Are Baptists ONLY the Bride of Christ?

And dumber

 

are u serious??

just when I think things can't get any weirder on here......

 

Absolutely not...please stop asking inane questions.

 

He was foreordined/predestined to do this. He has no other choice, seeing that it is in his nature, and he is bound to the will of his nature.

 

Definitely not. There are saved people sitting in pews at Catholic churches. They just haven't found a good Baptist church yet. :laugh:

 

Ya gotta stay off that bad dog food. :laugh:

 

I know they're serious, but I still laugh.

 

Baptist briderism reveals the arrogance of those who espouse such vile doctrines. The first shall be last & those who desire the uppermost seat shall be humbled before the congregation.

Any guesses as to which sect of baptist most espouses this doctrine?

 

That is a Privillege Reserved for....

Jehovah Witnesses, I believe?

That is a condescending assumption...

 

It is not condescending and those who hold to it are not arrogant, and it is not a vile doctrine.

You are welcome to disagree with the view, and you will have plenty of company. And you are welcome to argue why you disagree with it.

Impugning sincere brothers and sisters is not an argument.

 

I had not heard of this strange idea before the OP. It reminds me of the prayer Carlyle Marney gave at a SBC convention. He stood before 10,000 people and prayed:

"Lord, make us as great as we think we are.

In Jesus name,

Amen."

 

We've been through this exercise before, and resolved nothing. The exercise is to list the identifying marks of a true New Testament church. Baptists (my kind of Baptist, of course) claim to be a New Testament church, thus most like the one Jesus established during his earthly ministry.

Each of us has a different list of qualifying criteria, and that's why I said the exercise resolves nothing.

So, maybe we should approach it from another direction. What doctrines and practices would disqualify a faith group from being a New Testament church?

I would suggest that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration would be one. The doctrine of the ordinances' being sacramental is another. The mode of baptism, such as sprinkling or pouring, would be another.

Now, to be sure, there are believers even in those churches, not because of, but despite their church's teachings.

And, there are lost people on the rolls of Baptist churches, despite Baptist teachings.

I guess the question is, if doctrinal error disqualifies, how many faith groups are left which could be described as a true New Testament church?

I'm not talking about the big, truly invisible, truly useless, truly non-existent Universal church. I'm talking about a living, breathing, active, visible, worshiping group of people which patterns itself after the church Jesus himself founded.

So, given my criteria (you may add your own), who's in and who's out?

 

My friend. Is that really fair? Ok...you don't like the question but why the facetiousness?

 

maybe a way also to approach this further question would be:

WHAT doctrines are core/essential to be held in order to be a valid NT Church for today?

To me, need to see the Bible as being inerrant/infallible/Second Coming/Ware baptism/Cross of Christ/Exclusivity of jesus etc...

BUT
to me, can agree to disagree on Modes of baptism, as long as NOT sacramental, and can agree to disagree on cal/Arm, timing of SC, IF Spiritual Gifts for today etc, as all of those "in house" issues to debate among us!

 

I have actually read this sort of drivel more than once on these boards.

It stuns the mind.

 

As I said in my previous post, we can't agree even on the essential core doctrines to qualify as a valid NT church. You're a good example. You cite the Second Coming, yet even in my own congregation there are at least three different views, maybe even four.

BTW, what is Ware Baptism? Oh, I get it; I think you mean water baptism
But you would not make water baptism a test of a NT church, if I understand you correctly. So, here we go again.

I would not make eschatology a test of fellowship. Nor would I fall out over wine/grape juice for the Lord's Supper. Nor would I fight over open/closed/close communion.

So we're not going to have unanimity over what constitute essential doctrines and practices.

We probably are not going to agree on what are the disqualifying criteria for a NT church, but it may be easier than deciding what is essential.

 

Any time that we try to come to an agreement in this particular area, think important to keep focused on the fact that the MAIN thing that qualifies us as being a NT church would be just how we viewed God, Jesus and the Cross, and IF its saved by faith alone/grace alone!

 

Seems to me the belief expressed in the OP belong to people who are victims of the We are the only ones complex. Of course I am sure they are not the only ones.