Romans chapter 6, verses 1 to 11. Let us hear God's Word. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid! How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore, we are buried with Him by baptism into death, that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we haven't planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed. that henceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him. Knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once, but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise, reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. And God will add His blessing to the reading of His own, excuse me, His own infallible Word. We're turning to Romans chapter 6 where We have two verses that I want just to draw to your attention by way of reading them again. We will, of course, be looking at many scriptures today by the help of the Lord, and I want to open up here at these two verses. Romans 6, verse 3. Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore, We are buried with them by baptism unto death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. But the Lord Jesus Christ, as the head of the church, has instituted two ordinances for His people to observe, the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's Supper. We must understand immediately, as I indeed pointed out two weeks ago when I dealt with baptism on that occasion, that the observance of these ordinances is not optional. I want to stress that. It is the command of Christ that they be observed by His people, and therefore His people are to observe both baptism and the Lord's Supper until He comes again. Moreover, we find that the Lord has appointed these two sacraments, or ordinances, for the spiritual benefit and the spiritual welfare of His people. I've been noting with you in this series of messages on the means of grace, or sorry, on Christ as the head of the church, that the Lord has ordained what we call the means of grace for His people, whereby they are built up in their spiritual life. Already we have considered the Word and prayer as means of grace, and we then have moved on to begin to consider this matter of the sacrament of baptism. May I point out to you right now that it's not possible to preach on baptism as a means of grace without at least giving some attention to it as a belief or a doctrine. I think you understand what I mean by that. We need to understand what the Bible says about baptism in order to understand why it is a means of grace to the people of God. We must have some understanding, therefore, of the teaching of the Bible on this subject of water baptism in order to draw benefit from that teaching to our souls. Now, in the initial message two weeks ago, I addressed you on the issue of the significance of baptism. To be precise, we noticed from the Scriptures that inherent in the very word and its use, as it is the word baptism, the principal sense is that of union, union with our Lord Jesus Christ, which means that water baptism is a symbol of union with the Saviour. And it was stressed on that occasion that a proper understanding of water baptism will have us conclude that our union with Christ is in no way, in no sense, not even the least, established by water. When we understand the teaching of the Word of God, as I have said, about this whole subject of union with Christ, as it's symbolized by water baptism, then we can never say, and we dare never say, that our water baptism ever saves our union with the Lord or even contributes to it. That's a very important matter for us to keep in mind and consider carefully. To entertain the idea or the notion, and may I put it very plainly, that water does the trick, is to embrace baptismal regeneration. And as a church, we totally repudiate that and we warn men and women that to espouse that idea is to place the soul in danger of everlasting hell. Baptism does not regenerate. Now, with regard to the sacrament of baptism, there are two other matters to consider, namely the mode and the subjects of baptism. That is, how should people be baptized? And when should they be baptized? Now, it's right there that the controversy has arisen down through the generations of time. because of the fact that there are varying views on this matter of the mode and the subjects of baptism. But controversy has arisen there, and that controversy, maybe merely debate at first, has always in many cases degenerated into much more than debate. It has become a matter of rancorous debate and division and bitterness among the Lord's people. And that should never be. For the simple reason that baptism, while commanded and instituted by the Lord Jesus Christ as one of the two sacraments, is not essential to salvation, and is not therefore a cardinal doctrine of the gospel. May I remind you again of Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 1 verse 17, Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel. Now, words like those should be noted carefully because they do something that's very important. Those words actually place a distinction between the gospel and the ordinance of baptism. In other words, what I'm simply saying is this. Those words clearly teach. that no church body or no individual Christian ought to make a particular view of baptism an integral part of the gospel. or a basis either for fellowship on one hand, or separation from believers on the other hand. Paul says, Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, which means that baptism as an ordinance is not part of the gospel itself. It is merely a symbol. of what the gospel is all about. But the Holy Spirit puts a distinction there between baptism and the gospel, and therefore, as I say, no one ought to make a particular view of baptism a matter of separation or contention. In the light of that Scripture, there is clearly a case, therefore, for God's people to hold in love for one another differing views with regard to the mold and the subjects of baptism. Again, I say, so long as no one espouses this error of baptismal regeneration. I want to repeat that statement I have just made. In the Scriptures that we have already considered, and in the light of that tremendous statement by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 1, There is clearly a case for God's people to hold in love for one another differing views on this matter of the mode and the subjects of baptism, and it is in that spirit that our own denomination, from its very inception in 1951, has practiced the acceptance of both Baptist and paedo-Baptist believers into its communicant membership. I want to read with you right now, as a congregation, Article 6A of our own Articles of Faith. It says this, The Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster under Christ, the Great King and Head of the Church. realizes that bitter controversy raging around the mode and proper subjects of the ordinance of Christian baptism has divided the body of Christ, when that body should have been united in Christian love and Holy Ghost power to stem the onslaughts and hell-inspired attacks of modernism, hereby affirms that each member of the Free Presbyterian Church shall have liberty to decide for himself which courses to adopt on these controversial issues, each member giving due honour and love to the views held by differing brethren, but none espousing the error of baptismal regeneration." Now that statement of faith pertains to the mold and the subjects of baptism, and it says clearly that as a denomination we allow liberty of conscience concerning these matters. Notice that in the case of all ministers and elders of our church, subscription to that article takes place when a man is ordained and inducted to his office, which means that every minister and elder of our denomination is under oath to uphold our church's policy on baptism. But it extends beyond that. It's a statement, it's an article that is binding on every communicant member of this denomination, the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. And therefore we must keep that in mind. I said earlier there we come to the realm of controversy. I don't want this to be controversial in my preaching at all. And I set out to preach according to the policy of our own church. All I'm simply saying is We don't tolerate controversy in this. You are entitled to hold your view with regard to the mode and the subjects of baptism. But you're to hold them in love to your brethren who may differ from you with regard to those matters. That's very important. And having said that, I want us now to come today and look at the matter of the mode of baptism, because that takes up, I believe, enough space in the study of Scripture to warrant one message on that subject. I want to begin with today by simply saying to you right now, listen carefully. And by the way, I'd like you to do something today. Forget about the notes. Read them when you go home. I want you to listen very carefully as I expound the Scriptures, or try to by the help of the Lord. Just set your notes down and listen carefully. The first thing I want to say is this. The Bible does not, Scripture does not teach a certain mode of baptism as the only one to be held. Let me repeat that. Scripture does not teach a certain mode of baptism as the only one to be held. I want you to understand today that in the history of the Christian church, most, in fact, the vast majority of Protestant churches have held that baptism may be administered, with regard to mode, by immersion, pouring and sprinkling. That is the position in church history of the majority of Christian churches. Now, we know, of course, that Baptist churches and others as well have always insisted that immersion in water is the only valid method or mode of baptism. But with regard to church history, all three modes have been held and have been practiced by God's people way back to the earliest times. The close of the Canon of Scripture took place around 95 A.D. The Apostle John was the last Apostle to live. He was the last writer of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture closed and then we find that the Church began to develop farther and farther into this world. But it's interesting to find that around 100 A.D. a certain writing was produced that is called the Didachai. It simply means teaching. As a word that comes from the original Greek language, it simply means teaching. And this document was produced around that time, 100 AD, that set forth many matters of doctrine and teaching that the Christian church espoused and believed. And it included reference to the ordinance of baptism. And the interesting thing is, And that document can still be read, by the way, stretching way back to 100 A.D. The interesting thing is that in it you will find that all three modes of baptism were practiced by the Christian church at that particular time. It wasn't one mode, all three modes were practiced by God's people in those times. And therefore this historical detail indicates that one mode of baptism has not been the practice of the Christian church down through the centuries. Although, as I say, there are those who will confine themselves to one mode, and they are perfectly at liberty to do that. But it raises a point. Since the Christian church, even from earliest days in her own writings, produces the evidence that she has held all three modes, then surely that means that in the mind of God's people down through all these generations of time, there was the thought, based on Scripture, that Scripture does not teach a particular mode of baptism as the only one that should be employed by God's people. And that is simply the view of our own denomination. The Bible does not teach that one mode only is to be held by God's people as the only mode for baptism. Let's look at some scriptures. Last time I took you through a lot of scripture dealing with the issue of the significance of baptism, how it signifies union with Christ, and of course that's always in view. But turn to Hebrews chapter 9 for a moment, and let's just look at this, the word baptism, although at first you'll not even see the word, It's in the original language. I want you to see how it's translated. Hebrews chapter 9, look at verse 7. It says, "...therein to the second went the high priest low." It's talking about the tabernacle and various things that took place in the tabernacle in those days of Aaron and Moses. Then if you go on down with me quickly, just to get the verse I want you to see, verse 10, it says, which stood only, that's talking about the tabernacle and its system of worship, which stood only in meats and drinks. Now listen, diverse washings. Now the word for washings here is the standard New Testament word that every one of us here today knows. And I'll explain why you know the word. It's the standard New Testament word for baptism, and it's baptizmos. And therefore here we have a verse where you have the word washings or baptism, and it's used, now listen carefully, this is the point to notice here. Here is the word used for something other than any particular mode of baptism. Never mind, used for something other than a certain mode. It's used here for something other than any particular mode of baptism. Because right here, the word is used with regard to the Old Testament rituals of purifications and washings. But the Holy Ghost has used the word that means baptism. You see what I'm getting at? Here's the word used in a verse, and there's nothing about baptism as we know it at all. And we're shown here that the word, therefore, is not even projecting the notion in the least of a certain mode of baptism, whether immersion or pouring or sprinkling. It's talking about an Old Testament ceremony that took place in the tabernacle. Nothing to do with what we might call Christian baptism. Then let's go to Mark 7. Mark chapter 7, and look there please, Mark chapter 7, and this is an interesting passage I want us to consider right now. Mark 7 and in verse 1, notice how the chapter commences by the way, this is important. Then came together unto him the Pharisees and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. And when they saw some of his disciples eat with defiled, that is to say with unwashing hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." And may I pause here and simply say to you that this passage commences with a reference to the Pharisees being very upset with the Lord Jesus Christ because the Lord's disciples weren't washing their hands. Well, you notice first of all, as we read these verses, and that's the setting here, Pharisees upset with the Lord because the disciples didn't wash their hands. It wasn't a matter of hygiene. Many will take the view that the Pharisees were very assiduous in washing their hands to make them clean. Now, no doubt they got clean because they washed their hands so often, but the point is they weren't washing their hands out of a matter of hygiene. They were washing their hands because of a ritualistic tradition that if they did this often enough, they would get to heaven. That's what it's all about. Look at verse 3 and you'll see it. Toward the end of the verse, "...holding the tradition of the elders." And then verse 4, in the middle of the verse it says, "...many other things there be which they have received to hold." And remember something, the word hold there means to hold tenaciously, not letting go. And the Pharisees held on to these traditions, including this one of washing their hands constantly, because they were convinced it contributed to their salvation somewhere or other. So that's the setting and that's the meaning of the reference here to the Pharisees washing their hands and being very upset with the Lord because His disciples weren't doing this. They were upset not because of a matter of hygiene, but because the disciples had seen the nonsense of the Pharisees and were no longer involved in this ritual and had departed from it. That's why they were upset. Then verse 4 is the key verse for our purposes now, today. Verse 4 shows the extent to which they held this ritual. It says, toward the end of the verse, "...the washing of cups and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." Now, I have not already said this, but I say it right now. In every one of these verses where you have the word wash or the word washing, you have the word, the Greek word in the original, that means baptized. Or baptism? Let's look at it carefully. Remember those who say that the word baptize always means a certain mode. And there are those who hold to the various modes, and they will be very insistent their mode is always in view. Now, look at it with me. And of course, the mode that's especially held is the mode of immersion. Now, look at it with me. It says, the baptizing of cops That's how it reads. The baptizing of cups and pots, brazen vessels and of tables. Now, notice here the clear point that comes out of these words in verse 4. It's simply this. All of the items in verse 4 could not be immersed or submerged in water. Oh yes, you could immerse cups. and submerged pots, whatever way you want to express it, or pots even. Do you see the words there, brazen vessels? The reference is to a vessel that was actually, listen carefully, it was the largest pot in the house. That's what it means. And then it tells us right away, Just as it was the largest pot in the house, there wasn't another pot in which to immerse the brazen vessel. So that means that they washed the brazen vessel in some other way, other than immersing it in water. You take the word table, as it is there in our authorized version. The original word could be read couch or bed. It's a reference where you take it as table or couch or bed to some of the largest furnishing in the house. And again, it would be very difficult to immerse your bed, wouldn't it? It simply means the bed was washed or the table was washed, whatever way you want to translate it. But the point is clear men and women, you can't come to this verse where the word baptize is the original Greek word and say that it means a certain mode. Obviously it cannot mean that, and we're thinking here about the mode of immersion. Then turn to Acts chapter 8, Acts chapter 8. Let's look at one of the cases of baptism. recorded in the New Testament. What I'm simply trying to do today at this point is show you, brothers and sisters, that we cannot say that the Bible teaches only one mode of baptism, because it does not stand the test of Scripture. So turn to Acts chapter 8, and we have the story of the conversion of the eunuch, as you're aware. Verse 36, The eunuch has heard the word and obviously has been brought to Christ through Philip's ministry. And it says in verse 36, as they went on their way, they came on to a certain water, and the eunuch said, See here is water, what doth hinder me to be baptized? So verse 38 then, and he commanded the chariot to stand still, and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. Often this passage is employed to prove that the claim that the verb baptize always means to immerse or to submerge. But look carefully at the words with me. Those words especially, that particular clause, they went down both into the water. Now those are the very words that brethren will take and say, there you are, he went down into the water, that means that he was immersed in the water. But you see, there's a great problem, and I'm sure some of you have seen it already, if not today, before. And it's simply this. It says that they both went down into the water, and then it's emphasized, both Philip and the eunuch. Which means that if the words, they went down into the water, mean immersion, then Philip was immersed as well as the man he was immersing. And that doesn't make sense. You see, once again, you notice here, and I can put it this way, the words here prove too much. For the person who will say, immersion is the only mode, and this is a proof of immersion. The words prove too much, because the words are teaching that both men went down into the water. What I'm simply saying is, both Philip and Enoch left the chariot, they went along to whatever it was, a pool or whatever it was, they walked down into it, or up to it, or along to it, and then Philip baptized the man. Now let me say something. He may have baptized him by immersion, or he may have baptized him by pouring, or he may have baptized him by sprinkling. I don't know. And nobody else knows for that matter. Because these words do not teach a mode of baptism. They simply teach that the eunuch was baptized. That's all it's saying. Let us not read into Scripture what is not. Let me say this as well. If I had been Philip, I've been quite happy to immerse that man in water. I want you to understand that. I'm not against immersion. I have immersed many a person and will do so again in the will of the Lord. And I have poured people, I have sprinkled people, and I'm simply telling you, brethren and sisters, the Bible doesn't specify one particular mode as the only mode. That's the point. Now, these Scriptures therefore make something very, very clear. And that is this, the issue of the mold is not so clear as to create a basis for dogmatism on the question of how people should be baptized. Do you see what I'm saying? I could take you to many more scriptures, I don't have time to do that. I'm encouraging you to do a word study on baptism. the references to it, the places it's used and how it's used and so on, and you'll find that we cannot, we cannot say that we have a basis for being dogmatic on this issue that there's only one way in which a person should be baptized. Let me tell you another fact about the word itself, the word baptism. First of all, as a verb, it's used eighty times in the New Testament. Seventy-six of those times it is translated, baptize, in our authorized version, our English version. Twenty-six times it is used as a noun, it is baptism. And out of those twenty-six times, We find that in all but two instances it's rendered baptism. Now, do you see where I'm going right here? Here is a word that the Holy Ghost had in the original language. And let me tell you, brothers and sisters, without trying to sound technical here, or without trying to give the idea that we are more knowledgeable than other people, you and I both know the Greek word for baptize. It is baptizo. You see what I'm saying? Your English word is not even a translation of the Greek word. It's what's called a transliteration. In other words, our translators took the Greek word, baptizo, and all they simply did was put it into English, the English equivalent of the Greek. Now, why did they do that? Why did they do that? Why did they not, when they came to translate the Bible, and remember our translators of the Authorized Version, were the greatest scholars of their day? If men knew Greek or Hebrew of the Old Testament, it was the men who translated the Authorized, the King James Version. And may I just say in passing that they make the translators of our day who bring out all these perversions of Scripture look like fools. When you study the lives and the spiritual pedigree and scholarship abilities of the translators of our authorized version, you will discover they were men who knew the Greek and the Hebrew inside out. And yet, the remarkable thing is, when they came to translate the Word... I say it again, baptizo. When they came to translate the Word, they didn't translate it immerse. pour or sprinkle, they simply put it into the English equivalent. Why do they do that? Because even our translators could see. that the usage and the sense of the Word in the New Testament Scriptures is such that mold is not the issue. Now get it well, men and women, mold is not the issue. It doesn't matter how much water is put on you or how little water is put on you. It doesn't matter how it's done. That's not the issue. And the use of the Word, listen carefully, The use of the Word by the Spirit of God. Never mind how our translators translated it. The use of the Word, out of our renown by the Holy Spirit, tells us very clearly that mode is not the issue. What is the issue? The issue is what it means. The issue is what it signifies. As I dealt with last time, it is significant of our union with the Lord Jesus Christ. That is the vital matter. That is the important thing. That's the doctrine. That's the truth that's at the very heart of the ordinance and in the very etymology and use of the word in the New Testament. It's the matter of union with the Lord Jesus Christ. It's not how the baptism is administered. Therefore, how sad and how wrong for God's people to fall out over this whole question of how people should be baptized with regard to mode. I want to go on from there and say this in the next place. The Word of God teaches that all three modes of baptism present Each presents its own perspective on the spiritual significance of baptism. Each mode presents its own perspective on this significance of baptism. That is union with the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, let me just help you to see that. I want you to listen very carefully, because this is, I believe, the most important point of all, really. Baptism is to be administered. How is it to be administered? Well, as I've told you already, our church's position is, in keeping with the Reformed tradition, all three modes are biblical, and therefore you may employ any one of them. And the vital matter, however, is this, that you see and you meditate, and this is where it becomes a means of grace, you see. You see and you meditate on the meaning and on the significance of the ordinance itself. And what I'm simply saying to you, therefore, is this. Baptism may be administered by immersion, by pouring, by sprinkling. All three are taught in the Bible. But the point is this, whatever mode you care to mention, you make sure you understand the meaning and the significance of the ordinance itself, because all three do present particular perspectives on the whole meaning of baptism. But let's look at a passage that is always used, again, as a proof text for immersion, and it's clearly there. Romans chapter 6. Turning to Romans 6 we read today. And we read here in verse 3 and verse 4, the word baptized or baptism. And then you come to look at these verses. Remember what I said the last time? Here you have Baptism used with regard to union with Jesus Christ. The idea here is threefold, as has often been put this way, dead with Christ, buried with Christ, risen with Christ. It's there in the language. But remember again, I say that the actual baptism that's mentioned here in so many words is spiritual baptism. But since water baptism is symbolic of union with Christ, and since the words, that's the point, the words baptized and baptism are used here, it is legitimate. I want to stress that. It is legitimate to use this passage as a proof of the concept of immersion. That is, dying with Christ, buried with Christ, risen with Christ. That's what immersion signifies with regard to its being a molt. You die with Christ, you're buried with Christ, you rise with Christ. And that's what's in view right here in the language of these two verses. Remember, it's the spiritual union. Yes, I stress we're not all brought into union with Christ by water, but the point is the Holy Ghost. Now listen carefully. The Holy Ghost, who is the author of Scripture, has used the word baptize, or baptism, as He deals with the subject of union with Christ. And therefore, since baptism is a symbol of union with Christ, and you can see here the idea of going down in and coming back up, then it is perfectly legitimate to use immersion as a mode of baptism. But when you are immersed, if you were or will be, remember something. There is no value in how much water you went through. There is no value in the mode by which you were baptized. All the value lies in what it signifies. Union with Christ. Let's go down to the Gospel of Luke, because I want to look with you right now at the mode of pouring. Luke chapter 3. Some of you may be saying, well, where is pouring in the Bible? Remember I said today I'm teaching you from the Scriptures. I'm not setting out to be controversial. I'm simply showing you what the Bible says. Luke chapter 3, verse 16. John answered saying unto them, to them all, I indeed baptize you with water. Now there's not one of us here today who doubts that John's talking there about water baptism. Isn't that right? It's clear, it's plain. I baptize you with water. Then he says this, But one might e'er than I cometh, the lachet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose, he shall baptize you with. the Holy Ghost and the fire. Before I leave this verse, may I point out to you what's most important for our purposes today. John says, I baptize you with. Now just take those words. I baptize you with. Then you go down where he talks about the Lord. He shall baptize you with. What am I pointing out? I'm pointing out that the exact same language is used by John. First of all, of his own baptism of people by water, and then the baptism that the Lord would administer through the Holy Spirit. It's the very same language. That's important. You go with me, please, to Acts chapter 1. We must go there to see how this all came about, or the fulfillment of this. Acts chapter 1, and it says in verse 5, For John truly baptized with water. Now here's the Lord Jesus speaking, and you notice how He refers back to John's ministry. John truly baptized, now listen again, with water. But ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Not many days hence. And once more, it's the same language. Virtually the same words here, where the Lord speaks of John's baptism and then predicts the baptism of the apostles by the Spirit of God. Now, let's go to Acts 2 to see where this all was fulfilled. Acts 2, verse 4, just as the particular instance when the Holy Spirit fell, Acts 2, verse 4, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost. Now, we're not going any farther there. I just want you to notice how the prediction was fulfilled. They were all filled with the Holy Ghost. But the verse I want you to notice right now is verse 18. And on my servants and on my handmaidens, I will pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy. Now what happened in between? Well, the Holy Ghost came down, as verse 4 shows, And, of course, they preached the gospel to the people there in Jerusalem by the miraculous gift of tongues. By the way, I'll be dealing with that subject in the will of God before I finish this series, speaking with tongues. I'm not dealing with it today, of course, but in between you have this. They preached the gospel to the people of Jerusalem in tongues. And those who were watching on, the unbelieving Jews, couldn't understand it, so they said, well, these men are drunk. That was their verdict. Verse 13, these men are full of new wine. So then Peter stands up to preach his great sermon, and he explains what has taken place. And what does he say? Well, he's explaining the fact that the Holy Ghost came on the apostles. But remember something. In every verse up to this point, it was said, you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Baptized with the Holy Ghost. And yet here when you come to verse 18, what do you find with regard to the word that's used? It says, I will pour out of my Spirit. Here's the point. How were the disciples baptized with the Holy Ghost? The Holy Ghost was poured on them. Poured on them. Indeed, if you go on down to verse 33 of Acts 2, you'll find the same word, although we don't see it in the English, but I want you to see it. Therefore, Acts 2, 33, Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed And the word shev means poured. It's the very same word as verse 18. He hath poured forth this which ye now see and hear. In other words, my friend, the Holy Ghost came on the disciples, and remember it was a baptism. And the word that's used is the very same word, this word baptize. that's found the whole way through the New Testament. But we are given an interpretation here of how they were baptized with the Holy Ghost. They were baptized by pouring. But John said, I've baptized you with water. He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. And you bring it all together and the obvious conclusion is very easy to see, very simple in fact. Bring it all together and you are taught that just as the disciples were baptized by the Spirit through pouring, the pouring of the Spirit upon them, so John obviously baptized people by pouring. How do you get it? And what is the significance of that pouring? Baptism by pouring is symbolic of the Spirit of God being poured out upon God's people with regard to salvation or even the whole Christian life, living the life of the Spirit. You see, when we are born again, when we are brought into union with Christ, symbolized by immersion, we receive the Holy Ghost. He is poured out upon us. He comes to indwell our souls. Symbolized by pouring. And the third mode is that of strengthening. See, in the Old Testament there are many references to sprinkling in connection with different Levitical rites and ceremonies. I don't have time to take you there today, as you can see, but I can say this categorically. You go to the Old Testament, you look at those references to sprinklings, and you will find that many of them were essentially baptisms in the Old Testament age. At least they had that appearance of baptism. But the vital thing is that in the New Testament there are references to sprinkling with regard to God's people in connection with their cleansing and with the forgiveness of their sins. Hebrews 10.22, let us draw near in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, And our bodies washed with pure water, sprinkling and washing brought together. dealing with the spiritual matter, of course, of the cleansing of us from our sin. Hebrews 12, 24, the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than that of Abel. 1 Peter 1, verse 2, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. In other words, in the New Testament, you'll find the word sprinkling in a variety of places associated with this very matter of cleansing, washing. and the forgiveness of sins. Now, bring that all together as I draw to a close today, and what do you have? Since all three modes are taught in Scripture, now you listen carefully, then the ordinance of baptism signifies union with Christ, the new birth, the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the forgiveness of our sins and our cleansing from sin by the precious blood of Christ. In other words, my dear friend, all three modes are valid. And as I said at the outset of this point, each mode has a different perspective to present on what baptism signifies. On one hand, it signifies our union with the Lord. That's true in our salvation. We are united with Jesus Christ. On the other hand, baptism signifies the coming of the Holy Spirit on us. And that is true of our salvation. And then, baptism signifies our being cleansed and sprinkled with the blood of Jesus Christ. And I tell you right now, it's the precious blood that washes away our sin, not the water of baptism of any particular mode of administration. It's the blood of the Lamb. But my dear friend, you keep in mind, and this is where you see baptism as a means of grace. That's the vital thing for our purposes. We shouldn't be arguing over baptism, the mode, the subjects and all. We should be considering In the light of what I've shown you today, this is a means of grace to my soul. Each mode has something to teach about my salvation. Not one of the modes makes me saved or puts me into Christ, but each mode teaches me something about my salvation. Baptism as an ordinance, therefore, is designed to keep you in memory. My friend, get it well. It is designed to keep you in memory of how you were united with Christ, and the Holy Ghost came into your life, and you were washed in the blood of the Lamb when you were brought to Christ. That is what baptism is all about. That is its value as a means of grace. And on that, God's people are actually shown that they are to meditate. You should ask yourself the question, what does my baptism teach me? What does it signify? What does it mean to me? As you ask yourself those questions and you look up the Bible and you get the answers and so on, then what happens? You meditate on that. My baptism reminds me I was joined to the Lord. I receive the Holy Ghost. I've been washed from my sins. And as you dwell in that, then your baptism becomes a means of grace to your soul. Of course, it can't be if you never have been baptized. I just say that and let it sink in. It's commanded. It should be observed. And it's a means of grace. What a blessing that the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a symbol. My dear friend, while we're against all the symbols and rituals of Romanism and apostasy and all the rest of it, let us not neglect those symbols the Lord has appointed. We must not do that. I said to you before, and I say it again, that is sin. It is sin to neglect baptism. It is sin to neglect the Lord's table. Get it straight. The mode is not the issue. The issue is this means, this teaches me something, great truths concerning my salvation. And God in His mercy has given you that. a visible symbol and token to keep you in mind of what you are in Christ. Baptism, of course, is only administered once, because we're only born again once. We're only united with Christ once. We're only justified once. But it is important. The Lord wrote His Word in our hearts. And may He use it today to build up His people and to give us understanding of these things. Let us bow in prayer.