I genuinely ask for your prayers as I try to bring the message of God, I feel it lit on my heart, for today. A little bit different message from what we've been preaching through the book of Matthew. Well, we've been preaching more or less on the life of Christ through the book of Matthew. Last Sunday we were in the third chapter of the Gospel of John. But I have a reason and feel led by the Lord to take a little departure from that. I want to ask you the question, what was yesterday? Most of you would probably say Halloween, or maybe most of you would say Saturday. But it also has another name among Protestant Christianity. It was Reformation Day. Now, almost all Baptists pay little or no attention to the fact that yes, it was Reformation Day. And you may ask, what is Reformation Day? Well, according to the Encyclopedia, the historians, Reformation Day is the day when on October 31, 15 and 17, Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic priest, nailed his 95 theses against the cell of indulgence. And you know that indulgences are forgivenesses of sins. Against the cell of indulgence by the Roman Catholic Church to the door of the All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Last Sunday, that's October 25th, Actually, Reformation Sunday, that has been adopted among Protestant churches as the day in which they recognize that event and celebrate that event. And in many churches, it is recognized as a religious holiday. In fact, no matter in many countries of the world, it is a national holiday. According to some historical scholars, Luther, did not mean to really be confrontational against the Catholic Church. As I said, he was himself a Catholic priest, but he wanted to make some kind of scholarly challenge to what he perceived was an erroneous practice of the Church. Nevertheless, there was, and it's acknowledged, somewhat of an undercurrent of challenge in several of the theses that he wrote. In fact, the matter in Thesis number 86, he asks, Why does the Pope, whose wealth today is greater than the wealth of the richest Croceans, that's a suburban area of Rome, build the cathedral to St. Peter with the money of poor believers rather than with his own You know that that didn't go over very well with the Roman Catholic Pope. Luther objected to the saying that was associated with the sale of indulgence, which saying was, as soon as the coin hits in the copper rings, the soul from purgatory springs. He insisted that since forgiveness was God's loan to grant Those who claim that indulgence and absolve buyers from all punishment and grant them salvation, that they themselves were an error. Christians, he said, must not be slack in following Christ on account of false assurances. The 95 Theses that Luther wrote there and nailed to that door to the church in Wittenberg, Germany, written in Latin, but it soon was translated into German. And it was printed and copied and circulated throughout all of Europe. So it was that the printing press, which had been invented by Gutenberg, the printing press contributed to the spread of this controversy. And within two weeks, it was that copies of the thesis had spread throughout Germany and within two months had covered all of Europe. So it caused a great deal of controversy when anyone would dare to challenge the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. And there is much that we would agree with Martin Luther about. and on many subjects. So then, why don't we celebrate Reformation Sunday, or Reformation Day? Well, the answer is very simple. Baptists are not Protestants. Well, then the next question is, why are we not Protestants? And that's what I want to deal with you today. But before I begin, I want to make it very emphatically clear that I don't believe, nor do we teach, that a person must be a Baptist in order to go to heaven. We are accused of believing that, but that is not true. The fact of the matter is, I believe and hope that there are God's elect people among all denominations. Now, of course, I hope that the Lord will be pleased to lead them all to become Baptists, and that's One of our responsibilities as preaching and witnessing is that all of God's elect people might be brought to the knowledge of the truth as it is set forth in the Word of God. But we do want to acknowledge and realize that there are differences in denominations. All you ladies are good shoppers. The fact of the matter is that when my wife goes shopping for a food item, I've watched her and know that she looks very careful at the ingredients that are in that item. If she sends me to the store to buy a can of green beans, I just go to the store and make sure I get green beans. I don't particularly notice what brand it is so much and sometimes even with the price of it. But she is always very careful to anything that she buys, she's looking for the ingredients of it. As all you housewives know, there's a great deal of difference in the, even though it may be the same product, of the ingredients that go into it. Some manufacturers load their products with a great deal of sugar and other things that are not helpful for you, to us, and so you very carefully look at the ingredients that go into the product that you're going to put into your system. Well, it behooves us then to also to look very carefully to the spiritual ingredients that we are digesting and that we are hearing priests and talk and where we take our children to and what we have them taught. Because we are dealing with spiritual things which are of much more value, greater value, than what physical things are. So while there is a commonness among all believers, in that we have a common salvation. We believe that we have been saved by the grace of God only by the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Yet there are some very important and critical differences. And it is foolish not to deal with those and recognize those differences. Now just so you understand that I'm not some kind of a bigoted, narrow-minded preacher, although I must sometimes plead guilty to that. I want to tell you some sources for which I want to be giving and have given much of my material. One source is a book written by a Baptist by the name of Kenneth Good. The book is entitled Our Baptist Reform. This book is printed by the Regular Baptist Press. Another source of material that I rely on is a book written by Dr. Fred Malone entitled The Baptism of Disciples Alone and published by Founders Press. Now Dr. Malone who's now a Baptist pastor. He was at one time pastor of a Presbyterian church after his graduation from the Reformed Theological Seminary down in Jackson, Mississippi. And as a Presbyterian pastor, he sprinkled two of his own infants. However, as he studied more of the New Testament on the subject of baptism, he was converted and became a Baptist pastor himself. Two other books which I gathered a lot of material from are Introducing Covenant Theology. This is written by Dr. Michael Holton, who is himself a Presbyterian professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster Seminary in California. Another book is Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace. This is written by Dr. Paul Jewett, who is a professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in California also. Two other books that I have looked at and that I gather a lot of my material from is the book Believer's Baptism, which is edited by Dr. Thomas Schreiner and Dr. Shaw Wright. Dr. Schreiner is Professor of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Wright is Professor of Church History at the same seminary and both are co-pastors at Clifton Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. Another book that has been a great help to me and a book that I enjoy reading is a book entitled Lectures on Baptism by Wim Sheriff. This book was first published in 1878 in London. In the preface of it, the preface of it is written by Charles Spurgeon. William Sherruth was a graduate of Edinburgh University and was an excellent scholar in Latin and in Greek and in Hebrew. He was recognized among all of his peers for his great knowledge of the Bible and of the use of the language. He pastored a very large congregation of the Church of Scotland for 35 years. But in his studies, he became converted to the Baptist position of baptism, and he resigned his church, and following his own immersion in water by a Baptist pastor, became a Baptist preacher himself. Those books are just some of the resources that I have gathered and some material that I have used in preparation for this message. Of course, there are many other books and it wouldn't be possible for me to read all of them that I study and have used in my study. There are three main headings under which I want to study this subject of why Baptists are not Protestants. And the first one is, because of our understanding and our position on the Bible. And the second one is because of what we believe the Bible teaches about the ordinances of God. And the third one is what we believe the Bible teaches about the Lord's Church. Now, what we believe the Bible teaches about the Bible is a very critical issue and is the very starting point of all discussions among Christians about the Bible or about teachings of the Bible. In 2 Timothy 3, verse 16, a portion of Scripture that is very familiar to all of you, Paul speaking, writing to Timothy about the Word of God as he writes to this young preacher to give him assurances and give him foundation for his ministry. And he says to Timothy, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction and righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." The last phrase in verse 17, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Here is a declaration by the Apostle Paul that the Bible, all Scripture, is given by the very breath of God, and every bit of Scripture is profitable and beneficial to the child of God, and especially to the ministers of God, that we might have from it everything that we need for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction in righteousness. This is everything that a child of God needs, that he might lead a godly life and that he might serve God faithfully. And then Paul adds, for the benefit of all who would desire to be confident in the work of the Lord, that the man of God may be perfect, complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. Dr. Kenneth Good says in his book, here is the sum total of what the main qualification of a minister of God is. That if he has a thorough knowledge and must have a thorough knowledge of the Word of God because the Word of God is the sole authority for all that we believe and practice as God's people. We dare not resort to anything else because we have no authority. to resort to anything else except thus saith the Word of God. And this has been the practice of Baptists down through the years since the days of Jesus Christ. We believe that every issue, every question about doctrine and practice is to be settled by thus saith the Word of God. We find this to be the practice in the New Testament itself. When there was any question about doctrine or practice, what did they go to? They went to the Word of God themselves. You have that in the 15th chapter of Acts when there was a question that arose about the issue of circumcision and the law. And then they returned to, they went down to Jerusalem as representatives from various churches, and there they met and they consulted the Word of God. When it was the question about the deity of Jesus Christ, what did they return to? They returned to the Word of God. They search the Scripture to see whether these things are so or not. And so it is that we as New Testament Christians, if we are to be New Testament Christians today, we want to follow the same pattern. Now, the most famous and most widely used confession of faith among the Protestants is the Westminster Confession of Faith, drawn up in 1647. Almost all Protestants and all those referred to as Ben Reformers will refer to this as being their main creed. One of the main differences between Baptists and Protestants is the matter of being creedal. We as Baptists are not normally what we refer to. We don't look to a creed. We don't look to something that men or a council anywhere has adopted. We have a few confessions of faith. that we refer to as being somewhat of an acknowledgment or a consensus of what we believe, but they are not authoritative. The very opposite is among both the Roman Catholics and the Protestants. Of course, you realize that among the Roman Catholics, they believe that whatever the Pope or the Church has set forth as being doctrine, that it is of equal authority as is the Word of God. Fact of the matter is, it would almost be acknowledged by song that they would hold it to be in superior authority, for thus said the Word of God. They have tried to keep the Bible through the years even out of the hands of their believers because they wanted them to take what the church would say simply because the church has interpreted the Scriptures to be that way. Very similar, the Protestants have for the most part followed a pattern not trying to deny the Word of God, not trying to prevent their believers from having the Word of God, but telling them and setting forth the pattern or saying that the creed, the creeds that we hold to, they are the proper interpretation and teachings of thus saith the Word of God. And so they hold very highly all of their creeds. So they have the Westminster Confession of Faith that was adopted in 1647, and that is somewhat of an accumulation of all of their creeds down through the years, and it is very authoritative among Protestants. And in that Confession of Faith, there is much that we would agree with, especially when it deals with the subject of the Bible. Chapter 1. In Chapter 1, the first five divisions of that book, we would almost be in total agreement with it. But in the sixth chapter, or the sixth point of that first chapter, there is a statement that I would say is the fly in the ointment of Christian, of Biblical New Testamentism. And that is, they make this statement, while we hold to the Bible, and I'm somewhat paraphrasing at the moment, while we hold to the Scriptures as being the authoritative teachings in all matters, yet there is need for good and necessary consequences as may be interpreted from the Scriptures. Good and necessary. In other words, where there are some questions about issues, then they will resort to what they refer to as being the teachings of the fathers or the teachings of the creeds. That's quite the opposite of what we as Baptists would say. We as Baptists would say, if there is any question, if there is any verse in the Scripture that is obscure, we will interpret it by the clear Scriptures. And we will interpret all Bible, but thus saith the Word of God. And however we interpret the clouded Scriptures, or that which is obscure, however we interpret that, it must be according to the rest of the Bible. You know and I have pointed out to you that indeed there are many cults and false teachings that have arisen through the centuries simply because people would take a verse of Scripture out of context and take that one particular verse of Scripture and they have used it as a foundation for their perversions of doctrine. For instance, there is a statement in the 15th chapter of 1 Corinthians being baptized for the dead and you know today there is a very large I do not call it a Christian denomination, but a very large denomination that has practiced and does practice this issue of being baptized for the dead based upon that one particular portion of Scripture. Well, what does it say? What does it mean? Well, I think that the proper interpretation of that is, as you read it in context, Paul is speaking about the resurrection and he is talking about the saints of God. And as we are being born again, And as we are baptized in water, we take our place in those who have already died in the family of God, in the Kingdom of God, we take our place on those who have already gone on. But whatever the interpretation of that would be, we would not interpret it in such a way as to violate all the rest of the Bible. To say that we can be baptized for someone who has already died who has died in unbelief and that a believing family member or a believing descendant or a believing follower of this denomination, a disciple of this denomination, Joseph Smith, that we can then be baptized for one who has already died and thereby gain some advantage for them in eternal life whereby that they might have eternal life. That is totally inconsistent with all the rest of the Bible. And that is a violation of the principle that we're talking about, which is that we interpret the obscure verse of Scripture, what is to us obscure, we interpret it by the clear passage of Scripture. But the Westminster Compassionate Faith says that we will interpret Scriptures and we are justified in using good and necessary circumstances. they conjure together much of their authority for what they teach about much of their doctrine and practices by conjuring or by imitations. That's a very dangerous thing when you're talking about the Word of God and when you're talking about spiritual truths. We dare not conjure things or we dare not follow simple what we would imagine or what we would say is maybe a possible implication about things. For instance, when you have in Acts the 16th chapter that the apostles Paul and Silas were in prison. When they were preaching there in the city of Philippi and were beaten and put in prison, Then the jailer, Philippian jailer, you know the story, the earthquake and so forth that happened. And he came in with a light and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved and thy house. And so that verse of Scripture is taken by implication by the Protestants and Reformers, that this then can be used to say that every member of his household because of this man, the head of the house, the father, that this man's faith can be spread as a blanket, so to speak, over all of his household and thereby that all of them were evidently elect of God. But the whole context would tell you that the tailor took them that same night to his house and washed their stripes and was baptized, he in all his straight way, And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before them, rejoicing, believing in God with all of his house." It's very clear then that all of his household believed in God. Now, it is surmised by the Protestants and those who were infant baby sprinklers that there must have been maybe some infants there in that house. Well, in my household I have a daughter living with me and she's certainly not an infant. Some of you, several of you have children who are past the stage and age at which you would call them infants. So just because we have a household does not mean that we can speculate that we have infants there in that house. Certainly this man was blessed that all of his family believed in the Lord and all of his family did and were baptized. But they were baptized because they believed in Jesus Christ. not because Dad was baptized. And they certainly were immersed. They were not sprinkled because that's the meaning of the Greek word for baptism. And so the doctrine of the Bible and the issue about how authoritative the Bible is, and if anything else is authoritative, is a very critical issue among Baptists and is the very issue that divides us from all other denominations. We are, As we have been accused, we plead guilty as being Biblicalists. We believe the Bible, and we hold to the Bible, and we believe that there must be given a chapter and verse to support everything that we teach and practice in the service of God and in our doctrine. We dare not speculate. We dare not use good and necessary certain consequences, but rather we must say, thus saith the Word of God. And that issue, down through the years, has been one of the main critical issues that divided Baptists from all the denominations. The old Anabaptists were strict Biblists. And when they were engaged in debates with the Catholic Church and with the Protestants also, they would say, give us chapter and verse. And because they could not be given chapter and verse for doctrine and practices, then the old Anabaptists said, we cannot walk with you. There was a time, initially, when the Reformation broke out in Europe, that the old Anabaptists who had been hounded and persecuted, and who had left a bloody trail through centuries from the days of Jesus Christ, there was a time when they saw that this may be some time of relief from this terrible persecution that we've been under. And so maybe we can get some safe haven from this persecution. And for a little while, there was that. But as it became obvious that the old Anabaptists and the Protestants could not come to a mutual agreement on doctrine because the Protestants would not give them a chapter and verse for these things, and the Anabaptists said, We cannot therefore walk with you because you are not following after the Word of God. That then persecution arose again. It's sad to say that the old Anabaptists were hounded as much by the Protestants as they had been through the Catholics. And they were hounded even up to the days of the establishment of religious liberty here in America in 1776, 75, 76. So it's been a long history of this rift, this division. while the Anabaptist desired fellowship. Yet this breach about the issue of the Word of God has become a great gulf that cannot be bridged. We cannot deny, thus saith the Word of God. And we cannot deny the teachings of the Bible. And we cannot deny what Christ gave unto His apostles and what the apostles have given unto us. Indeed, in the pattern of a New Testament church, and the qualification of being a New Testament church is set forth very clearly in the second chapter of Acts where we read that they continue steadfastly in the Apostles' doctrine. We dare not look to a creed. We dare not look to what Martin Luther or what John Wesley or what John Knox said about these things. But rather we look to, thus saith the Word of God. So there is a very serious issue involved between Baptists and Protestants, while we recognize and believe and hope that many of them are indeed followers of Jesus Christ, there is the authority of the Word of God. What do we base our doctrine and practice on? Baptists have said in their confession, and Baptists have said, what we believe is that the Bible is the sole authority for doctrine and practice, the sole authority. And we dare not take anything else except, thus saith the Word of God. And so we hold to a literal interpretation of the Bible as much as possible. Of course, sometimes, indeed, it is very clear. But the Bible itself is speaking in figurative language. And so we acknowledge that figurative language. But otherwise, we would say, thus saith the Word of God. And there is where we stand. And there is where we have died through the years, through the centuries. Because we have been such ardent adherers to, thus said, the Word of God, there is a great difference between us and the Protestants on the issue of the matter of the ordinances as set forth in the Word of God, especially the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Suffering. Now I very clearly that both Protestants and Baptists acknowledge that there are only two primary ordinances. While the Roman Catholic Church I had many that they subscribe to and which they many impose upon their followers. There is a commonness here among Baptists and Protestants. But there's a great deal of difference in our understanding and our teaching about those two ordinances. And we call them ordinances while the Protestants, for the most part, call them sacraments. And the reason why they call them sacraments is because that's what's been passed down to them from the Roman Catholic Church from which they all came. And a sacrament is a means of conveying grace. We do not believe that the sacraments are a means of conveying grace. We do not believe the ordinances are a means of conveying grace. And we call them ordinances because we believe that this is what Christ has taught and ordered. And so we follow the order of Christ and the ordinances of Christ. We have clear teaching again, Bible for this, in the 11th chapter, 1 Corinthians. running to the church at Corinth, spoke to them and said, Be ye a part of me, even as I am also of Christ. And he said, Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances as I deliver them unto you. And so that's our pattern, and that's the rule that we live by. as Baptists, is that we keep these things, we preserve these things, we perpetuate these ordinances as they have been delivered unto us by the Apostles because of the very teachings of Christ Himself. In Matthew, the 28th chapter, our Lord gave what is that great commission before He ascended back to Heaven, and He said in Matthew, the 28th chapter, Go ye into all the world, teaching all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. First of all, we have here this charter, this responsibility as New Testament people, that we would be going forth and preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ unto all the world. We believe that that is our responsibility, not for the sake of that we might save somebody from going to hell, because we believe that Christ's death on the cross and that alone is what keeps anyone from going to hell. Nor is it that we might, by our preaching, regenerate someone because we believe that that's the work of the Holy Spirit as we have set forth last week, that regeneration is by the Spirit of God, but rather that in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ, that those who are the elect of God, who have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, they are converted and they are comforted concerning their salvation. And so we follow the teaching of Christ, going to all the world and preaching the Gospel. Then our Lord says here, teaching them and baptizing them. Now, our Lord did not say, sprinkling them. And so we dare not alter nor change what our Lord has said if we are to be followers of Christ. And we take the Word of God to be the principle and the rule that we go by. Our Lord used a word that was very clear in its definition, immersing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. Now, our Protestant brethren would agree that if someone were to be baptized, however mold you might want to use, if someone were to be baptized in the name of George Washington or in the name of even Martin Luther, that would be improper baptism. And the reason why they would say it would be improper baptism is because the Lord said, baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. And if you even use just the name of the Father, They would say that's improper baptism because the Lord used the terminology here that sets forth the Trinity. And that indeed the Trinity, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are all equally operative on the salvation of God's elect people, and they are acknowledged here in baptism. And so if we only baptize in the name of the Father, that would then be improper baptism. But at the same time, they take the liberty of changing this very word, baptize, which the Greek word means to immerse, they change it and take for themselves the liberty and the license of saying that we can sprinkle someone and it is proper baptism. Not so, we believe. Our Lord used a word that means exactly and tells us how we are to go about doing this. And He says in the very next verse, He says, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you. And so it is everything the Lord has taught by doctrine and practice and example, we are to do it in the very same way as the Lord set it forth, because thus saith the Word of God, and we dare not depart from the teachings of Christ and His apostles, if we are to be New Testament people. John Calvin was a great scholar. Bible scholar. And there are indeed many things that he would write that we would be in agreement about, especially as he would speak about the subject of depravity and of election and predestination. And that is true with all of our Reformed friends. But there was a serious error in areas that we would be in great disagreement with him. John Calvin commenting on John the third chapter. I'm reading John chapter 3 and verse 22. And after these things came Jesus and his disciples from the land of Judea, and there he tarried with them and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Enon near to Salem, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. John Calvin's commentary on these verses says this. It's very evident that both Jesus Christ and John the Baptist were administering the ordinance of baptism by plunging the entire body of their converts in water. Now he acknowledges that because that's the very clear teaching of the Word of God and that's indeed the clear meaning of the Word. But then he goes on to say, but we have no need to be greatly exercised about the mode of baptism today. Now, how brazen that is to say that anyone can nullify the teaching, the clear teaching of the New Testament and say that we can even make void the very words of Jesus Christ and change them to suit what our traditions are. Well, they received that tradition from the Roman Catholic Church. Sprinkling began among the apostate Mormon Catholic Church in about 300 A.D. I will not give you the exact year there at the moment, but somewhere in that time period. And it was developed as the false teaching, erroneous doctrine, of baptismal regeneration. And as that doctrine was spread abroad, then it became acknowledged that, well, if by baptism we can convert people and regenerate them and give them eternal life, Then we need to start very early and so we will do so even with the infants. And then because there were some problems about infants drowning when they were being plunged under water, then they developed it into being simply sprinkling them. Well, it was error piled up on top of error that brought about infant sprinkling and the reason why those errors have been perpetuated is because of a refusal to look to what does the Word of God say about these things. As I told you in the beginning of my message, such men as Dr. Fred Malone, who was a Presbyterian minister, in studying the subject from the New Testament about baptism, he himself became converted and became a Baptist minister. William Sureff in 1878, I believe it was, who had for years been himself a pastor in the Church of Scotland. When he gave diligent study to the Scriptures and to the language, he himself became converted of the correct mode of baptism by being by a merchant. And so, because we are strict Biblists, and because we adhere to the principle that the Word of God alone is the rule of practice in our doctrine and practices, we dare not deviate, we dare not change anything about the ordinances that our Lord has given to us. And so we follow a mode of baptism that was the pattern of the New Testament. It is for believers only. It is for those who confess faith in Jesus Christ. It is by the means of immersion. It is symbolical to show forth one's faith in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. It has no other benefit whereby that we might obtain life or obtain salvation. John Wesley says that in the waters of baptism that we are born again. Others say in the waters of baptism our sins are washed away. We say no, that's not what the Bible teaches. That's not what Christ taught. That's not what the apostles taught. And so we differ from the Protestants. We are not reformers as Baptists because of our understanding of the ordinances of Jesus Christ and the apostles. But rather, we must follow Christ. We must follow the Word of God. And so Paul says, Be ye followers of me, as I am also of Christ. Now, where can we draw a line and say, this is not important? Would Paul, the apostle, if he stood among us today and walked among us, would Paul, who was one who probably gave his life in the defense of the faith that was once the liberty of the saints, Would Paul, the apostle who suffered the loss of all things, who was willing to be beaten, who was willing to be stoned, who laid down his life in defense of the gospel of Christ, would Paul, that apostle, say to us, well, I'll tell you, some of the things that I taught and some of the things that Christ taught, they're not really important. Who would be willing to say, Paul, you died for things that were not really important? You just, you were misguided, Paul. And you don't really, you don't come up to John Calvin. You don't come up to John Knox. You don't measure up to John Wesley, Paul. They have a better understanding of these things than what you do. Oh, what blessed we may be, my friends. How ungodly to dare to say that anything and everything that is set forth in the New Testament under the Word of God, that they are non-essential to us today. We are badness because we believe the Bible. But my friends, I want to say to you, to all of us, lip service to the Word of God is easy in America, too easy. And yet, even here in this country, where I find that it's so easy to be a Christian, we're not willing to make the sacrifices to be faithful to, thus said, the Word of God. The doctrine of predestination and election is ridiculed among many churches Because, well, even the pastors sometimes will acknowledge that, yes, it's set forth in the Bible. But if I teach those things, I'll lose my congregation. I'll lose my pastorship. I'll lose my standing in the denomination. And so they will not do it. There are Christian people who are attending churches that are preaching freewillism and who preach Arminianism and whose doctrine is indeed another gospel rather than the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Even some who are attending churches where they deny the very deity of Christ. But they continue on in those churches because that is where our families always go and that is where my friends go and because I have a better standing in society by going to that particular church. And so they would not leave to follow Christ. While we may look at scorn upon some of those kinds of people who make a great confession with their mouth and yet they follow the Lord at a distance, sad it is even among Baptists today. We are like the people our Lord described in the 15th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew This people draw nigh unto me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." You see, the coldness, the spiritual coldness that has set in among Christianity today, and especially among us as Baptists, where we don't have the fire, the burning zeal to follow Christ and are committed to Christ in every area of our life, it's because Indeed, with our mouths we have drawn nigh to God. And we acknowledge truths that we have heard and preached and learned as being true, but at the same time, our hearts are far from the Lord. And so the Lord said, In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandment of men. We can point to other denominations and say, their doctrines are the doctrines of men, but we can somewhat say with pride, our doctrines are the teachings of the Word of God. But at the same time, we acknowledge them with our lips, but our mouths we fall from. You see, it is one thing indeed to be a true Christian, a true Christian who follows the Lord as the Word of God teaches it, or to be a professing Christian who does and follows what the world in general describes to Christianity. Protestantism is a very large group of churches. Even many Baptists today are, in doctrine and practice, nothing more than Protestant churches. The fact of the matter is, there was a great ecumenical movement on where all the denominations including Baptists, would be collected together under one common name, so to speak. And many Baptist churches are abandoning the name, even a big Baptist. And the reason being is because they take not thus said the Word of God. and because they will willingly sacrifice the teachings of the Word of God for the sake of public approval. They are not followers of Jesus Christ. Paul said, Be ye followers of me, even as I am of Christ. Now, I have a third point that I will deal with in the afternoon session, and that is that we are not Protestants because of our understanding of the teachings of what a New Testament church is. And I will deal with that this afternoon. But my point that I want to note with you is that we can say in our mouths that we believe the Bible and we're followers of Christ, but the walk that we walk and how we live our daily lives speaks much louder to all of us, to the world that we live in. It speaks much louder. than what we say with our mouths and where we put our church membership and where we attend church. You see, it's not so much where we belong as it is who do we belong to. I meet people from time to time and I speak to them about their spiritual well-being. One of the first questions I will ask them is, where do you go to church? Well, sometimes they will tell me, Well, I'm not going anywhere regularly. Then I'll give them an invitation to come and visit with us here. Sometimes, though most commonly, they'll say, I go to such and such church. Regardless of what church it is, I will respond by saying something like this. Well, it's really not the most important thing where you go, it's who you know. And they will look at me sometimes in a puzzled way because they don't know what I mean. I can gather by that that they don't know the importance and the essentiality of being born again and knowing Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Sometimes I will get a positive response and say, that's exactly right. And so I will say to them, it's not the most important thing where you go, it's who you know. That's true with us. It's true with all of us. It's not the most important thing what church we may be a member of, or we may attend, but the critical issue is, who are we following? Who are we following? We sang the song a while ago, I will rise and go to Jesus, and He will embrace me in His arms. In the arms of my dear Savior, oh, there are ten thousand charms. I pray that God will bless us and guide us, that we may all individually follow Christ and Him alone.