All right. Good afternoon or good morning, everyone, either which way you are when you are watching or listening to this next installment in our foundational series. So far, guys, we have seen the Bible for soul authority, for our faith and practice. We spent two weeks on that. And then last week, we covered two points at the same time, which was the autonomy of the church, which focuses on really the liberty of each individual Bible-believing church to function and operate according to the Word of God, having liberty to function administratively according to the Word of God. And then, We saw the priesthood of believers, guys, the priesthood of believers, which, again, constitutes every saved born-again individual who believes on the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and to eternal salvation as having access to the throne of heaven by way of prayer. In other words, there is no man that a person needs to go through, no entity, no one prays into an idol, that's idolatry, that's paganism. No one goes to a singular man to have access to heaven, that's paganism, we don't have that today. And we saw the foreshadow from the Old Testament priest who went on behalf of the nation of Israel once a year to present their sins before the Lord and a sacrifice thereunto, having that go between once the final sacrifice was committed, which was the Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross of Calvary. There is one man between man and God, and that is the man Christ Jesus. He is our go-between. He is our propitiation. As a result of that, we house the Holy Spirit of God. The Bible says that we are bought with a price. Therefore, this temple that's not made with hands, this temple, our body, is the temple of the Holy Spirit, thus giving us the holy priesthood or the royal priesthood, as Peter said, both in both ways. And that's how we have access to heaven. So we've covered all of that thus far in our foundation series. This we're going to get into our first part. The next series will take three weeks to cover. Two parts will be on baptism. So we're going to be looking at the two ordinances that are given to the local church. I want to emphasize they are not sacraments, okay? Sacraments are not part of the function of the local church. Sacraments are not part of biblical Christianity, but rather ordinances. And the ordinances that we have are baptism and the Lord's Table. Baptism and the Lord's Table. This week we're going to begin baptism. We'll finish it next week. I'm keeping these relatively short. just by way of ease for you to listen or to watch at your leisure. And again, as always, the outline will be on the sermonaudio.com, will be on our app there, our Church One app, for you either to print off, download, and to follow along and fill in the blank. Last week, I know I gave the entire teaching notes just by way because of the context that we're being taught. This week, it will be a handout, fill in the blank. Okay, 1 Peter 3, verse 21 says, Now Peter's not teaching that the physical act of baptism by water saves you, but rather the baptism of the Holy Spirit of God. When a person accepts Jesus Christ as the Lord's Savior, they are therefore baptized into or in with the Holy Spirit of God, and that is the salvation process. But the idea of baptism as we know it as a function, okay, this baptism of water, became common practice around third century B.C., and I know the lights may go on now, you may go, wait a second, the church wasn't around then, Jesus Christ is yet 300 plus years before he dies on the cross. I understand all that, I get that, but, What you find in baptism, it typically was used to recognize the departing of one religious body to another. So the proselytization of Gentiles to Judaism was widely common in those days. Gentiles would forsake their heritage of pagan practices to identify with the Jews, and therefore the method chosen to depict such was that of baptism, okay? So according to all the historical records, immersion, was the only method used to display such an action." So in other words, baptism by immersion, okay, and really and truly to say baptism by immersion is kind of an oxymoron, and you'll see that this a little later on as well as next week, because the simple word by definition of baptism means to immerse or fully make wet. bring forth again. But anyway, all historical records reveal that immersion was the only method utilized to display the actions of proselytization. The majority of the Jews no longer considered baptized individuals Gentiles, and they welcomed them as fellow Jews. And it was almost 400 years, 400 years of silence when Israel possessed no prophet and heard nothing from the Lord until John, okay? John arised. John openly practiced repentance and faith in the coming Messiah. And John used the same common sign of repentance, which was used when the Gentiles forsook their heritage, whether that heritage was family or nation or both, to confess the one true God of Israel. John became so identified with this practice that he was known as John the Baptist. Yes, the six month elder cousin of the Lord Jesus Christ. So there is no other method per the scriptures, per the scriptures practice to baptize people. And therefore the perfect practice of baptism was performed by John in the form of immersion, full immersion, okay? This is supported by scripture in John's ministry. as large bodies of water were needed in order to baptize. John chapter three, verse 23 says, and John also was baptized in Anon near Salem, because there was much water there. And they came and were baptized. Mark chapter one, verse five says, and there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and all were baptized. I'm sorry, go back. Mark chapter one, verse five says, and there went out unto him all the land of Judea and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. Okay? So guys, had baptism been performed by merely pouring or sprinkling, there would have been no need of number one, much water, much less to be in the river Jordan. There would be no need for that. It is really a very simple fact. It's a very simple truth that can be seen. I understand that people are deceived, and the ones that are deceiving them will hold a great accountability for that. But nonetheless, that's common sense. That is what is seen. So baptism had already become the picture and identification of religious truth and conversion. immersion depicts greatly. We know by proxy the death, but we'll see this later on as well, but it pictures the burial and resurrection of the promised Messiah. In fact, the importance of Christ's baptism is seen. He did not need a sign of conversion. He was the sinless Savior, yet he was still baptized. However, with his baptism, Jesus Christ identified himself, okay, identified himself with the truth of which John was preaching, and therefore pictures his own death, again by proxy, burial and resurrection, which was to come some three and one half years later on, we know that. The question of Jesus' baptism as to whether or not it was by immersion is answered precisely and perfectly. in Mark chapter 1 verses 9 through 11. The Bible says, And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan, and straightway coming up out of the water. He saw the heavens open and the spirit like a dove descending upon him. And there came a voice from heaven saying, thou art my beloved son in whom I am well pleased. I want you to take a strong note here to the fact that Jesus Christ came up out of the water. I know that some of the artists have depict Jesus standing in water and John the Baptist with this conch shell, you know, pouring water on him. That's, That's utterly insane, to be honest with you. No pouring, no sprinkling ever took place, but rather the exact act of what the word baptism means, full immersion and therefore coming forward. So what is the context? The context of biblical baptism. Number one, baptism is commanded. Baptism is commanded. The baptism of new converts was a clear commandment of the Lord Jesus Christ as expressed in the Great Commission. Matthew 28 verse 19 says, Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Baptism was not only commanded, baptism was practiced. So the practice of baptism is vividly seen in the New Testament church only status post conversion, never for conversion or prior to conversion. Acts 2 verse 41 says, then they that gladly received his word were baptized. And the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. So there's that. Lydia, in Acts chapter 16, when the apostle Paul had come into Philippi, in Acts 16 verses 14 and 15, the Bible says, And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us, whose heart the Lord opened. and that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized in her household, she besought us saying, if you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us." The very first church, the Church of Philip, I will start it. right there in Lydia's house, okay? And there's a wealth of information in those two verses, a wealth of information. Number one, the Lord opened her heart. That's who does the salvation. We plant the seed, we water the seed with the word of God. It was the words that she heard that was spoken by Paul that the Lord used to open up her heart. And she believed, therefore she was baptized, okay? And then her house was as well, they followed suit. But then she says, if you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, Biblical baptism for someone who is saved and born again, it's obedience. Biblical baptism follows someone who gets saved and born again. And therefore, it's us being obedient to the commandment of the Lord to practice what God has told us to do. Any other baptism won't suit you, won't be pleasing unto Him as you saw the Lord, the Father was pleased with the Son. And of course, He constrained us and He started that church there. Later on in the very same city, the Philippian jailer we find, Acts chapter 16, verses 30 through 34. The Bible says, and brought them out and said, sirs, what must I do to be saved? This is the jailer speaking. And they said, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved in thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes, and was baptized. and he and all his straight way. Verse 34 says, and when he had brought them into his house, he said, meet before them, rejoice, believing in God with all his house. Very, very simple, very simple words. Nothing confusing about this. We see Stephanus in first Corinthians chapter one, verse 16, and I baptize also the house of Stephanus. And besides, I know not whether I baptize in. This is Paul making this statement. Guys, so it is quite simplistic for us to understand for the early church to maintain this view. It's very simple for them to do so. And one of the key reasons, guys, and I know we We speak about language and how if you change a nation's language, you change their heritage. And it's one of the first things when a nation comes in and conquers another, is to rob them of their language and their heritage. We even find that when Babylon besieged Israel or Judah, I mean, And in 606 BC, when we see they take the sea royal, and the very first thing they did to Daniel and Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego, was they put them in the school of the Chaldeans. And then they went again, teach them their ways and teach them the language of Chaldea, you see. They wanted to change their heritage. So in the early church it was quite simplistic for them to maintain the proper form of baptism as long as the Greek language was spoken. Okay, as long as it was the spoken language. See, the Greek verb, baptizo, And the nouns baptizma as well as baptizmas were common words used in the Greek language. These words had many uses, yet they always, and I mean always with exclusivity, meant to dip, plunge, or to cover with water, never to sprinkle, to pour, but to completely immerse. For over 1,000 years, the common form of baptism was immersion. Even as late as the 16th century, such figures as Henry VIII and Elizabeth I were baptized, yes, baptized by immersion, even though biblically erroneously as infants, they were baptized wrongly. They shouldn't have been baptized as an infant. That's just, that's a practice, that's a paganist practice, a paganistic practice, but they were still, it was still immersion even up into those years. So, you know, we find that, guys, in this brief history, the context of biblical baptism. But what is the conception of anti-biblical baptism? So we have to look at two sides of the coin. Well, we find one teaching that became prevalent called clinical baptism. Clinical baptism is the concept of sprinkling, and it derived from the great difficulty in baptizing the affirm and the handicapped. The practice arose as early as the 2nd century AD, and it was taught that God would accept this as the quote-unquote best form of baptism, since these particular people were incapable of being immersed. However, as the Greek language began to demise, the true meaning of the word baptism lost its familiarity. And this led to the false belief that any of any identification with Christ in water was considered biblical baptism. If you put the two together, they considered it biblical baptism. As in most cases, false teaching starts out very small, and yet it grows exponentially. And as early as the third century AD, a church leader by the name of Cyprian, the Bishop of Carthage, taught baptism, the Lord's Supper, and identification with the church were essential for conversion. That sounds awful familiar, you know. You have to do these things or you're not a convert. Much of this is taught for control, to dictate someone's life. And what followed was the fruit of the wicked tree, namely infant baptism, of which Tertullian strongly taught against this idea in the third century. So the timeline started there, and it started with just being one degree off the mark, one little simple degree off the mark, and it really started with that clinical baptism, trying to make exceptions for those who were infirm or handicapped, could not go down into the water and be immersed. The reality is this, guys. Salvation is putting your faith and trust and dependence in the Lord Jesus Christ. It's believing on the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is your public profession of obedience, okay? It is that being obedient to the Lord as your public profession that you identify with the Lord Jesus Christ. If you were never baptized, guys, you're still safe. Should we be obedient, be baptized biblically? Absolutely we should. Absolutely we should. We shouldn't be a closet Christian. You want a public baptism to identify with the Lord Jesus Christ, but a biblical public baptism, because there's only one. So we find that this timeline began of this false teaching, and again, one degree off the mark, and proceeds throughout history with the distortion of not only baptism, but the local church and its pure essence. So in the fourth century, namely 327 AD, Emperor Constantine merged the church and the state. Baptism then took on a whole new meaning with most people, and it was now looked upon as a sign of homage to the state, rather to the Lord. Rather than obedience to the Lord Jesus Christ and his word, now it was a sign of homage to the state. In the 6th century, 550 A.D., Justinian ordered all non-Christians in the Roman Empire to become Christians. How did they do that? Including children by way of baptism. It was a part of control, just like all cults. In the ninth century, Charlemagne ordered the Germanic tribes to become Christians again, including infants, again by way of baptism. It was considered political resistance to refuse. Do you see how being one degree off the mark, the clinical baptism, let's just make way for the infirm, make way for the handicapped here. Let's just make way for this. Let's take one step back, one degree off the mark. Do you see how throughout history that angle begins to grow and grow and grow so much further away from the absolute truth? So by the 12th century AD, the common practice of sprinkling was accepted in Rome. 17th century, most countries commonly accepted sprinkling as forms of baptism. And for almost 300 years, there were three main teachings about baptism. The Roman Catholic institution, they taught the sprinkling infants as part of their salvation and for church membership. The Protestants were teaching teachings of baptism, which was typically by sprinkling, baptism of infants for church membership. And then there was the Baptist teaching of baptism, which is solely and fully by immersion only for believers, for believers only. As a believer, one has to have the ability to believe and make a conscious decision on the Lord Jesus Christ, which rules out infants, okay? Rules out infants. So in 17th century in England, the Church of England was so determined to do away with the practice of baptism by immersion in its nation, they did so by printing new Greeks, which erroneously taught the word baptizo meant sprinkling. However, there were many Greek students who knew better. They ridiculed the text so bad that it was soon removed from public use. In the mid-19th century, a new teaching reared its ugly head, known as Campbellism. Alexander Campbell, an active Baptist in Kentucky and Tennessee, in the United States of America, began to teach the act of baptism as part of expressing faith. This addition to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ was rejected by the vast majority of Baptists, and soon the Campbellites, as they were known, formed a separate movement, calling themselves the Disciples of Christ, or today known as the Church of Christ, and they created a fourth distinct teaching of baptism. Okay, in other words, baptismal regeneration. So as the Roman Catholic system grew in power and strength from its conception in 327 AD, organizational aspects of the institution grew with it, and thus the idea of baptism as part of salvation became more common. The denial of this doctrine was used to mark non-conformance, we've heard that word so much, to the Catholic institution. The Protestant Reformers did teach the glorious truth of the salvation by faith, which was incompatible with the Catholic institution. However, most Reformers finally concluded that infant baptism, typically by sprinkling, was good and therefore constituted it in their church membership. It is an erroneous teaching. It is a, in all fairness, it is a vile act. It is great high treason against the grace of God to baptize an infant who has no clue what they're doing, and to give them that quote unquote assurance in their life that what they performed, or was performed on them, I should say, as an infant, ushers them into a state of eternal security, which is just wicked, guys. So what about the baptism, what about baptismal Again, we're looking at a brief history of the doctrine of baptism, so we can't leave out some of the negative sides, especially of those little offshoots of the Baptist movement, and they begin to teach what's called baptismal perpetuity. Now, the teaching of baptismal perpetuity is also known as Baptist secessionism. It's not entirely false. However, the overall majority of those who are teaching it, they teach it deeply by use of such nomenclature, typically rooted with the wrong person or the wrong member, okay, in the Gospels. So whereas I believe in all of my heart, we as biblical Baptists or biblical Christians, those who hold to the distinctives and doctrines taught by Scripture, We believe that such doctrine is succeeded by the use of the ordinance of baptism, okay? We believe. But what are we doing? We're continuing on in the teachings from Acts chapter 11. We're continuing on from the commandments and the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, okay? But So we understand that there is a purpose of baptism. And the purpose of baptism, guys, is to show the burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, while publicly professing one's personal acceptance of the free pardon of sin given according to the gospel of Christ. That's the sole purpose of baptism, all right? That's it, okay? The ordinance roots are not traced to John the Baptist though, and that's where in baptismal perpetuity, so many make their grave error. They make their grave error. John was not a Baptist, okay, in the doctrinal or distinctive sense. As a matter of fact, the church was yet to be established in John's life. Proof of these own very words is found by his cousin, Jesus Christ, our Savior. Matthew 16, verse 18, when he said, And I say also unto thee that thou art Peter, speaking to Peter, that he turns the fingers, points back to himself and says, And upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell, listen here, shall not, shall not prevail against it. All right? When the disciples came to Caesarea Philippi, the church was yet to be formed, all right? The Lord said shall, not is, which is a substantive verb, such as am and are and be. Instead, the Lord uses a verb, and the infinitive is especially used here because it's a future tense, okay? Future tense. So if Baptist succession is taught as the continuation of the local church as Christians in reference to doctrine, According to the biblical distinctives, it's a safe teaching. But many souls have splintered from the Baptist church, if you will, and they've splintered from doctrinal Christian or biblical Christianity, and the biblical doctrines of rightly dividing the word of truth, they have left, and they begin to teach the secessionalism through the ordinance of baptism. In other words, being able to trace your baptism all the way back to John the Baptist, which is heresy. Most people will misuse the writings of a guy named Carroll, B.H. Carroll's work, The Trail of Blood. and the history of the Baptist people. It's a nicely, guys, as far as history of the Christian movement as we were first called Christians, Acts chapter 11, it's a nicely applied work, but it's given way to false doctrine of teaching, the false doctrine of baptismal perpetuity, teaching that the church itself is continued or succeeded through the lineage of baptism as opposed to the doctrine. What makes us a foundational biblical Christian is not, who we were baptized by and then who he was baptized by and who he was baptized by and where that church and all that's not what what does it is the following in the obedience to the proper biblical doctrine in the Word of God which is more than just baptism we need to understand that furthermore guys John the Baptist Again, I said was not part of the church. And conceding the church began, they teach that the church began with John the Baptist, which is just wrong. So whereas John the Baptist was a great and wonderful man of God, don't get me wrong. Matter of fact, Luke 7, 28 says, for I say unto you, among those that are born of women, there is no greater prophet than John the Baptist, but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. So John was not part of the church, which is known as the bride of Christ. He is the best man, per se, if you will, to the bridegroom, but not part of the church. And John admitted that himself. John chapter three records John's very words, saying, ye yourselves bear me witness. And I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him, okay? He that hath the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, there's that best man, which standeth in here in him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice. This my joy therefore is fulfilled. He must increase I but I must decrease so many of good men and women have fallen prey to the teaching This type of teaching a baptismal region or not regeneration, but baptismal secessionism As if trying to link our baptisms all the way back to john the baptist guys. They're not to be excommunicated They're not to be shunned But in reality educated and edified with the proper scriptural teachings of rightly dividing the word of truth. So again, we must emphasize The Baptist doctrine, the Christian identity, if you will, the fundamentals of the faith, that we hold to as biblical Christians are the very distinctives that were taught by Saul and Barnabas in Antioch, Syria, where they were first called Christians. Perpetuity of the church is not a false teaching, per se, as long as it remains within the realms of scripture in the biblical planting of the local New Testament churches as taught and performed by the Apostle Paul, okay? One can plainly see that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. And we have to be wise as to how these things begin to trickle down into our church. So here's what we understand here today. And just this first part on baptism, the history of the doctrine of baptism, we always understand strictly is for saved individuals only, Number one. Number two, it's always by immersion, full immersion, because it depicts the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, buried in the likeness of death, raised again unto newness of life. We understand that the conception of anti-biblical baptism started with clinical baptisms, trying to make way one degree off the mark by those who are infirmed or handicapped and could not make it down into the large body of water. And we saw how that one degree began to take an entire 180 on what baptism is meant for, and it carried on to where, giving way to infant baptism, giving way to sprinkling and pouring baptism, and then giving way to try to even redefine, which we see as common practice today, redefine a word of baptism, making it something that it was not. We also find, guys, that baptism is misused. It teaches baptist or baptismal perpetuity, stating that we must trace our heritage Believers in Christ or as being baptized at lineage must run back to the John to Baptist first all guys that's impossible second of all if that teaching be true John Smith baptized himself and So there you go buck stops right there Anyway, guys, I hope you guys enjoyed the lesson. Print the PDF off if you can or download it. Follow along, fill in the blank. Next week, we'll get into the second part, which really and truly will give a greater meaning of baptism and really probably answer some of the questions that you have right now and why it is so important that we perform and we exercise biblical baptism within biblical Christianity today more so than ever. Let us protect the history, protect the Word of God. Let us stand on truth. No matter what the traditions of man or the rudiments of this world may be, we must stand on biblical truth. Guys, have a wonderful day. I look forward to seeing you at church soon. Also, look forward to getting to the second part on baptism next week. God bless.