Baptism Revisited

Thank you very much, Mrs. Crow. It's really great that we could hear you and that worked out. So thank you so much for the work that you put into that and what it means. We're so thankful for all of the work of the special music that's been put together to the chorale, to Courtney Kavanas, to so many who have participated, and of course our song leader today, who performed beautiful special music. So thank you to everyone. Well, today I want to say a big hello to everyone who's joined, and certainly we are thankful to be able to meet together virtually. We hope to meet together in person. Hopefully soon. I've given some updates on that, so I appreciate everyone's prayers and patience as we work those situations out. But today I'd like to talk to you about the doctrine of baptism. And many of you listening to me are baptized, and so after hearing the topic, you may sort of become less focused or maybe think it's a subject for un-baptized young adults or people who are regularly beginning to fellowship with us.

In fact, some of you were baptized decades ago, so if you were baptized in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, please don't tune out. This message is for you as well. There's an expression in the business world, one and done. Maybe some of you heard the one and done expression. It means you do it once and it's done. You don't go back and revisit the topic. But, you know, given how much baptism is discussed in Scripture and the depth and profound nature of it, I don't think baptism is a one and done topic. Even though the act, certainly of baptism, is done once, the implications are much more far-reaching. So if you're a young person who has not yet been baptized, I hope you'll listen and think about what baptism might mean for you. If you've been fellowshiping with us for a little bit of time and are thinking about baptism, I hope that you'll think carefully about some of the things that I'm going to share. And as I said, of course, if you've been baptized already, even if you've been baptized years ago, I hope that you will be ready to give an answer to the hope that lies within. And that also you will think about as we go through here some of the things and the implications which I think are relevant for us who have been baptized for a number of years. You don't need to turn there, but Hebrews 6, in verses 1 and 2, talk about the elementary principles, foundational principles, we might call them fundamental beliefs of the Church of God. And the doctrine of baptism is mentioned there, as is the laying on of hands. So two of the six elementary principles are our subject today. So if there ever was a subject that we need to be reminded of, this would certainly qualify. The Church of God practices and teaches these two doctrines, and specifically that they're required as our response to God's calling. And they are preceded by repentance and faith in the redeeming power of Jesus Christ's sacrifice.

If we're adults attending the Church of God and not yet baptized, the topic of baptism should be a topic that you should be thinking about. And what does it mean for us? If we're adults and we're already baptized, then of course we should be reminded of these things. So my purpose today is to bring that awareness forward in our minds, and specifically to cover a few points. I'll just mention a few of them so we know where we're going. The meaning of baptism, who should be baptized, how someone is baptized, including being baptized. There's a little bit of discussion sometimes being baptized into the name of Jesus only, or into the name of the Father, into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Who has the authority to baptize? And what are the ongoing implications of baptism and receiving of God's Holy Spirit? So those are just a few of the topics that I want to cover. But I'd like to start with a story. We have this feature in Zoom. You might find it where you can raise your hand. There should be a button at the bottom middle of your screen. Maybe you can find the raise your hand button, because I'd like to ask you a question. It gives me a chance also to know that people are out there. I'd like to share a story here to kind of help frame our discussion on baptism. And it's the story of Eduardo Mortara, sometimes referred to as the kidnapping of Eduardo Mortara. Raise your hand if you've heard of Eduardo Mortara or the kidnapping of Eduardo Mortara. I'll look to see how many people are raising their hands. I've mentioned this story at different times. I think it's been a long time since I brought this story up. I think I brought it up in a Bible study once years ago. I see one hand being raised. Two. Hopefully you can find that button. I'll be curious. I think some of you might have already heard the story, but I think most of us have probably not heard it, or if we've heard it, we've forgotten. Yeah, only a few hands going up. The story has been retold many times.

Actually, believe it or not, Steven Spielberg is contemplating a movie on this story. It's probably the most comprehensive discussion of these events is captured in a book called The Kidnapping of Eduardo Mortara by David Ketzker. It was published in 1997.

Eduardo was a six-year-old boy living in Bologna, Italy in 1858. He was among seven siblings.

He was the son of Jewish parents. His parents were fairly well off financially. They could afford domestic servants to care for their large family. He was a typical young Italian boy.

You can imagine a kindergartner or first grader. One evening in June of 1858, which may sound like a long time ago, here we are in June of 2000. This would be the time of my grandfather's grandfather, perhaps somewhere for you. 1858, unannounced, the Italian police arrived at the Mortara home.

You can imagine this as sort of a no-knock warrant. I think that's how we call it today. Unannounced, nobody knows they were coming. They basically walked in to the house. They asked the parents and the children to kind of get in the corner. Acting on orders of the Inquisitor of Bologna, which was sanctioned by Pope Pius IX, they basically kidnapped Guardo Mortara from his home. They basically told his family they were taking him. Literally, as the story is told, the mother is weeping, the father is pleading to not take the child, the brothers and sisters are looking on in confusion, and the state of Italy proceeded to perform what was a legal kidnapping of Edguardo. He was taken from his home, and he was taken to a special home that was created for Jews and Muslims who had converted to Catholicism. In this home, Edguardo was raised a Roman Catholic.

Now, the news of this incident, this is our, we don't think of 1858 as our modern era, but in 1858 there was worldwide communication of a sort. And so the news of this incident began to spread from Bologna throughout Italy and then into Europe and finally around the world. And it became an international incident. The New York Times published more than a dozen articles denouncing the kidnapping and demanding that Edguardo would be returned to his parents.

Members of the British Parliament protested. Francis Napoleon III demanded that Edguardo be returned to his parents. The outcry was so great around the world that the Pope himself had to defend personally the action, stating that it was just and required that Edguardo be taken from his parents. Now, despite these protests and as incredulous as this may sound, Edguardo was never returned to his family. He was raised a Catholic and at one point when he was older, the Pope, again, they were pleading that he would return. The Pope said that he could return so long as his family converted to Catholicism and those were the conditions. Now, what happened to this family? What happened to Edguardo, that the Pope himself would defy the world and believe that it was appropriate? When I first came across the story more than 10 years ago and I shared it, I didn't realize that it would continue to be so discussed. It's actually, there's a piece in the Atlantic that came out just about a year and a half ago because of the controversy around Pope Pius the Ninth and his actions in regard to this. What would cause the Pope to defy the world and justify the kidnapping of this child from his parents? Well, the answer has to do with baptism, of all things. You see, the Martara family had hired a 14-year-old Catholic girl named Anna Marisi to watch over their children. And one night, the parents were out at some event, and this 14-year-old girl was watching over the children, and Edguardo became very ill. This happened a few years earlier, so he was about four years old at the time, and Edguardo became very, very ill, at least in the view of Anna. And so Anna, fearing that Edguardo would die, having never been baptized because he was a Jewish boy, she did an emergency baptism. She was afraid that he would burn in hell forever, and this was how she was going to save him. And so she splashed water on him, and she said a few words about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. And so she, by some view, baptized this little boy. Now, no one was present to witness this quote-unquote emergency baptism, but a couple years later, the story was reported to the inquisitor of Bologna. Now, if you're thinking inquisitor or inquisition, you're thinking correctly. Believe it or not, the Inquisition, the Italian Inquisition, or what was formerly known as the Roman Inquisition, was still actually enforced. Now, it had been disbanded in terms of the sort of the more, you know, some of these more famous stories of torture and coercion and so forth, much earlier, but it still existed in 1858. And under the Inquisitor's power, they ruled that this child had been baptized, and therefore this child had to be raised Roman Catholic. And to do otherwise would be a sin against God, a sin against the child, a sin against those who knew about it and did nothing about it.

And so the Inquisitor of Bologna had the power under the Italian under Italian law, and with the support of the papacy, to take the child from his home, given the facts of the sort of this situation. This is really a shocking story, and it's hard to, again, to imagine that that something like this would take place even during the time of my grandfather's grandfather. But as horrible as the nature of taking this child from his parents is, which is just shocking, it also paints a very warped picture of how baptism was considered or treated by Catholic authorities at that time. And it really should raise a number of questions in our minds of what, you know, was this a valid baptism? And if it wasn't, why wasn't it? And again, some of it may be obvious, but I think as we go into some of the scriptures, hopefully we'll get a better understanding of that. And I think this story will hopefully help frame some of the discussions as we look at maybe an extreme form of what might be considered a valid baptism. But let's turn over to 1 Peter 3 verses 18 to 21. And let's start by reading about the deep meaning and significance of baptism. And I think as we begin to look in scripture, we'll begin to see a remarkable contrast to how this story played out, and sadly how many stories of baptism have in Lyrm's out practice today. And also I say sadly, but I think more sadly in terms of how we may sometimes forget the depth and meaning of what our baptism pictures. So let's look in 1 Peter 3 verse 18 to 21. It says, For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that's describing us, the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in us the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit, by whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient.

Now, I'm going to pause here for a second because essentially what tends to happen when we read this verse is we tend to get sidetracked on this story of who were these spirits in prison and what was going on at that time. We tend to kind of go down that path, which is kind of a whole sermonette in itself, and I don't want to get too distracted by that here. I think what we can do is maybe answer that question in the sermon chat. If people want to explore that question, we can answer that in the sermon chat. I think what's important about what Peter is describing here is that he is introducing the topic of baptism by reminding us of Christ's suffering and his death and his reconciliation to the Father and his resurrection and then what that means for us. I think if we can kind of see that for what's being described, we can see. He says, then when once the long suffering of God waited in the days of Noah while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is eight souls, were saved through water. And so what he's describing now here is that there was a judgment on the pre-Noatian age. And this type of judgment now he's going to compare to our modern day. He says there is also an anti-type which now saves us, namely baptism. Namely baptism. Not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The point is that there is this pre-Noatian type of judgment and destruction of the world. And this is then a type of a coming judgment. Peter builds on this discussion. Now, the new King James Version uses the term anti-type. That is a word, and it's definitely used, but it is not something that we often say. We're not going to walk around and say, now that's an interesting anti-type. That's going to make us sound a little bit more erodite, maybe, than what we might care to come across if we start throwing around the word anti-type. But anti-type just means something represented by a symbol or a person or something that represents the opposite. That's what anti-type means. So most versions outside of the New King James use the word symbol. They'll say symbolized or a symbol. But the New King James and the King James actually stick closer to the original language construction because literally the Greek uses the word anti-tipon, which is why we see the word anti-type in here, which means to pre-figure. It's a symbol that pre-figures. So the covering of water that remove the filth of that pre-flood world but allowed God to save some, that is an anti-type because we're going to see, then, that that has implications for us. Now the phrase here, the answer of a good conscience towards God, that also can be a little bit hard to understand. I think the Expositor's Bible commentary has a good write-up on this. What they say, kind of defining this phrase, the answer of a good conscience towards God, what they say is, the conviction of sin by the Spirit in the mind calls for a response of faith or commitment to Christ and His work. That is concretely and contractionally done in the act of baptism. So what's being described here is that baptism is an integral response to our calling. Just as the pre-flood world sin and filth was washed away and some were saved, so some are saved by actually being in that water, and that is their response to the calling and faith and their commitment and understanding of what Christ did and His resurrection.

So this is this sense of a cataclysmic event that occurred in the past and a cataclysmic event that is to come, that we will be saved through baptism from that judgment that will come. Now, we understand there are resurrections and that brings up some interesting questions, which we can talk about in the sermon chat, about the judgment which is upon us today and the judgment which will be upon those in the future.

But I think if we contrast what's being described here in terms of a response to what we see as a coming cataclysm and how we are saved in that response being baptism, I think we realize little Eduardo had really no conscious understanding of God leading him or convicting him of sin and the fact that he was facing an imminent death except for the resurrection of Jesus. I mean, these kinds of things and this profound depth of understanding that Peter is trying to convey here through conveying what we are going through today with what happened during this time as the Ark was created, clearly he could not really understand that.

And that's what we have to understand as adults is that we are given this chance, just like there was this 120 years or so that Noah was building the Ark and people had a chance to see what he was doing. So we have this period now where we can see these things and we have to respond with baptism.

And so, I think that brings us to another point, which is, can four-year-old little boys be validly, willingly or unwillingly baptized? Can children be baptized? Should children be baptized? Now, we won't turn there, but we can note that in Acts 8 verse 12 it speaks of baptizing both men and women and Acts 2 verse 38 speaks about being able to repent before baptism.

Growing up in growing up, I have seen some 17-year-olds baptized. I think it's more rare. And personally, I would never baptize a 17-year-old. I think someone needs to wait until they're 18. Now, why do I have that view? Again, the point is we can see from Scripture that children are not baptized and we can understand that for someone who is not of a certain maturity to understand the depth of commitment and meaning of baptism as described in 1 Peter, it is not something for a child.

But why would I think that 18 is at least a minimum? Well, it's because even by man's laws, under contract law, a contract cannot be enforced with a minor. Now, maybe people don't realize this. Some of you might realize this. But, you know, if you enter into a contract with a 16-year-old or a 17-year-old, if you're an adult and you enter into a contract, you literally sign a contract with a 16- or 17-year-old.

Maybe you're going to sell them a book, or you're going to say, well, you mow my lawn and I'll pay you, and so forth. Whatever it might be, if you enter into a contract with a 16- or 17-year-old, and that person that you're entering that contract with does not perform their part of the bargain in the contract, and you go to court, they'll just throw you out of court.

You have absolutely no ability to enforce that contract, because that person is a minor. Now, if you had their parent or guardian sign that contract, you'll have recourse to the parent. But if you just have that 16- or 17-year-old, you have an unenforceable contract even under man's laws. And we do that in our society, because we recognize that sometimes a 15, 16, 17-year-old, or somebody who has not reached the age of majority, they may enter into contracts not knowing what they're entering into, not realizing the implications. And therefore, we protect them from those types of things. And I think that baptism is that type of a contract.

It's that type of contract where somebody has to be prepared to understand the depth of commitment and what it really means. And for God to enforce later, or in some way, what was going on there, I don't know. That's my personal view.

But I think the point here is that the person has to be mature enough to understand this commitment that they're making and the depth and meaning of what's described in Scripture. So let's go to our next point, which is, how do we baptize somebody? What is the correct way to be baptized? Some people, perhaps listening, were baptized by sprinkling as they were a child, or maybe by pouring.

Some baptized by immersion. Let's turn to John 3 verse 23.

In the case of Ed Guardo, the 14-year-old girl splashed water on his face. That was the sort of the method that she had used. John 3 verse 23. It says here that John 3 verse 23, it says, Now John also was baptizing an anon near Asalom, because there was much water there, and they came and were baptized. Now, what is the Greek word here for baptized?

Because that might inform us here. Okay, now I know this might be hard, but the Greek word here for baptized is baptizo. That's right. The English, I think you might know that the English borrowed it directly from the Greek. We didn't create a new word for it. We didn't, you know, we could have used the word hydro. That's a word for water. Hydroelectric power. We could have used aqua. That's the Latin like aqueduct. But the word that we that we brought across is baptized. And it has a very specific meaning. It means literally to immerse, to immerse or put into. So the very word by definition means to immerse. Now the Catholic and Lutheran view, as with some other Christian denominations, is that you can baptize by sprinkling, which is why that sort of sprinkling that Anna did for Edgardo was considered valid.

You can baptize by sprinkling or by pouring, but there isn't a biblical basis for that.

And let me just let me just be very clear. There is not a biblical basis for that view.

Most scholars agree that the New Testament, we're talking what whether it's Catholic or Protestant, mainstream Christian scholars believe the New Testament examples and discussion are are about immersion. That baptism is about immersion. The New Testament, as we see, is all about immersion. So if Catholic scholars, Lutheran, Protestant, so forth, know that the New Testament itself describes immersion for baptism, why do they pour? Why do they sprinkle? Why do people continue to do this? Well, most trace the origins of pouring or sprinkling to a text called the Dadace, or in English, the teaching. And this is a short book about 16 chapters, and it's dated to the first or second century. Some argue it's really one of the earliest sort of quote-unquote Christian works. Others were dated to the second century, or they'll call it a second generation work. It's an anonymous book, and in this book there is instruction on baptizing, and this instruction on baptizing includes an option for pouring water on someone's head. Now, the book itself says the preference, it implies the preference is immersion, but it does give the option of pouring water on someone. So the Dadace is not part of Scripture, even though some of the so-called church fathers, that is the early writers within a Catholic viewpoint, considered it part of Scripture. The Church of God does not consider part of the canon, as do pretty much everyone else, but it had that kind of influence.

Now, interestingly, to this point of immersion only, based on my reading, it's widely recognized now, as opposed to, let's say, in the Middle Ages or even in the 17th or 18th century, that immersion really was the practice for centuries after the New Testament as well. There's growing archaeological evidence, and more and more analysis just keeps going that direction.

For example, in 2018, Maurice and I visited an archaeological site which was underneath the church in Geneva, Switzerland. They call it a paleo-Christian archaeological site. It dated to the 4th century, so this would be in the 300s AD, the very, very early church. And in this archaeological site, which is underneath the present-day church, you can clearly see a baptismal pool sufficiently deep for immersion. And the scholars on this site have concluded that the Catholic practice in the 300s was baptism by immersion, at least in this church, in this area, and that this immersion teaching was changed over time in this particular site there in Geneva, likely in the 7th or 8th century, to become more of a pouring or a sprinkling. So even quote-unquote the Catholics were there in Switzerland, were practicing baptism by immersion in the 300s. So this evidence, both scriptural from the New Testament, archaeological, is very clear that baptism by immersion was the practice. And it really wasn't until the 7th and 8th century that you began to get more of the sprinkling or pouring, and that then continues on to today. And of course, little Eduardo, we would say, would not have been validly baptized by sprinkling. For the sake of time, we won't go into it, but you can look at Acts 8, verse 38 to 39, which says that they went down into the water and they came up out of the water. Coming up out of the water, some again might argue while they were standing in water and the water was poured on them, but again, most scholars would argue that this is definitely a reference to full immersion.

Now, some people also make a distinction between being baptized in the name of Jesus only versus being baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Let's look at Acts 19, verse 5. Let's look at Acts 19, verse 5. And let's see one passage where this is referenced, and some people go to this. This has been a discussion for quite some time. Acts 19 and verse 5, if you turn there, it says, when they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

And so some people take this verse and other verses in Acts and they say, well, this is the example we should follow. We should be baptized into the name of Jesus, or into the name of the Lord Jesus, as it says here. But if you look at this scripture in context, we see from verse 2 the context that brings really an important element to baptism, and it gives us now a chance to talk about the laying on of hands and the receiving of the Holy Spirit as an integral part of what is a New Testament or New Covenant of baptism. So if we go up to verse 2, it says, He said to them, Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed? And they said to Him, We have not so much as heard whether there is a Holy Spirit. And He said to them, Into what then were you baptized? And they said, Into John's baptism. Into John's baptism. So here we have an example of a rebaptism. That's right. Rebaptism is in Scripture. These people were baptized, as it says, they were baptized into John's baptism. Verse 4 says, and Paul said, John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after Him, that is, on Christ Jesus. So John preached repentance, and he preached that baptism was necessary, and that people would believe on somebody who would come after Him. And so we see several things from this example. In verse 5, it says, When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And then it says, And when Paul had laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. So we see then that the laying out of hands follows baptism. And it was the laying out of hands that allowed them to receive the Holy Spirit. And we know this laying out of hands to receive the Holy Spirit was so widely discussed, so widely understood and practiced, that even a local leader, Simon the Magician, in Acts 8, wanted to pay money to receive this power. Some would argue that the laying out of hands is not necessary, but it is clearly shown in Acts 8, and was so widely done, and certainly shown here in Acts verse 19. The other thing we see is that Luke, in writing this account, wanted to draw a contrast between their baptism, their previous baptism by John, and being baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Now, the official teaching of the United Church of God is that the statement here about baptizing into the name of Jesus is simply an abbreviated reference to the same practice as described by Jesus in Matthew 28 verse 19, where it says that they are to be baptized into the name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Now, the days of the World Wide Church of God, our former association, it was thought that this phrase could also mean by the authority of Jesus Christ. It certainly could be an abbreviation, but again, it was taught previously that it could be meaning by the authority of Jesus Christ, as they were baptized under the authority of John the Baptist, and now they're being baptized under the authority of Jesus Christ. Let's look at the position for this, because I think it's interesting. John 4 verses 1 to 2.

John 4, 1 and 2, says something very interesting. It says, Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John, though Jesus himself did not baptize but his disciples, he left Judea and departed again to Galilee. So we see that Jesus baptized, quote-unquote, more than John, but he himself didn't do the baptism. He wasn't actually doing the baptizing. His disciples were baptizing. So what this means is that his disciples, baptized by the authority of Jesus, they've baptized in the name of Jesus. That is, when we ask something like, for example, we're going to close church services with prayer, and that prayer will end with, you know, in Jesus' name we pray, or by the power of our Lord Jesus we pray. When we ask something in Jesus' name, we are asking it by his power, by his authority. And so we see the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus. They're not in the name of John. They baptized by the authority given to them by Jesus, not by the authority given to them by John. So John the Baptist is quoted in Matthew 3 verse 11 as saying, I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Well, what he's referring to is not that Jesus himself is going to baptize literally or necessarily with fire, but by Jesus' authority and under his instruction and teaching, we would then be baptized and we would receive the Holy Spirit.

So given that Jesus didn't baptize himself, we understand that the disciples baptized in his name and by his authority. And likewise in Acts 19 and other places in Acts, the disciples and those who followed him like Philip, baptized by the authority given them by Jesus Christ.

Let's look at Matthew 28 now. Matthew 28.

And in verse 18 and 19, a very important scripture in terms of baptism.

Matthew 28, verse 18 and 19, it says, Then Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All authority has been given to me in heaven and earth. And here we are again. We acknowledge Jesus' authority when we pray. And we are baptized by that same authority. The minister who baptizes somebody, it says by the authority of Jesus Christ. They literally say that. And then it says here, Go therefore and make disciples in all the nations, baptizing them in the name and we understand this to be into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. So we acknowledge Jesus' authority and we baptize then into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These are the important things to be able to do. There are different elements of baptism. That is, the Father's call is necessary. It is the beginning of the process when God calls us. No man can come to God unless the Father that sent Jesus Christ, our Father, calls him. There is the Father's call. There is the Son's sacrifice, sacrifice of Jesus Christ we've read about. And then there is the power that comes from God the Father and Jesus Christ that then we receive as part of this baptismal process, the ceremony of going underwater, of being thoroughly immersed, being buried, and then rising up as a new creation and having our having hands laid upon us that we might receive the Holy Spirit. So we aren't baptized in the name of some three personages or hypostasis. That's not what's being described. We are baptized into these elements, into these parts. These are the parts that are necessary for this process to begin in us. It is not enough to be baptized just based upon repentance and to be washed clean. We must now receive God's Holy Spirit through the laying out of hands that we might go forward in a newness of life. Throwing water on someone like Edgardo and uttering the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit doesn't bring God's Spirit upon someone. So whether the reference in Acts is to being baptized in Jesus's name, whether that's a shorthand version as we teach in the United Church of God, or whether it's a reference to being under the authority of Jesus Christ, whatever it might be, the larger point is that baptism now involves something more than just repentance. It is repentance, certainly that initial repentance that John preached, but now it goes beyond repentance. Now there's an element of the Holy Spirit and understanding what the Holy Spirit means. That's what John 19 was describing. Sorry, not John. Acts 19 was describing. That is the major point of Acts 19 and why there was that distinction between what John said and what Jesus said. We now have the full story. We now understand that the Holy Spirit is part of taking that repentant attitude and moving us forward. Now another important point that we can gain from Matthew 28 verses 18 and 19 is who can baptize? Who can baptize? Can a 14-year-old baptize somebody? Well, Matthew 28 verses 18 and 19 would say that the 12 disciples were to make disciples and baptize them. This would indicate that someone who had not validly been baptized by immersion and received God's Holy Spirit could not necessarily baptize another person. So was an infant baptism? Was Anna's infant baptism of sprinkling a valid baptism that then gave her authority under the Scripture then to baptize somebody else? Well, the Church of God would say no. That's not the case. If we look at the context of Matthew 28 verses 18 and 19, we see a chain of authority. We see a fundamental basis for how these things would be administered. Philip was a deacon and he baptized people. We see that from Acts 8 verses 5 and 6 and verse 12. So we know that you don't have to be an elder to baptize.

Philip was a deacon and he baptized somebody. However, we do not see anyone who is not ordained to some office baptizing in the New Testament. Therefore, we teach that unless someone has been commissioned, set apart, given the authority by the Church, they cannot baptize.

That's the practice that we follow. Typically, our practice is that there will be an elder and maybe there will be an assistant. That is our practice. That elder has been commissioned, has been set apart, has himself been duly baptized, validly baptized. That would be how we would consider baptism to be valid. Having a 14-year-old or having somebody who is just claiming on their own some sort of authority, that would be suspect. So now let's go on to the next point, which is and really, I think, probably the most profound point here that we should be thinking about. What are the ongoing implications of baptism and the receiving of the Holy Spirit? For this, I'd like to go to Romans 6. I think we've hit some of the doctrinal points. I think it's important that we're reminded of some of these doctrinal points. I hope this spurs some discussion and thought in the sermon chat and afterwards as to what baptism means and what some of the doctrinal points are about that to be reminded. But let's talk about now, especially for those of us who have been baptized for many years, some of the more profound aspects of baptism. Romans 6, verse 1 to 4, What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?

This is where the act of baptism no longer becomes a one and done, or once saved, always saved. Certainly not! Verse 2, that's the answer. Certainly not. How shall we, who died to sin, live any longer in it? Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore, we were buried with him through baptism into death that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so, we also should walk in newness of life. This is where, as I said, this act of baptism becomes something that launches a lifelong commitment. Paul is challenging. He's challenging anyone who says once we were symbolically buried with Christ through baptism, we are done. We are saved. And it is by grace alone, and it is nothing we can do, and so forth and so on. What he's saying is, no, once we were symbolically buried with Christ through baptism, and we have been raised up, as he was raised up, we have to walk in newness of life. And if we're not walking in newness of life, then we certainly are sinning. As many of you know, I only became a full-time pastor about three years ago. Before that, I was a businessperson working in finance. Now, on the job, people knew I was a person that had faith, a certain faith, a Christian.

And there were other people who had their faith, good friends who were of a Jewish faith or of a Muslim faith. I had friends who were Catholic. I had friends who were agnostic or even atheist.

We operate within, here in this country especially, within a environment that tolerates people of different faiths, and that's good. And so we're able to work together, and none of us would push our faith on one another. And I think there was a respect, a mutual respect, in the workplace for various positions that way. But now that I have moved into being a full-time pastor, when I tell people I'm a pastor, that seems to take on a whole new level. There are certain expectations about how pastors are supposed to behave, and sometimes it'll be a little awkward, somehow like, oh he's a pastor, so he's special, he has to, I hope I'm going to be doing okay.

It's kind of sometimes weird when you say pastor because that just conjures up so many images and so many different aspects and different faith traditions and so forth. Now, you wouldn't expect a pastor to get angry or swear or lie, right? I mean, that would be hypocritical. I think they'd say.

I think somebody would probably not have respect for the fact that somebody was saying they were a pastor if they were going and doing that. But I would challenge each of you to consider that the expectations of a Christian are really no different in terms of the way we live our lives, whether we're a pastor or not a pastor. Those expectations are the same. Really, I'm just an elder in the church, which means really I'm just an elder brother to someone who has a role to share learnings, but really I'm no different than anyone else in the congregation in terms of the walk that we all walk following our elder brother Jesus Christ. So even if you're not a pastor, I think people need to think about that kind of expectation. When you walk out of a store, upset about something, when you're treated unjustly and maybe you get a little miffed or maybe you get a lot miffed and you walk away from that situation, were the people around you? Were they saying, wow, that person, you know, I thought they were a Christian. I thought they had standards. It seemed like that's not the case. You know, our behavior, our comportment, as we might say, has to be completely different. It has to be at a totally different level, at a higher level. We are walking in newness of life. That is the standard that's being described. We were buried through baptism with Christ, and then we're raised to be different.

Verse 5 says, for if we have been united together in the likeness of his death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of his resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away with, and that we should no longer be slaves to sin. Baptism is an action that begins the process of living differently. It is what defines us as a Christian. You know, one of the most prominent voices against the teaching on the existence of God is a professor emeritus at Oxford named Richard Dawkins. He wrote a very well-known book called The God Delusion. Now, in this book, he describes a report from a British newspaper called The Independent done a number of years ago. As he paints the scene in his book, apparently there was a Christmas nativity scene that was designed to be ecumenical in nature.

That is, it was celebrating religious diversity and tolerance. And this Christmas nativity scene, as the newspaper The Independent in the UK described it, contained three wise men, as most nativity scenes describe. Of course, we know that we don't know how many wise men were there. People guessed that there were three because there were three gifts, but anyway, we don't know how many were actually there. But anyway, this Christmas nativity scene described three wise men, which is fairly normal, but they reported it this way. And I'm going to quote from Dawkins, who's quoting from the newspaper, quote, The three wise men were played by Shadrite, a Sikh, Musharraf, a Muslim, and Adel, a Christian, all aged four years old.

Unquote. Now, what's wrong with that?

Now, Richard Dawkins, he takes exception to this portrayal, and I think we would agree with him.

What's wrong with that citation? Now, what if I substituted this citation? The three wise men were played by Shadrat, a Republican, Musharraf, a Democrat, and Adel, a libertarian. Or I said, Shadrite, an atheist, Musharraf, an agnostic, and Adel, a secular humanist.

You see, whether it's a political party, a religious affiliation, or a life philosophy, a four-year-old is not in a position to make such a determination.

Likewise, it's the act of baptism and the symbolic burial with Christ that allows us to be called a Christian. If we are not baptized, as I've been describing here in this sermon, as is described in this book, we cannot be called Christian, just like that four-year-old cannot be called Christian. You could call that four-year-old the child of a Christian family, the child of a mainstream Christian family. You know, you could do something like that, but you can't call that four-year-old a Christian. And that's Richard Dawkins' point in the book, and I would agree with that point. You can't be called a Christian until you have been baptized.

You're maybe somebody who's grown up in the Christian tradition. Maybe you're somebody who is a friend of the Christian teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. But we have to be buried with Christ, and we have to be then symbolically raised as we are raised out of the water and walk a newness of life to be called a Christian. Now, Romans 6 also I think is interesting because it makes clear that we are very capable of making bad choices after baptism. We are capable of sin. That's how it starts out. What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?

We are capable of sin, and therefore it was necessary for Paul to bring up the subject of baptism. And it's necessary for us to be reminded of the meaning of baptism so that we can recognize that we aren't the good guys. You see, everybody wants to think well of themselves. I don't want to think badly of myself. Who wants to do that? That's kind of depressing, isn't it? Everybody wants to think they're on the right side of history, or their cause is just. Everybody wants to think that they're the good guys. But in fact, what this is describing is it is only through Christ living in us and walking in this newness of life that we can evaluate whether we are on the right side of history and whether our cause is just. Let's see this played out in Acts 9, verse 17 to 18.

Acts 9, verse 17 to 18.

It says here, the context I think we understand is that Paul has been persecuting the church and he's been struck blind as he's traveling to in Syria towards the city of Damascus, and he's been taken to this house and now there's been this vision that this direction has been given to Ananias that he's supposed to go to this house and see Paul. And so we see in verse 17, and Ananias went his way and entered the house and laying his hands on him he said, brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road as you came has sent me that you may receive your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.

Verse 18, immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales and he received his sight at once and he arose and was baptized. He arose and he was baptized. I don't think the metaphor of scales falling from his eyes was lost on Luke's audience. Paul literally could see now and the blindness both physical and spiritual had been lifted. And if you can imagine, Ananias saying to this man who had literally killed followers of the way, brother Saul.

And this is interesting because we don't know whether he received the Holy Spirit that we can see in scriptures. We don't have time to go through that now. We can see in scripture where people received the Holy Spirit and they were baptized. We don't know which order, but it appears that he was filled with the Holy Spirit and then he was baptized.

Paul's life was changed from that point. Now God initiates a relationship with us. God initiated this relationship with Paul and he leads us to repentance, heartfelt recognition of our own wrongdoing that we must respond to. This was the beginning of John's teaching. This was the beginning of how the groundwork was laid when Jesus came onto the scene. John was preaching repentance and we have to understand that we have to repent. Jesus came preaching repentance and people were prepared to hear that message. And then God forgives us and His grace covers us. We respond through baptism as an act of faith. It's our response. From baptism, we receive the Holy Spirit through the laying out of hands as we see just the laying out of hands over and over and over again. These things we might take for granted if we've been in the church for a while, but we cannot lose sight of because other practicing mainstream Christians do not follow these things necessarily. And then through this process, we become part of the body of Christ.

And we can now live a changed life both now and then we are then prepared for service in the kingdom of God, living forever. Baptism and the receiving of God's Spirit through laying on of hands is our initial response, and a changed way of life is our ongoing response.

That's our ongoing commitment. Our ongoing response is what Paul tells us in Romans 6.

And viewing the horrific story of Edgardo Martara through the lens of Scripture makes the story even more tragic. To imagine that such misunderstanding of what baptism and receiving of the Holy Spirit and a commitment to a way of life, what it really means, and how it was truly at the hands of a state government so misunderstood and misaligned, it is truly tragic. And as I said, Catholics today, even today, continue to debate this story.

In conclusion, I'd like to turn to 1 Peter 4, verse 1 to 2.

1 Peter 4, 1 to 2. Although baptism is not mentioned here, it was mentioned in verse 3. We began our sermon, we began our discussion today in 1 Peter 3, where baptism was described.

And then if you continue the thought, just a few verses down, where now Peter has set the stage, he finishes the thought by saying this in 1 Peter 4, verse 1 to 2. Therefore, 2 Since Christ suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same mind.

For he also has suffered in the flesh, has ceased from sin, that he, now the he here is describing us, that person who is committing themselves and understands what baptism means and has made that commitment, that he no longer should live the rest of his life in the flesh for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. For the will of God.

Whether we were baptized last year or 50 years ago, or if we are considering baptism, the Apostle Peter describes here the end result of that commitment. We are to live the rest of our time according to the will of God.

Tried to cover this, hopefully, in a reasonable amount of time. There's a lot of good resources on the topic of baptism, including a Beyond Today program that aired just in December, which was only six months ago, but feels like an eternity ago because it was pre-COVID-19. But it brings out important biblical principles about baptism and might have gotten lost, given everything that happened with coronavirus. There's also, of course, the booklet, The Road to Eternal Life, that if you're considering baptism, I ask that you consider reading. It talks a lot about repentance and baptism and being in the kingdom of God.

Let's live a life at this higher standard, and let's reflect on the profound meaning of baptism.