immunity by proclaiming Christ is the head of the church, while acting in His stead. When the lordship of Christ upon a member conflicts with that of the Nicolaitan pastor, they are anathematized as a rebel to Christ’s church. If a pastor pontificates in Christ’s stead (as the Vicar of Christ), he fails to discern the body of Christ. He has made himself the head of the body (in deed if not by doctrine).
In contrast, a true New Testament body of Christ is the optimal organism. The Head directs and operates all<\/em> the members. This is necessary for any body to function properly. The Lord adds members as it pleases Him and equips them with gifts for its edification. Historic Baptists have always believed that Christ is the literal head of their local New Testament church. Because of this, they tend to fear and shun the “lord of the flock” mentality. Allowing this would paralyze the body and eventually deprive them of His presence. Interestingly enough, one of the chief criticisms we hear against those who are maligned as “Brider heretics” is that their pastors are cultic dictators. That certainly may be true of some, but it is not distinctive to the group by my observation. (Perhaps the so-called “Briders” I met were falsely labeled). Not surprisingly, however, that practice is more prevalent among brethren of the neo-baptistic, universal-church doctrine. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
So, I am saddled with the question: Am I a Brider? Well, if that term denotes a proud, mean spirited, pharisaical cult that believes they are the only ones going to heaven then I have to laugh and say “absolutely NOT!” Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ; not by church or even perfect doctrine. But if that term describes those who believe the New Testament church belongs to Christ, then at least it puts me in good company. My preference, however, is to be called simply a “Historic Baptist” because that is what Baptists have always believed from New Testament times.
Les Potter<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n