HylesBriderStuff

BUT LET US NOT BE A
BAPTIST BRIDER

By Benjamin Gilley

Brother Jack Hyles preached a message entitled "Let's Be Baptist," in which he outlined very distinctly the old Baptist-bride system of doctrine, only escaping the fatal impact at the last split-second by ejecting from the cockpit saying that the local Baptist church is not the bride YET, because she is not at the marriage YET.

Now, he begins his "Bible study" with the age-old argument that, since the Greek word for "church," "ecclesia," means "a called out assembly," then a "universal church" made up of all believers throughout all periods of the New Testament is obviously NOT a "church," by definition: it has never been "called out" (and will not be until the rapture), nor has it been "assembled." Brother Hyles says, "There is no such thing as the universal church. Or the invisible church composed of all believers...all believers don't form the church--a church--because all believers have not yet been called out or assembled. Now, when all believers ARE called out at the rapture and are assembled in the sky, THEN all believers become a called out assembly. And then they will be--we can call all believers-- a `church.' The only church there is today in the world is the New Testament Baptist church."

The Greek word ecclesia does NOT mean, by literal translation, "a called out ASSEMBLY." Now, it is true that it is usually taught that way, but the word "assembly" has been supplied in the literal translation for practical purposes. You could just as well say that it means "a called out one," or "a called out `unit,' or "a called out group." There is NO PART of the word ecclesia which means OR IMPLIES that it is an "assembly." The "ec-" means "out"; "-clesia" comes from "caleo," which means "to call." The "cle-" is a contracted form of "caleo," and the "-sia" is an ending added to form a noun from a verb. (Much like adding "-ing" to "call" to get a "calling.") For instance, if we added "-sis" to the "cle-," we would have "clesis," and that means "a calling" in the sense of "an INVITATION." Or if we added "-tos" to the "cle-," we would have "cletos," which means "a calling" in the sense of "an APPOINTMENT" (to a position--as in Rom. 1:1). These last two refer to the ACT of calling. But when "-sia" is added to the "cle-" ("-clesia"), it refers instead to THE PERSON WHO IS CALLED. In typical Greek textbook jargon, ECCLESIA would be translated literally as "a called out one." NOTHING ABOUT THE WORD REFERS TO, IMPLIES, OR SUGGESTS AN ASSEMBLY. (All the lights in the plant are out; the juice just got cut off.)

So much for the technical Greek baloney.

In simple language, he took a word which was added to the literal translation for PRACTICAL purposes, and tried to make a doctrinal TECHNICALITY out of it.

Another problem is that even if it DID mean an assembly, WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASSEMBLED, according to Ephesians 2:5, 6, 14, 19-22, and 1 Corinthians 12:13, 24, 25. (A little bit of "Bible study" might have helped.)

If the church has to be "assembled" to be a church, then there is not even a LOCAL church except when its members are ASSEMBLED; and unless you are present, you are not part of "the church." (So much for the membership roll!)

The next point Brother Hyles makes is that "all believers do not form the bride of Christ." This statement is exactly Baptist-bride doctrine, but to keep from being labeled a Baptist-brider, Brother Hyles has "sought out" an invention (Ecc. 7:29), a middle-of-the-road solution, so that he can please all his friends. His reasoning is that all believers do not form the bride of Christ, because "nobody is a bride until they get married. So we are NOT the bride yet, and as we are not the--all Christians are not--the church yet, and will not be the church until the rapture, at the marriage of the Lamb; we then become the bride." In plainer words, there IS no bride YET, but at the rapture, when we are all "called out" and "assembled," we will BECOME the bride. (I suppose that we are to assume that we will all be Baptists then, too.)

Notice two things:

First, if the bride is not the BRIDE until the marriage, then the brideGROOM is not the BRIDEGROOM until the marriage. But Jesus was already the Bridegroom, according to John 3:29; Matthew 9:15; Mark 2:19,20; and Luke 5:34,35.
Second, notice that we are already joined to the Lord and made one spirit with Him (1 Cor. 6:15,17), and are "members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones" (Eph. 5:30).

NOTE: The whole system is being built up by logical reasoning, not by anything the Scripture says. Two things have been said: that 1) a church must be an assembly, and 2) there is no bride until the rapture. NO SCRIPTURE OR SET OF CROSS-REFERENCES IS GIVEN WHICH STATES OR TEACHES EITHER IDEA (Prov. 3:5,6; Col. 2:8; Isa. 55:8,9).

The next move is to keep you from thinking that Christ is the literal HEAD of a literal BODY. The reason for this is quite simple: if Christ is the HEAD, then the body must be "assembled" in some way other than by physical location, because HE is in HEAVEN. So Brother Hyles shows us Colossians 2:10, and says that "Jesus is the head of government just like He is the head of the church," because the same Greek word is used in both verses. "The word head here is not a word for this head right here," (your head on your body), "it's the word `boss-man," `foreman.' Like the king is the head of a country...He's the `boss-man' of the church."

So the question is valid: In what way is the body assembled if the HEAD is in HEAVEN and the BODY is on the EARTH? (One begins to get the impression that there is a terrible lack of comprehension of SPIRITUAL matters in these discussions.)

Next we go to Acts 20:28, where the point is made that, since "church" here is a reference to the LOCAL church and not to the universal body of Christ, then "He...purchased an organization, where we're supposed to grow in grace and fellowship, with his own blood..." Christ did NOT give Himself for the local church (Eph. 5:23,25): neither for its form of government--ANY form, its form of service, nor for any other part of its organization. He "is the Saviour of all men" (individuals), "specially of THOSE THAT BELIEVE" (1 Tim. 4:10). The local church has unbelievers on its membership roll!

Notice also, in passing, that Paul is a part of the "body" in Rome ("we" in Rom. 12:4,5), a part of the "body" in Corinth ("we" in 1 Cor. 12:12,13), and a part of the "body" in Ephesus ("we" in Eph. 3:30). Now either Paul was "church-hopping" or else all these "bodies" are ONE BODY--a universal spiritual body. (Notice in particular the wording at the end of 1 Corinthians 12:12--"...all the members of that one body, being many, are one body; so also is CHRIST."--NOT "so also is `the church'."

A misapplication of Matthew 16:18 to the local church (and of Eph. 3:21) is the SOURCE of the doctrine that ONLY if a ministry is done under the auspices of the local church does it have God's blessing and His "promise of Divine perpetuity" (to quote Brother Hyles), because this promise was given SOLELY to the local church.

Your foot, it was!
Jesus did not say, "I will build my churches."
And, brethren, there is not ONE local church in existence
today that Jesus Christ built,
or that was in existence in the days of the apostles.

So it is clear that the promise in Matthew 16:18 was not made to the local church--ANY local church. You might say, "Well, the church in Matthew 16:18 started other local churches, which started others...on down until today." Slipping a little bit toward a universal church, aren't you? Or is it APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION?

Next we have the reasoning that, if you have been "baptized into" a local church (note: this is a perversion of the baptism in 1 Cor. 12:13 into WATER BAPTISM--hello, John Campbell--and a misapplication to the local church) which does NOT "qualify" as "a body of Christ," then if you want to join a church which DOES "qualify," you must be REBAPTIZED. The logical end of the thing is that you would have to be REBAPTIZED no matter WHAT church you were coming from, because they are a different body, and in order to get into THIS "body," you have to be "rebaptized into" it. See what a mess you get into?

Well, if 1 Corinthians 10:16,17 were a reference to a local church--which, of course, it is not--then obviously the only people who should be partaking of the communion are the ones who are members of that "body," right? Inescapable. Now read 1 Corinthians 11:29 very carefully.

I have already heard a lot of resentment expressed over the fact that Brother Hyles makes it seem like you cannot believe in both the universal church AND the body of Christ. You can. Quite a few of us do. They are both in the Bible.

Well, let's wrap it up. Let's BE BAPTIST, all right--as long as it stays with THE BOOK. Let's believe in salvation by grace through faith, without works. Let's believe in baptism for believers only. Let's believe in eternal security. Let's believe in separation of church and state. Let's really BELIEVE the King James Bible. Amen! By all means, LET'S BE BAPTIST. But for the Lord's sake, LET'S NOT BE BAPTIST-BRIDER!!

HOME