Teachers bow and praise to thee. Thy throne eternal ages stood,
air, seas, and stars were made. Thou art the ever-living God. nations dead thou art the ever-living
God were all the nations dead nature and time quite naked lie
to thy immense survey From the formation of the sky to the great
burning day. From the formation of the sky
to the great burning day. eternity with all its years stands
present in thy view to thee there's nothing old appears great god
there's nothing new to thee there's nothing old nothing new. Our lives through various scenes
are drawn and vexed with trifling cares while thy eternal thought
moves on thy undisturbed affairs while thy eternal thought moves
on thy undisturbed affairs. Great God, how infinite art thou! What worthless worms are we! Let the whole race of creatures
bow and pay their praise to thee. Let the whole race of creatures
bow and pay their praise to thee. Amen. One of these days, that's
gonna happen. At the name of Jesus, every knee
shall bow and every tongue confess. Turn now, if you would, over
to hymn number 66. Hymn number 66. Free election. We're not talking
about what happens in November. free election, we'll sing this
to the doxology. Deep in the everlasting mind,
the great mysterious purpose lay of choosing some from lost
mankind. Whose sins the lambs should bear
away Them loved with eternal love To grace and glory He ordained
Gave them a throne which cannot move and chose them both to means
and in. In these he was resolved to make
the riches of his goodness known. These he accepts for Jesus' sake. and use them righteous in his
son. No goodness God foresaw in his,
but what his grace decreed to give. No calmliness in them there
is, which they did not from him receive faith and repentance
he bestows on such as he designs to save from him their souls
obedience flows and he shall all the glory have. Amen. That's why we preach the
doctrine of free and sovereign grace because it ascribes all
glory to God and not any glory to man in what they do and in
that one passage Verse four, it says, no goodness God foresaw
in His, but what His grace decreed to give. You know, there are
people that believe that whenever they try to reconcile election
and free will, they say that God looked down through time
and saw who would choose Him, and that's the one that God elects.
Well, if God looks down the corridor of time, of course, God knows
everything, right? And He's decreed everything.
ordained all things, purposed all things, but if God does look
down the corridor of time, if he sees anybody coming to him
or choosing him, they're coming and choosing only because he
has given them grace to do so, because we know the scriptures
teach that no one can come to the Father except they be given
to come by the Father. John chapter six says that. No man can come to the Father
except to be given him. and all that the Father giveth
the Son shall come to him. So you have to be given to the
Son and be given yourself to come to the Son. And then we
also know that if God looks down the corridor of time and sees
anything that you've done, whatever he sees is gonna happen no matter
what anyway, right? If that's the case, then nothing
can be changed because there's something God would have been
wrong in what he saw. so uh good doctrinal message
there uh turn now uh if you would to um hang on i just lost my
just lost my place here uh well hymn number 136 hymn 136
god our Dear Refuge of My Weary Soul.
This right here happens to be probably in my top three hymns,
my favorite hymns of all time, bar none. Dear Refuge of My Weary
Soul is written by Ann Steele, a great hymn writer of the past. This song, matter of fact, there
is a modern artist that sings this
Andrew McCracken sings this and man just the arrangement of it
is so beautiful and But we'll sing it today to Amazing Grace Dear refuge of my weary soul,
On thee when sorrows rise, On thee when waves of trouble roll,
My fainting hope relies. I tell each rising grief for
thou alone can heal thy word can bring us I fear to call The springs of comfort seem to
fill and all my hopes decline. yet gracious God where shall
I flee? Thou art my only trust and still
my soul would cleave to thee, though prostrate in the dust. Hast thou not bid me see thy
face? and shall I seek in vain and
can the ear of sovereign grace be dead when I complain? No, still the ear of sovereign
grace attend the mourners prayer oh may I ever find access to
breathe my sorrows there thy mercy seat is open still That's
a comfort to know that our Lord listens to us whenever we need
Him, right? and that no matter how far we
seem to fall away, and no matter how tough it gets and the doubts
that arise in our mind, the ear of sovereign grace still hears
the mourner's prayer. We have a blessed Savior, don't
we? All right, does anybody have a song that you'd like to sing
in any of the hymns here? Alright. Turn with me, if you would, to
Matthew chapter 28. Matthew 28. We've been looking at the, in our study
on the church, we've been looking at over the last few weeks, the
ordinance, the ordinances of the church, and we began with
the ordinance of baptism. Baptism was the first ordinance
set in the church by Christ, and we had been looking at that. We first looked at the importance
of baptism. We looked at the interconnection
of baptism with the gospel, and that how the ordinance of baptism
is tied to the gospel. It is tied to telling the story
of what Christ did and what Christ did for us and what happened
to us in Him when He did that. And so we saw that to just relegate
baptism to an unimportant or non-essential thing is ridiculous
because the scripture, not only does Jesus command us, as we'll
see here in our verse and other verses, not only does Jesus command
us to be baptized, but in that baptism, we hold forth the things
of Christ that he has given to the local church to show forth
the gospel. It's not just through the vocal
preaching of the gospel, but it's also the visual preaching
of the gospel that Christ has ordained for the local church
to minister and serve the gospel of Jesus Christ. And so we've
looked at these things pretty heavily about that. We've seen
that there's a proper subject for baptism, and we've seen that
the proper subject for baptism is those who have been made a
disciple and upon being made a disciple and have repented
of their false belief, of false teaching, false religion, false
righteousness, by self-righteousness, that believing and following
Christ, believing his gospel, believing his doctrine, believing
what he has done alone, that that person becomes the proper
subject of baptism. We've seen that. in Acts chapter
two, where those that were pricked in the heart, by hearing the
gospel preached, they were pricked in the heart and Peter instructed
them, you know, repent and be baptized. So there has to be
first, someone has to be born again. They have to have believed
the gospel and began to believe on what Christ has done and not
what they do to be saved. What Christ has done and then
they are to be baptized, and that's the proper subject, and
that is believers, those who have been born again and are
believing, and we saw that that discludes, you know, that denies
paedo-baptism, that denies children, infants being baptized, okay? They have to be believers. A
baby that's just born is not a believer. Now, I will say this,
a baby can be a born again person, but it cannot be a believer until
it understands and believes and professes that faith in Christ
Jesus. And we know that babies can be
already born again because John the Baptist was. And I think
there's some other people in the Bible that also may fit that
description. But anyway, we've seen that the
proper The proper candidate for being baptized is only those
who have believed the true gospel and have repented of their false
beliefs of gospel and things such as that, and have presented
themselves for baptism. That's the correct way to do
things. Now, today we are going to, oh,
and last week we began looking at the proper design of baptism.
What is the design? Why do we get baptized? And we've seen that that was
a threefold reason, or actually a fourfold if you wanna break
up number two into two things. But we've seen it was a threefold
thing. It was number one, obedience to Jesus Christ. That's the first
thing that Jesus tells us to do when we become a believer
is to be baptized. So obedience is the proper design
of baptism. Second of all is an outward ordinance
of the gospel, of preaching the gospel, telling what you believe
about the gospel. And third, it is an answer to
a clear conscience. And we talked about that last
week, that whenever we preach the gospel in our baptism, we
are saying that it was only the death, burial, and resurrection
of Jesus Christ that secured my salvation, not made it possible,
that actually secured it, made it true. Okay, that's why they
called him Jesus. You shall call him Jesus for
he shall save his people from their sins. He didn't say he
would make it possible to be saved from their sins. He didn't
say that he would save everyone and only those who believe would
be saved from their sins. He said that his name shall be
called Jesus because the very name of that is savior and a
savior is someone who actually saves. And so if he is a savior
and he dies in place of somebody, that's called substitution. And
to substitute somebody means you take the place of that somebody
and that somebody that you took the place of receives the benefits
of everything that you substitute. So whenever Jesus substituted
for the people on the cross, that meant all the wrath of God
that was meant for the sinner was put on Jesus Christ. And
so now the sinner no more has the wrath of God. Okay? That means that the guilt of
sin that was the sinner's was put on Jesus Christ. And that
person no more has the guilt of sin placed upon them. Their
conscience should be clean because their sin has been remitted.
The shedding of blood brought in the remission of sin. That
means that every sin that that sinner for whom Jesus died their
sins was actually remitted because of the shedding of blood. The
shedding of blood didn't make remission of sin possible, it
actually remitted the sin. You look back in the Old Testament
and you see the sacrificial system. Whenever that sacrifice was made
and atonement was made for the people, that atonement was absolute. It covered everyone for whom
that atonement was made for, and it was considered for everyone
for whom that atonement was made for. and it wasn't a maybe-so
type thing. Same thing with Jesus Christ.
As a substitute, he took on the wrath, he took on the guilt,
but in exchange for that, everyone for whom he died will receive
justification, sanctification, glorification. They shall receive
the gift of the Holy Spirit, eternal life. They shall receive
the gift of the Spirit the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as a comforter,
as the convictor of sin, as the mover and motivator to love God
and love the brethren, to follow the commands of Christ. Those
are the gifts and the outflowing of what salvation actually attained. That's why we say here often
that salvation, that Christ's death wasn't just sufficient,
it was efficient, it was effectual. It actually did save everyone
for whom he died. And whenever you look and see
that the scriptures are so plain and clear on that, it's hard
to think that Jesus died for some people that never is gonna
be saved. Okay, that ain't gonna happen. Jesus then would be a savior.
He'd be a failure in that case. And so the proper design of baptism
is to say that Jesus dying, being buried, resurrected was all that
the Father required for my salvation. Nothing else. It doesn't require
my repentance. It doesn't require my belief.
It doesn't require my faith. It doesn't require my law keeping. It doesn't require all this stuff. Now, surely those things happen. Those things come out of the
child of grace whenever they've been born again, but yet that
isn't what is the cause. That isn't what is the thing
that gives salvation or brings salvation. God isn't sitting
here dangling salvation like a apple before a horse and saying,
here you go, here's salvation. If you'll just reach out and
get it, if you'll just come and get it, if you'll just choose
me, if you'll just accept me, then you can have this. No, the
Holy Spirit comes and applies the salvation that Jesus substituted
for, paid for, actually accomplished. And so baptism is very important
because it shows forth the only thing that saved us. but it also
shows your union with Christ and that he did that and you
were counted in that. See, there's nothing else that
is required of me because I was in him and his death was my death. His burial was my burial. His
resurrection is my resurrection. So I know that Christ has done
that for me and my hope is that being in him, I too am receiving
all those benefits from Christ and that is what faith looks
to. Faith looks to Christ alone and not to any activity or any
works that we do, whether they be religious works or whether
they be any other kind of works. It isn't looking to that, it's
looking to Christ. And so our conscience becomes clear or the
baptism is an answer to a good conscience because we in our
conscience have been cleared that we are no longer guilty.
See, that's the thing now. Does that mean that we don't
sorrow over our sin? Absolutely. Every one of us in
here sorrows over our sin and maybe sometimes has doubts whenever
we sin. Just like in that hymn we just
sung. We can be driven to despair.
We can have doubts and things can come upon us and our sinfulness
and we can go away from the Lord and just not regard him and not
read his word and not pray and not fellowship with brothers
and sisters and we can kind of get cold in our heart But the
Holy Spirit, if we're truly children of grace, is always driving us
back to Christ, and he's always there listening. Why? Because
there's no guilt anymore. There is no more finger pointing
at us as sinner, okay? That's why the Bible, one of
some of my favorite verses in the scripture is that there's
therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
There is never a condemning word whenever we come to Christ. whenever
we go to Christ. Why? Because he took on that
condemnation. He took on everything that we
should have been condemned for. We rightly deserve condemnation,
but because he substituted for us, there is no condemnation
for us. There is no wrath for us. There
is no penalty for us. The wages of sin is death. Guess
what? He took death for us and we will
not die. We will be raised again. We will
know what it is to live forever. And so the gospel is preached
in our baptism. It gives us a good conscience
in our baptism. It's the type, the baptism was
the type. So I don't wanna go back all
through that again that we went through last week. You can get
to listen to it. But today we want to see that
there is a proper method or mode of baptism. There's a proper
method our mode to baptism. First, I want to remind you,
if you look there in Matthew 28 and verse 18, I want to remind
you, and as I've said a couple of times since we've entered
into the subject of baptism, that baptism is not just something
that we flippantly say, well, it's important, it's not important,
we shouldn't divide over this, you know, we shouldn't consider
this as something of great importance or anything like that. Brethren,
in the commission, and everybody in the world that professes to
be Christian, you know, whether they're true or whether they're
false, always says, the Great Commission, we gotta be doing
the Great Commission. We gotta be doing the Great Commission.
Well, if that's the case, what is the Great Commission? Well,
the Great Commission Number two in the Great Commission is to
baptize. If baptism isn't important, then
why did Christ command that in the only commission to the church? He says, and Jesus came and spake
unto them saying, all power is given unto me in heaven and on
earth. Now, let me just stop there.
We went over this and I don't wanna have to backtrack a whole
lot, but if you remember back in our, subsection in the church
whenever we talked about the commission of the church, we've
seen that Jesus starts out the commission by saying that all
power is given unto him in heaven and in earth. That means he has
total authority, and that also means he has total power. There's
nothing more powerful than him, and there is no authority that
rises above his authority. And side note, He doesn't share
that authority or that power with anybody else. God and His
sovereignty doesn't give you sovereignty to make choices of
your own, contrary to what He has purposed. Okay? I used to preach that myself.
I used to preach that God and His sovereignty allows you to
do this or to do that, and it still makes Him sovereign. Matter
of fact, it makes Him more sovereign. because he's in control but lets
you do the choosing. That's not sovereignty, people.
That's not biblical sovereignty. That's man-made sovereignty that's
been made up because we were trying to protect our little
theological understandings of things instead of letting the
Bible teach us what sovereignty is. Sovereignty means complete
and total rule over everything, control over everything. not
just ruling over, but looking over it all and having authority
over it all. To have authority over it all
means that you are actually controlling it all. And if anybody is making
choices outside of what you have already said, this is what's
gonna happen, then guess what? You're not sovereign anymore.
Somebody else is. And so we see that Jesus has
been given all power in heaven and on earth. So he's invoking
his right as the sovereign king and he's given instruction as
the head of the church to the church on what they're to do
in his absence. He said, go ye therefore and
teach all nations. If we look in Mark, it says,
go with the gospel and make disciples, okay? Baptizing them in the name
of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them
to observe all things whatsoever I've commanded you and lo, I
am with you always, even unto the end of the world. So we see
here that the three aspects of the commission to make disciples
by gospelizing, going out preaching the gospel, whenever someone
has made a disciple, and remember, a disciple is a follower of Jesus's
teachings, okay? Is a follower of Jesus's teachings,
and Jesus taught, A certain gospel, Jesus taught, being baptized,
okay? Go ye therefore and teach all
nations. But the second one, baptizing them. The very second
thing that Christ commanded the church to lay at the feet of
anybody who has made a disciple is that they need to be baptized. They need to be baptized. So
baptism is important. And how long are we to teach
that? How long are we to practice that? See, there are many today
that believe the water baptism has gone away, that it's no longer
in effect. Jesus said that, lo, I'm with you always, even unto
the end of the world. What does it mean? And lo, I'm with you
always. Is it just saying that, hey,
I'm gonna be here for you as your good buddy all through life? No, what's he saying? This is
the commission that I'm given to you to accomplish. And as
long as you're doing these things, guess what? I'm going to be with
you in you doing those things to accomplish the things that
I have designed to accomplish. That I'm going to be with you
as long as you're being obedient to these things, that church
will have the presence of Christ promised to them. See, that's
why we desire to be faithful here. That's why we desire to
faithfully preach the true gospel of Jesus Christ and not a watered
down manmade gospel of free will. We desire to preach and teach
that the gospel is not a conditional thing. It is a sovereign thing
that God has done. And we also, in being faithful,
keep the ordinances as Christ has commanded the ordinances.
We don't change them to fit society, to fit our situations. There's a lot of times that people
come and they don't have scriptural baptism. They want to become
a member of our church. and we have to talk with them
about baptism. And sometimes that's not very popular. They
don't like that. They don't wanna hear that. They
get offended whenever you throw doubt on their baptism. But yet
if we are to be faithful in what Jesus has given us in the commission,
and if we desire to have his presence among us to be the light
of the candlestick, to not have our candlestick removed as a
local church, then we need to be practicing that which Jesus
has commanded. And he has commanded us to baptize. And so it is very important. But whenever he commands to baptize,
how was it that men were baptized? Well, we already seen in the
work of John and Jesus, we saw that John was baptizing in the
River Jordan. Jesus and John went down into
the water and Jesus came up out of the water. They went into
the water. Every place that you see in the
scripture where baptism is talked about, that those people were
baptized, they were baptized in water, they were immersed
in water. The very word itself means to
immerse. The word in our English Bible,
baptized, is a transliterated word. It's a Greek word that
the translators changed into an Anglicanized word. The Greek
word is baptizo. And if you look and study in
every Greek study, the word that, and every scholar that is a Greek
scholar will tell you that baptizo means to dip, to immerse, or
to sink into water. John the Baptist and Jesus, and
John and all the rest of the people that he baptized, Philip,
the Ethiopian eunuch, they went down into the water. And so the
very word that God used means not to sprinkle, not to
pour, but to immerse, to dip, to sink into water. In Matthew 3, 6, the Bible says,
and they were baptized of him in the Jordan confessing their
sins. A believer can be immersed or
dipped in the Jordan, but they can't be sprinkled. I guess they
can be standing in the water and someone pick up water and
sprinkle it over them. I guess that can happen. I don't
wanna be too naive to think that can't happen, but the very word
itself doesn't mean that. And as we seen last week, the
proper design is to picture the death and burial of Jesus Christ.
And we're gonna talk about that while we're talking about these
things today. The proper method is because
you can't divorce the method with the symbol. See, the Bible
says that baptism is a type. Baptism is the figure. And if
it's a figure, then that figure is pointing to a substance. Remember
we said that last week? It's pointing to a substance.
Well, what's the substance that baptism points to? Well, baptism
isn't pointing to the new birth as the reformers, some reformers,
I won't say all of them, but some reformers and reformed people
say. It's not pointing to spirit baptism,
which is also not true. There's no such thing as a spirit
baptism. One's born again, and we're gonna
deal with that at the end of the baptism study. preach a couple
of messages on what is Holy Spirit baptism. And we're gonna talk
about that as well. But whenever we look at this,
we're not talking about spirit baptism, we're not talking about
anything else, we're talking about water baptism. And sprinkling and pouring does not
fit the type, the figure, Sprinkling and pouring does not figure the
death, the burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Now, I know
that some men say, well, sprinkling does depict that because it talks
about the sprinkling of the blood, and it's the blood that is the
remitter of our sins and everything. But in Scripture, the gospel
is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The application
of the blood is after the death burial take place. And the resurrection
is the satisfaction that God had with the death and burial. And the presenting of the blood
and the acceptance of that blood comes after the initial taking
on of sin, taking on of the guilt and being fully under the wrath
of God and removing all that which we deserve. And then the
dying shows in that picture our death with Christ, our death
into the law, our death to sin, and it shows that in our picture. And so pouring and sprinkling
does not portray that, yet the full baptism into water does.
Now, Sprinkling and pouring as a means of baptism came about
because the design of baptism was ruined in the early part
of the church. Some began to teach that baptism
was necessary for salvation. Some began to teach that it washed
away sin. They began to teach that it was
a ceremony and not the personal faith in Jesus Christ that washed
away the sins. and so they would baptize infants
to wash away their sin. It further evolved later because
objections were raised concerning the dipping and immersing of
babies in water. Soon pouring became okay, then sprinkling
became okay, until finally a little water on the finger wiped on
the child's head. See how once air sets in, how
it keeps going and keeps going and keeps going? Even today there's
some, groups, like I said, that teach that the living people
can be baptized for those who have already died. You know,
the Mormons believe that you can be baptized for someone who's
dead, and they have baptisms for the dead. And it's amazing how far that these
things can go whenever error sets in. Now, the proper mode
of baptism is immersion. As I said, the word is baptizo. It is baptizo. And I wanted to
today, what I wanted to do is read a few quotes. If you don't
have it, I have this book, A Defense for the Baptists by Aaron Booth.
If you've not read that book, it is a wonderful book to read. And it's not just an apology
for churches called Baptists, okay? It's an apology for the
very fact of what we teach and what we preach and how we practice
is according to the scriptures. But anyway, I have this copy
of this that was reprinted by the Baptist Standard Bearer in
their Baptist Faith series. And in that, the editor, I put
a preface or a foreword in this that was very excellent because
it shows forth the understanding of the word baptizo throughout
many centuries and how it was understood, even by those who
believe in sprinkling and pouring and doing that with babies as
well, the Paedo-Baptists. And I was glad he added this
to this so that people could see this information because
today there is a, there is a division of people that are paedo-baptists,
that are baby baptizers, sprinklers and pourers, that claim that
nowhere ever was adult, only adult believer immersion taught. And they said that wasn't in
scripture, that that wasn't what the first church practiced, it
wasn't what the first church believed, it wasn't what anything
in any part of history, ever took place. And these guys are
guys like Jay Adams and James B. Jordan, Dwayne Spencer. These men are now claiming that
it never has been considered to be the proper mode of baptism,
immersion. So what I wanted to do is read
to you today some quotes from, at least from the Reformers.
We know that the Catholics are completely off on everything
that they teach according to this stuff. But those who came
out who supposedly were evangelical, and these churches that today
that people look at as evangelical churches and gospel churches
and things like that, let's look at what the men who began those
movements and was early on part of those movements, let's look
and see what they said about baptism. And I want you to see
that what is being taught today by some of these neo-Pedo-Baptists
are these hyper-Pedo-Baptists, I should say, are not in line
with even the founders that they claim that they have connection
to, okay? The first one I wanna read is
from Theodore Beza. Y'all know who Theodore Beza
was, but let me quote what he said about baptism. Theodore
Beza, in his annotations ad novum testamentum, In 1582, he says this, Christ
commanded us to be baptized by which word it is certain immersion
is signified. Annotation on Matthew 7, 4. He
goes on to say this, to be baptized in water signifies no other than
to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism. Annotation on Acts 19, 3. He
goes on to say this, ye have put on Christ, this phrase seems
to proceed from the ancient custom of plunging the adult in baptism. Annotation on Galatians 3, 27. And so, Theodore Beza in several
places made very clear that his understanding of what the word
baptizo means, or when Christ commanded us to be baptized,
it meant to immerse, to plunge, into the water. Okay? John Calvin. Everyone knows who
John Calvin is. Okay? He says this, quote, in
his Institute of Christian Religion. He says this, quote, the word
baptized signifies to immerse and it is clear that the right
of immersion was observed by the ancient church, end quote. He also goes on to say, says
this, from these words in John 3, 23, it may be inferred that
baptism was administered by John and Christ by plunging the whole
body under the water. This was his commentary on John
3. He goes on to say this, in Acts
8, 38, here we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients.
for they immerse the whole body into the water. So now we have
Theodore Beza, we have John Calvin, both giving their understanding
that baptism, as carried out by the first church, the ancient
church, was by immersion of adults. Martin Luther says this, quote,
the term baptism is Greek. In Latin, it may be translated
immersio, So even the translation into Latin shows it was immersion,
not sprinkling or pouring. He says, since we immerse anything
into water that the hole may be covered with the water, and
though that custom be quite abolished among the generality, for neither
do they entirely dip children, but only sprinkle them with a
little water, nevertheless, they ought to be wholly immersed and
immediately to be drawn out again, for the etymology of the word
seems to require." So even though he recognizes that's not the
practice of people during his time, he says, the fact remains
is that the word itself means to immerse or to cover completely
with water, to immerse and immediately be drawn out again for the etymology,
the meaning of the word, that's what etymology means. The word's
meaning means to immerse. that was in his works, volume
one, page 74. Philip Melanchthon, another reformer,
he writes this. All these, by the way, were baby
baptizers, sprinklers, pours. Philip Melanchthon said this,
when we are immersed in the water, this signifies that the old Adam
and sin in us are dead. When we are immersed in the water,
okay, that's what he says. When we are drawn out of the
water, this means that we are now washed. That was in his Losi
communes in 1555. He goes on to say this, baptism
is immersion into water, which is performed with the accompanying
benediction of admiration. I baptize thee, et cetera. Plunging signifies ablution from
sin and immersion into the death of Christ. Opera Ominia, volume
one. So here again, we see that immersion
is understood to be that original mode of baptism and that it was
tied to what it symbolized. It symbolized the death and resurrection
of Jesus Christ and our union to him in that. Zwingli taught
this. Baptized into his death, the
praise, in Scripture, baptized into his
death. When ye were immersed into the water of baptism, you
were engrafted into the death of Christ. That's what it means
to be baptized into his death. That is, the immersion of your
body into water was a sign, there it is again, the type, the figure,
that ye ought to be engrafted into Christ in his death, that
as Christ died and was buried, ye also may be dead to the flesh. Okay, so again, baptism was understood
as immersion. Baptism was also understood to
be closely connected to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus
Christ as the figure or symbol or type showing that, okay? That's why I said it's important
that we don't divorce the symbol from the substance, the type
from the anti-type. the figure from the actual, okay? Now, that was the reformers.
What about the Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians? Okay, they're
all held in high regard. A lot of books in my library
back here from some of these men, and I've read some, and
a lot of stuff that I agree with, and I'll say amen to, but a lot
that I don't. But here for one, and this guy
was very, antagonistic against the Baptist, but yet this is
what he says, Richard Baxter. He says, quote, it is commonly
confessed by us to the Anabaptists that in the apostles' time, the
baptized were dipped overhead in water and that this signified
their profession, both of believing the burial and resurrection of
Christ and of their own presence renouncing of the world and flesh
and dying to sin and living to Christ as the apostles expounded
in the foresighted text of Colossians 2 and Romans 6, which by the
way, Colossians 2 and Romans 6 by a lot of people are said
to be not water baptism, but spirit baptism. But here even
Richard Baxter, who is a Pato Baptist, is saying that not only
was baptism by immersion, But he said, it is the figure, it
is the symbol of what our union with Christ in death, burial
and resurrection is. And he said that in Colossians
2 and Romans 6, that that baptism there is speaking of water baptism,
not spirit baptism, okay? So these early men who most hold
up as theologians and scholars, all are agreeing that immersion
is the mode of baptism as taught by Jesus and practiced by John
and Jesus and the apostles in the first church, understood
by the early church, and that's what should be done, right? Thomas
Boston said this, the unlawfulness of dipping is
not to be pretended since it is not improbable that it were
used by John the Baptist in Matthew 3, 6 and Philip Acts 8, 38, but
seems to have been used in the ancient church. Works, volume
two, page 475. So again, we see here that the
unlawfulness of dipping is not to be pretended. They weren't
dipping in those two instances that he says, okay? Thomas Godwin
says this, quote, the imminent thing signified and represented
in baptism is not simply the blood of Christ as it washes
us from sin, but there is a farther representation therein of Christ's
death, burial, and resurrection in the baptized being first buried
under the water and then rising out of it. Therefore, it is said,
we are buried with him in baptism, wherein you are risen with him.
Upon the part of himself who is baptized is personally, particularly,
and apparently reenacted the same part again in his baptism. That was found in Thomas Godwin's
works, volume four, chapter seven. So Thomas Godwin understood,
again, that baptism is a immersion in water, and that that immersion
in water is a sign, a symbol, a type of looking back to Christ,
okay? And his death, burial, and resurrection,
and our union in that. You see the pattern here? believing
that it is by immersion, that it is important, that it is by
immersion, that it is by adults who believe, and that it is by
the reason of showing forth the gospel and their union with Christ
in that gospel, okay? Now, here's a guy and he makes,
this is what's ironic, this is John Lightfoot. John Lightfoot
was the one who presided over the Westminster a session whenever
they came to put forth the confession of faith of the Westminster,
excuse me, the Westminster confession of faith. Dr. John Lightfoot
was the one who presided over that. And this is what he said,
and I want you to pay close attention to what he said, because you're
gonna see something here in a minute by John Lightfoot that's gonna
make this even more strange. The baptism of John was immersion
of the body. So no doubt that John's baptism
wasn't pouring, wasn't sprinkling, it was immersion, that's what
he's saying in that. He baptized in the Jordan and
in Enon. Okay, so even John Lightfoot
agrees that whenever the Bible says that he was baptizing in
Jordan, whenever he was baptizing in Enon, it wasn't that they
were just standing there sprinkling and pouring water, that they
were in the river because they were immersing people in the
river. So even his thoughts go that direction. It isn't just
Baptists who have that thought. That's what these men thought
as well. He goes on, he says this, because
there was much water and that Christ being baptized came up
out of the water. Now, I've argued this point with
many men who hold to immersion by, or excuse me, baptism by
sprinkling or pouring. that they say just because John
was in the water, and Jesus went in the water, and Philip and
the Ethiopian eunuch went in the water and came up out of
the water, that doesn't mean that they immersed them. They
could have easily went down there and sprinkled on top of them
or poured their head on there. It doesn't mean anything, and
I've heard some people say it doesn't matter as long as you
just get wet. Well, here, John Lightfoot, he
equates that the going into Jordan, into Enon, and the phrase, they
came up out of the water, signifies or tells the evidence that baptism
was by immersion. So this Puritan, or excuse me,
Presbyterian, believed that it was immersion and that it was
something that was done by Jesus, by John, by the first apostles. This was, and he said, and this
seems to be parallel in Acts 8, which is Philip and the Ethiopian
eunuch. They went down in the water.
That was in his book, Whole Works, volume 11. Thomas Manton wrote
this, quote, we are buried with him in baptism, the like expression
you have, Colossians 2.12, buried with him in baptism. Again, a
lot of people think that's talking about spirit baptism, but it's
not, it's talking about water baptism. And here Thomas Manton
thinks the same thing. We are buried with him in baptism,
the like expression you have, Colossians 2.12, buried with
him in baptism, the putting the baptized person into the water
denoteth and proclaimeth the burial of Christ, and we, by
submitting to it, are baptized. Okay? So if you haven't submitted
yourself to immersion, you're not baptized, but yet Thomas
Manton is one of the guys that believed that you could sprinkle
and pour. This is what, there is the inconsistency in these
men and their teachings. They believe that baptism originally
was by immersion of adults, of adults put into the water, under
the water, and it all tied to the symbol, the figure. But yet
in their practice, they didn't do that. They didn't do that. And it says here that he says
that only those who are submitting to this are baptized. See, that's
why we were called Anabaptists. The people who weren't Baptists,
the people who believe in sprinkling and pouring and infant baptism
and things like that, they called the Baptists Anabaptists, which
meant re-baptizers. But it isn't re-baptizing you,
it's baptizing you because your sprinkling and pouring never
was a baptism to begin with. Your dipping and pouring or your
infant baptism, infant sprinkling, wasn't baptism. So we don't consider
that baptism. On the other hand, we also, in
the evangelical side of things, and our church here practice
and holds to that baptism outside of proper doctrine is not true
scriptural baptism. If you're baptized in a church
that is not preaching the free and sovereign grace of Jesus
Christ as the true gospel, then that baptism is invalid. We also
hold that those who have been baptized before they truly were
converted and believed, then that baptism is invalid. I had
a couple, two, three baptisms before I truly believed and repented
and began to believe the true gospel. Those baptisms were not
proper scriptural baptisms, and I had to renounce those baptisms.
People get baptized, and as I've told you, you know, there was
a time when I was a little kid, I got baptized, and you know,
wanting to get the Lord's Supper is what I was wanting to get.
I was wanting to be able to take that juice and that bread because
Granny and Papa told me that I can't have the juice and the
bread until I'm a Christian and have been baptized. And then
later in life, I've been baptized because of friends that I had
acted and been immorally attached to. doing things that,
you know, stealing and doing all kinds of things that teenagers
do that they shouldn't do. And when one of my friends came
and seen that the Lord was about to save them and everything,
it just, there was a lot of guilt that I had that I wasn't being
what I should be. And so I thought if I get baptized,
it'll make me feel better and make it look better. But now
I'm saved, but see, there's wrong motives of being baptized. And
if you're baptized with the wrong motive, then that really isn't
baptism either. You're not being baptized to
clear your conscience as far as all the guilty things that
you've done. You're being baptized with a clear conscience to know
that all the things that you've done has been taken by Jesus Christ
and are not counted to you anymore. And so we see that baptism is,
to be baptized is to submit to immersion on profession of faith. So that was the Puritans and
the Scottish Presbyterians. But what about the Westminster
Assembly? What about the Westminster Assembly? In their Westminster
annotation upon all the books of the Old Testament and New
Testament, this is what the Westminster Assembly states. In this phrase,
Colossians 2.12, and just turn over there if you would. We keep
talking about this, and I am gonna preach on this, so I'm
not gonna go into great depth on it. I am gonna preach on this
at the end of this, study on the ordinance of baptism, but
just so we're clear on what it's talking about in Colossians chapter
two and verse. Verse 11. All right, I'm sorry. Verse eight, let's start in verse
eight. Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit after the tradition of men and after the rudiments of
the world and not after Christ. If sprinkling and pouring is
not a tradition after men, then I don't know what is, because
every one of those men that practiced this was saying that the original
mode was immersion of adults, believing people at least. I
won't just say adults, I'm just saying anybody who's believers. They were baptized. It says,
for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. and ye
are complete in him, which is the head of all principality
and power, in whom ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without
hands and putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the
circumcision of Christ. That's talking about the new
birth. Then it says, buried with him in baptism, wherein ye also,
ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of
God, who hath raised him from the dead. And many people say
that's talking about spirit baptism. But once again, as we've seen
in all these reformers, all these Puritans, all these Presbyterians,
their understanding of Colossians 2 is not spirit baptism, but
water baptism. That the symbol of water baptism
is for those who have been circumcised spiritually, not in the flesh,
but spiritually, being born again. Those who have been born again
and are believing are baptized with him. in his baptism. But look what it says here. In
this phrase, Colossians 2.12, the apostle seemeth to allude
to the ancient manner of baptism, which was to dip the parties
baptized and as it were, to bury them under the water for a while
and then to draw them out of it and then lift them up. to
represent the burial of our old man and our resurrection to newness
of life. That's what the Westminster annotation
upon all the books of the Old and New Testaments, London, 1657
stated. The Westminster Assembly, in
their books, said that is what baptism is. It's a full immersion
as it ties to the connection of Christ's death, burial, and
resurrection, and that it is also noted as the same baptism
of Colossians 2.12, which we hold also that it is.
Now, it's especially enlightening and extremely important to know
how the doctrinal statements of the Presbyterians came to
favor sprinkling and pouring over immersion. Now, see, if
they believe that, you wonder, well, if the Presbyterians believe
that, then why does their confession of faith say sprinkling and pouring?
Why do they practice that? If they believe that that's what
John did, that's what Jesus did, that's what the apostles did,
that's what the first church did, that every instance in the
scripture, that's what they did, that it is tied to the symbol
or the sign and the type of the death, burial, and resurrection
and our union with Christ in that, if that's true, and if
Christ did command that water baptism be continued until he
comes again, then why did they not do that? And why are they
not putting that in their statement of faith? Why are they doing
that? As I said a while ago, and I
want to read this straight out of the book here, Dr. Lightfoot
was the presiding officer at the assembly sessions and relates
in his journal what happened at that session. Now, this is
in Lightfoot's Works, volume 13, page 300 and page 301. So, if you don't believe me or
this guy that wrote this, go get Dr. Lightfoot's book and
read it for yourself. This is what he said about presiding
over the Westminster Assembly as they were putting forth that
great Westminster confession of faith that many hold as a
golden calf, in my opinion. All right? This is what he said,
quote, Wednesday, August the 7th, 1644, then fell we upon
the work of the day, which was about baptizing, whether to dip
or to sprinkle. So on August the 7th, 1644, the
Westminster assembly gathered together and their subject for
the day and bringing forth that statement of faith of the Presbyterians,
and reform movement or whatever, was baptism. Whether baptism
is to dip or to sprinkle. He says this, after a long dispute,
after a long dispute, that means that they argued over this thing.
They disagreed on the mode of baptism in their assembly there. After a long dispute, it was
at last put to the question and it was voted so indifferently
that we were glad to count names twice. Matter of fact, it was
a heated debate. They debated it, and it was so
close that they went back and counted it again just to make
sure that they hadn't made a miscount because they didn't want to write
it down in some other way other than what was actually voted
upon, but they put it to the vote. And all the men in the
assembly voted and it was so close that they had to do a recount.
He goes on to say, quote, for so many were unwilling to have
dipping excluded. So that meant that there was
a lot of the assembly members there who didn't want just Franklin
to be in there or even Franklin to be in there possibly. He said,
and there rose a great heat upon it. That means that they begin
to argue about it. They said, no, I don't like that. Now, in History of the Puritans,
Volume 2, page 295, we find out the rest of the story of what
actually happened in that vote. History goes on to relate that
finally the issue passed 25 to 24. There were 49 men in this assembly,
and the vote was 25 to 24. 25 in favor of sprinkling, 24
in favor of immersion. The Presbyterians, the great
Westminster Confession of Faith, half, half the assembly said,
no, it should be sprinkling. Half said, no, it should be immersion. And the one who casted the final
vote was the man who said, the baptism of John was immersion
of the body. He baptized in the Jordan and
in Anon because there was much water and that Christ being baptized
came up out of the water to which that seems to be parallel in
Acts 8.38, Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch went down into the water.
The very man who believed and said that baptism is immersion
in water and tied together not only John's baptism, Jesus' baptism,
Philip and the Ethiopian eunuchs' baptism, he goes on to say, or
cast the deciding vote, it should be sprinkling. So it's apparent that the assembly
just barely agreed for Presbyterianism to prefer sprinkling and pouring
over immersion, and that by only one vote. Now, that's what the reformers
said. That's what the Puritans, Scottish Presbyterians said.
Even the Westminster Assembly argued over the fact that it
should be immersion. But yet today, there are men,
Jay Adams, Dwayne Spencer, there are guys like these that are
saying that it is not true. I'm going to read a couple of
quotes from them. J. Adams, speaking of the mode of
baptism, says this, it is not true that the word baptism means
immerse and only immerse. It is significant that biblical
baptism in its origin was performed by sprinkling and not by immersion. Immersion is not only foreign
to the New Testament, but on the contrary, the mode was exclusively
sprinkling or pouring. Baptizing by immersion has no
biblical precedent. It must be rejected. That's what
J. Adams wrote in The Meaning and
Mode of Baptism, page two, page 11, page 43, and page 44. So J. Adams, the Presbyterian,
doesn't even agree with his founders. J. Adams goes on to admit this,
and I'll quote this, he says, Contrary to the opinion of those
who maintain that the mode is of little significance, I believe
it to be of real significance. The immersionists are correct
in making something of the mode. This latter conclusion I base
upon two facts. First of all, all things that
pertain to the word of God are important. So there again, I
agree with him. Baptism is important because
it's part of God's word. Jesus commanded it. We're to
teach it. As part of the things that we
are to teach them all certain things whatsoever that Christ
commanded. It's important to teach baptism. And so it's part
of God's word. So to say it's flipping and it
doesn't matter just as long as somebody gets wet, just as long
as you're sprinkled, you're poured, it doesn't matter. This is a
dividing thing, secondary issues. You should be preaching Christ
and him crucified and not baptism and those things. Listen, we're
to preach the whole counsel of God. We're to teach all things
whatsoever Christ commanded. Those are also commands of Christ
too. Not just preach Christ and Him crucified. We're to preach
also the commands that Christ give us and He commanded to be
baptized. And so he's right in this. It
is important because it is the word of God. But this is, he
goes on to say, quote, but this is especially true of the only
two sacraments. And we don't believe that the
Lord's Supper and that baptism are sacraments. They're not sacraments,
they're ordinances. But he says, the only two sacraments,
our Lord left his church. Obviously, unless the apostles
used both immersion and pouring or sprinkling, one or the other
was the proper method. If it was pouring, we ought to
pour. If immersion, we ought to immerse. Secondly, Mo cannot be separated
from meaning. The sacraments are symbolic.
If so, then mode and symbol are one and the same. So there again,
he hit it right on the nail. It is important because it is
God's word that if the ancient church did it this way, we ought
to continue doing it that way. And if that's symbolic, if baptism
is symbolic, which the Bible says it is, then the symbol ought
to be commensurate with the substance. the mode must be in conjunction
with the symbol. The symbol is the sacrament and
the sacrament is either disclosed or destroyed by a true or false
mode of observing the sacrament. So he's saying you better get
this right because the mode that you do a baptism is either going
to confirm or destroy the symbol. that you're pointing to, but
yet they're going to sprinkle and they're going to pour, which
destroys the symbol, which every one of their forefathers in their
belief systems said was to symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection
of Jesus Christ and our death, burial, and resurrection in him.
So see the, see the contradiction in these men and these modern
day Pato Baptists, and this is infiltrating a lot of churches
and listen, This mentality is even seeping in now into Baptist
churches. I'm beginning to see certain
Baptist men who at once were Baptist are now saying, well,
I want them to know that we need to be affiliated that way. And
yeah, it's all right to bring into membership people who've
been sprinkled. And poor matter of fact, there's a Baptist church
in this town who I have heard members of that church say, we've
included members from other denominations that have different doctrine
than we do. They've accepted them into membership.
not having them be baptized. We've had people come in that
have been sprinkled and poured upon and not been immersed, and
they've received them into membership. So, brethren, this is a far move
from what the ancient church believed and what Baptists have
believed all along. And here we have men today that
are clearly making these distinctions, trying to rewrite history and
say, hey, it never was believed to be this. It never was the
mode. But yet it is important, it is important. You gotta tie
that to, they'll side with the Baptist and say, the Baptist
are right, that it is the word of God and the mode is proper,
I mean, is important in how you do it because it is commensurate
with the symbol. And you need to be doing whatever
the mode, the symbol is to represent that. That's what you need to
be doing that. The problem is, is they got the symbol wrong. What is the symbol for? So, Jay
Adams says that immersionists are, are correct in making something
of the mode. They say that we're right for
making a big deal about it. He says that the mode cannot
be separated from the meaning. I'm glad he said that, that's
true. He said that the sacraments are,
as we would say, ordinance, are symbolic. We believe that to
be true. They're not means of grace, they're
symbolic. And if so, then the mode and symbol are one and the
same. And fourthly, he says, mode and
symbol and therefore mode and meaning cannot be divorced. I say amen to that. So why don't
you submit to that? Why don't you submit to your
own statements? See, this is what Baptists have
always said. If you alter the mode, you'll pervert the symbol. Now, remember what I'm saying
right here about baptism, because that's also going to be true
when we get into it later on the Lord's Supper. Why do we
believe that the Lord's Supper is unleavened bread and wine?
Because that's what the Lord instituted, and that's what He
has commanded, and there is a symbolic significance of the bread and
the wine. Okay? It's not just any bread,
and it's not just grape juice. It is the bread and the wine
that the Lord instituted because it has a specific symbolic meaning. You remember in the Old Testament,
and I'm kind of getting off track here, Do you remember in the
Old Testament whenever the two sons of priests got up and they
began to offer strange fire upon the altar? They thought they
were doing a good thing. But God didn't accept that. Why?
Because he said there's a certain way this is to be done because
of the symbolic reasoning. There's a certain way that this
should be done. And so those men suffered because of that.
Do you remember when Uzzah put his hand to the ark? He was doing
a good thing. Okay, he's doing a good thing.
But yet God commanded, nobody is to carry or touch that ark
except those that God has determined to do that. That ark was to be
carried. Why do you think that those nations that whenever the
Philistines got that ark, and whenever that ark came into their
community, there are all kinds of stuff started happening to
them. And things were going on to the
point where they said, get this thing out of here, man. Send
it back to the kingdom. We don't want it here. It's only
bringing calamity upon us. Why? Why is it? Because God had
said that only certain people can touch it, only certain people
can carry it, and there's only a certain way that you can carry
it. And the reason why is because it was symbolic of something
of Christ. And if you do it another way,
you destroy that which it's symbolizing. Okay, so just as it was in the
Old Testament where the oracles and the ordinances were kept
by the priesthood, there, the New Testament church has just
as much mandate from Christ to hold the oracles and the ordinances
of Christ in its exactness. And that we, now, granted, I'm
thankful that God doesn't kill us like he did Uzzah and the
two priests, whenever they offered strange fire, that he doesn't
kill us whenever we mess up or do something wrong like that.
I'm thankful he doesn't do that, or hasn't done that. I'm not
saying that he can't do that. He can still do that if he wants
to, but I'm glad he doesn't. Well, matter of fact, I know
he still does it in the New Testament, because if you remember in Corinth,
whenever they were doing the Lord's Supper wrong, and he said,
this is why there are many of you that sleep, but are sick
and die. You're sick and dying because
you're not keeping the ordinance as a church correctly. So that's
why we want to be faithful. That's why we want to hold these
things the way Christ did. And not because the traditions
of man, not because grape juice, how did grape juice go? I ain't
going to get into the Lord's Supper. It's another subject, but that's
a, that's a tradition of man. It's not how the early church,
it's not how Christ instituted, it's not how the early church
did it. And if we do it the wrong way, we are, blaspheming against
Christ and what the symbol of His blood, His body, or in baptism,
His death, burial, and resurrection is. It's important. You cannot divorce those two
things. There's some other quotes by
these men who believe that today that there was no evidence of
this in the past, but I'm going to skip that for time's sake.
I want to go back to here. because I want to show you the
inconsistency of these men's teachings and that how we've
been consistent in the New Testament churches have been consistent
in their teaching and their mode. Now, you just heard me talk about
Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and all these men and everything
and how they said that they knew that the word baptizo that's
found in the scriptures means to immerse and that it was by
adults and that it was for a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection
of Jesus Christ, and that these verses that seem to be talking
about spirit baptism to some people actually mean the water
baptism. We've heard all those things, and all these men and
all their writings go on and on. Matter of fact, there is,
if you have this book that I have, they go through all these confessions
of faith. The Thesis of Bern, 1528. The Geneva Confession,
1536. The French Confession of Faith, 1559. The Belgian Confession,
1561. The Second Helvetic, Confession 1566, the Westminster
Confession 1646, every one of those talks about how it is sola
scriptura, that scripture alone is to govern our practice, that
we are to do nothing in the practice and the worship in the church
than what the scriptures has prescribed. And that's one of
the major things. Matter of fact, in the reform
movement, they have what's called the five solas. You've probably
heard of that, you know, grace alone, faith alone, Uh, the scripture
alone, uh, anyway, there's a couple of more loans in there and I,
sometimes I forget it. It's kind of funny though. How
can you have an alone and have five things? It's a part of,
right? Uh, I thought being alone, uh, meant that there is, uh,
um, that, that, that it meant alone and only, but anyway, uh,
but listen to what these men say. These are the men who said
back then, this is what I meant. and we believe that the scripture
alone is our rule of faith. We believe that scripture alone
is what guides us in our practice and in our doctrine. Martin Luther
says this, quote, it cannot be proved by sacred scripture that
infant baptism was instituted by Christ or begun by the first
Christians after the apostles. Vanity of infant baptism, part
two, page eight. Okay, Martin Luther said that
babies were never found anywhere in Scripture to be baptized.
John Calvin says this, as Christ enjoins them to teach before
baptizing, that's what the commission said, right? Make disciples,
go and teach all nations, then baptize, right? As Christ enjoins
them to teach before baptizing and desires that none but believers
shall be admitted to baptism, it would appear that baptism
is not properly administered unless when preceded by faith. Okay, so that would exclude infant
baptism. By the way, that was Harmony
of the Evangelist, volume three, page 386. Herman Witzius wrote
this, we readily acknowledge that there is no express and
special command of God or of Christ concerning infant baptism. He wrote that in Economy of the
Covenants, Volume 3, page 385. We acknowledge that there are
no expressions of special command of God or of Christ concerning
infant baptism, but yet they want to say, that's what we got
to do, but sola scriptura. We're going to do this, but sola
scriptura. We're only going to let the scriptures guide our
rules doing. Richard Baxter wrote this, here
again, this man was very antagonistic against the Baptist, like I said
a minute ago. And yet he said, baptism was immersion. What does
he say about infant baptism? I know of no one word in scripture
that giveth us the least intimation that any man was baptized without
the profession of saving faith. That would exclude infant baptism. Thomas Boston wrote this, there
is no example of baptism recorded in the scriptures where any were
baptized, but such as appear to have a saving interest in
Christ, i.e. repentance. That would excuse
infant baptism. James Bannerman wrote this, quote,
nothing but the most violent injustice done to the language
of scripture by a bold and unscrupulous system of interpretation can
suffice to get rid of the evidence which, in the case of the baptism
of converts mentioned in scripture, connects the administration of
the rite with the profession of faith in Christ on the part
of the person who was the recipient of it. The association of the
person's profession, faith, repentance, or believing with baptism appears
in a multitude of passages, while not one passage or example can
be quoted in favor of the connection of baptism with the absence of
profession. Now, brethren, these are men
who are in denominations and churches, and their practice
was baby baptism. Their practice was sprinkling
and pouring, but yet they admit that there is no thing found
in the Scriptures. And the Baptists all along have
taught there is no such thing in Scriptures, And our practice
is going to show that. And we've been killed for it.
Now, I want you to think about that. The ones who killed the
Baptist were the Catholics and the Protestants. They were the
ones who was killing the Baptist, who believed and practiced what
the Bible said. But not only that, they were
the ones who was killing the Baptist who believed in what
and practiced what they said and what they believed. the Bible
said, but yet didn't practice it. You see that hypocrisy? That they would say that, yes,
we believe that baptism is by immersion. Yes, we believe that
baptism is of those who are believing. Adults who are believing or people
who are believing upon profession of faith and are believing. We
believe that that is the mode, that that is the person that
is to be baptized. And that nowhere in scripture
is it found that anybody was sprinkled or poured upon. Nowhere
in scripture was it ever found that an infant or anybody not
believing was baptized. But yet we're gonna kill these
people who demand that if that's what's been taking place in your
baptism, quote unquote baptism, then that's not baptism if you're
gonna be a member of our church. You're to deny that, just like
John said to those religious leaders, show forth fruits of
repentance, repent of that wrong thinking, and then you can be
baptized. You can be baptized, not re-baptized,
but baptized. Why are we so adamant about baptism?
Because the mode and the symbol go hand in hand, because Christ
commanded it, because Christ has put a picture in that for
us, so the proper mode of baptism is by immersion. And listen,
brethren, despite what these modern-day hyper-pedo-Baptists
are saying, that was the thought of even those who were baby baptizers
back in the Reformation time. Now, we don't take things because
the Reformers say it or even because earlier Baptists say
it. That ain't why we should believe anything. It should shout
a lot that this is what was understood by your so-called scholars, but
what does the Bible say? That's what means the most to
us, is what does the Bible say? And as we've seen in our studies,
that we have not found any place where baptism was administered
to anybody who was not believing. And there's no place in here
that ever describes anybody being sprinkled or poured upon. And
what we see in the Bible is also found in what history has made
clear. So thankful that in this case,
history backs up what the scripture says. But it's scripture over
history, right? We don't care what, because there's
been a lot of men that's been saying stuff in history for a
long time. It's been erroneous. the proper mode of baptism. The
word is baptizo, it means to immerse. Jesus said that he has
all power in heaven and earth and has commanded us to baptize
believers. And so that's what we'll continue
to do as the Lord keeps us faithful at this church, is to baptize
those who believe in the gospel, profess their faith in that gospel,
and desire to unite with this church and baptize them by immersion
upon that profession of faith. And then upon that profession
of faith and baptism, we receive them into the membership of this
church so that they might partake of not only the service, but
also the ordinances of the Lord's Supper and of baptism. And so
we pray this Lord keep us faithful in that. I don't know any other
way to baptize. All right, we will look next
week at the, What time is it? About time? 1130. We'll look,
Lord willing, next week at, well, I don't have much left to really
say. The proper administrator of baptism,
I think we've covered that quite a bit, but the proper administrator
of baptism, we'll look at that, Lord willing, next week. Anybody
have any questions, comments? If you'd like to pick up this
book that I was talking about, you can order that from the Baptist
Standard Bearer. They have a website. You can
order it from them. It's a very nice book, hardcover
book. It's a reprint of Abraham Booth's A Defense of the Baptist,
1778. It's in their Baptist Faith Series
Volume 2. But anyway, that which I was
just reading today is the foreword in this and it goes on there's
a lot more there's a lot of other good stuff in that forward besides
just what I read but For the sake of time. I didn't go through
a lot of that. But anyway, that's a very good book pick it up if
you want some good reading All right. Anybody got any questions?
All right. Let's have a word of prayer Grace
Heavenly Father again. We thank you