The 38th Annual Conference theme was dealt with, in a wonderful way by our speakers this year. It was a joy to hear such sound Bible preaching. Our speakers were from nine different States, and Canada. We also heard sermons from missionaries serving in several different countries. You will be blessed and challenged by the clear presentation of the truth. There are 17 sermons clearly recorded on cassette tapes.

There is sound, geological evidence that suggests the earth is no older than 10,000 years, according to a feature article in the June 16 issue of U.S. News and World Report. John Baumgardner, acclaimed by the magazines as ` . . . the world's preeminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection,' has designed a computer program named Terra that demonstrates the processes by which the Earth creates volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of the continental plates. However, Baumgardner, described in the magazine as a `. . fundamentalist Christian who believes, in accordance with the Bible, that the earth was created by God less than 10,000 years ago,' designed Terra expressly to prove that the story of Noah and the flood actually happened as the Bible described it. Now, a tool that is used by geophysicists around the world tangibly demonstrates the geological validity of a global flood. Baumgardner, who received a master's from Princeton in electrical engineering and a Ph.D from UCLA in geophysics, suggests that when God decided to bring judgment upon the earth, He caused an enormous surge of magma to rush from the Earth's core at an incredible velocity. The material ballooned close to the Earth's surface displacing a tidal wave of seawater over the continents. After 150 days, the bubble retreated with equal speed into the Earth, and as the continents emerged, they sent the runoff back to the oceans at around 100 miles per hour. US News pointed out that a very fast river with a substantial erosion capacity runs at only ten miles per hour. Baumgardner suggests that a 100-mile-per-hour runoff would have been sufficient to create the Grand Canyon and other massive geological features and to deposit the various sedimentary layers in about one week. Terra, when fed the proper data, viably demonstrates the various elements of the geological process that would produce such an event. Baumgardner challenges opposing theories in several areas. Citing the inconsistencies in popular dating techniques, he says there is legitimate reason to question radiometric measurements. He also points to the differences in erosion and sedimentary patterns between various rivers, and to the discrepancies in various fossil records, as a further evidence of a global flood. Secular geologists discount his theory, but they don't discount his qualifications, or his contributions to the study of geological transformation . . . . - The Christian News 10/26/98

Not much has changed since the Scopes trial in 1925. A recent survey of 1,000 of the top scientists in America, members of the select National Academy of Sciences, revealed that approximately 75% are atheists. This is an increase of 50% in the last 85 years. (But the Bible still says "The fool has said in his heart, `there is no God.'"- N.P.) - Dr. Edward J. Larson, U. of Ga. in Atlanta Constitution 2/7/99 - From Christian View of the News

(The terrible event in Littleton, Colorado happened on Tuesday, April 20th. Two highschool boys killed 15 people including themselves. I preached the following message in Tabernacle Baptist Church on Wednesday April 21st, in order to help our people know what is really happening in America.)

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own inheritance." (Psa. 33:12)

"The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Psa. 9:17)

"Moreover all the chief of the priests, and the people, transgressed very much after all the abominations of the heathen; and polluted the house of the LORD which he had hallowed in Jerusalem. And the LORD God of their fathers sent to them by his messengers, rising up betimes, and sending; because he had compassion on his people, and on his dwelling place: But they mocked the messengers of God, and despised his words, and misused his prophets, until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy. Therefore he brought upon them the king of the Chaldees, who slew their young men with the sword in the house of their sanctuary, and had no compassion upon young man or maiden, old man, or him that stooped for age: he gave them all into his hand." (II Chronicles 36:14-17)

Who were the messengers of verse 15? We do not know who all of them were, but we can name at least 13 that God sent in a space of about 250 years. The messengers were, Elijah, Elisha, Obadiah, Joel, Jonah, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk and Jeremiah.

The wicked people mocked these faithful messengers of God. They rejected the truth of God over and over again. They worshiped false gods, and lived on in their immoral sins. They did this "until the wrath of the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy." While I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, we must be very close, if we have not passed the time, where there will be no remedy.

My wife has many recipes that she is always trying on me, and most of them are really delicious. These tasty dishes result from knowing how to take the ingredients that are called for, and blending them carefully together. I can almost taste some of them as I deliver this message.
There are also recipes or formulas to make rat poison, roach poison, and rodent poison. When it is ingested by human beings that can often be fatal. Our society has for many years been mixing up a recipe for national disaster. The news media does not seem to have a clue as to what is going on in our nation. Those of us who have a knowledge of the Bible, certainly know that God's Word, casts a lot of light on the situation.

The terrible tragedies in Littleton, as well as other disasters in our country, need to be analyzed to find out the identity of the ingredients used to produce such a deadly recipe. Here is the recipe which should not have been followed.

Our nation as a whole, has concluded that one God is as good as another. That is the reason for the frantic attempt to take God out of our political life. Our founding Fathers recognized the God of the Bible, and said so in the great documents of our nation. Today our nation is afraid to do this, because to do this might offend the Islamics, the Hindus, the practitioners of Witchcraft, or the Atheists. Besides if you recognize the God of the Bible, you must face the fact that there is such a thing as the judgment of God, and that is unthink able to many in our nation.

That is the reason why a judge in the State of Alabama is fighting for his life. The ACLU and other assorted organizations have millions of dollars, and hundreds of lawyers ready to prosecute the judge in court. What awful sin has he committed? He posted a copy of the ten commandments in his courtroom. Just read those terrible commandments in Exodus 20 that would be so harmful to criminals and all others that come into the court room. Why those poor criminals might get the idea that they should not kill, steal, and lie. Wouldn't that be a terrible tragedy? The Governor of Alabama fully supported the judge and vowed that he would call out the Alabama National Guard to protect the judge and his courtroom. In the last election, the Governor was voted out of office by the good people of Alabama. The present Governor wants the ten commandments removed from the wall. I am not surprised that is the way our nation is going. The ACLU should look at the building of the U. S. Supreme Court, for there they could find the Scriptures engraved on the walls, long ago before we turned our back upon God.
Little by little, and sometimes in giant strides, we are removing God from our government and public life. We are embracing new philosophies and rejecting old truths. Freedom of speech is almost absolute, except for Christians. All kind of filthy talk is permitted in our society, but gradually Christians are being denied from expressing their faith in God. Godless humanism, atheism, and other false ways are rising up to take the place that Christianity once held in this nation.

Our nation now supports and protects immorality, adultery, fornication and homosexu ality. If you own rental property, you cannot refuse to rent to them. If you own a business, you cannot refuse to hire them. Homosexuals were once prosecuted in this nation, now they are protected and promoted. They are even elected to the Congress, and appointed to high places in our government, by the president and others. Attempts are being made in some States to make it a crime to say anything against their evil practice. I have heard that at least one State would even forbid this condemnation from the pulpit.

Abortion has been legalized in this country and more than 30 million abortions have been performed since the Roe vs. Wade decision was made by the Supreme Court. Partial birth abortion is permitted in the third trimester. This procedure allows the doctor to remove part of the infant until he can get to the head, then long scissors or some sharp instrument is placed at the base of the skull and inserted into the brain. They open the incision large enough to insert a vacuum hose and suck out the brain. Yet, the president refused to sign a bill which would have outlawed this procedure. Now we are bombing Serbia at a cost of billions of dollars, for their ethnic cleansing. What insanity, when we are practicing something that may be worse! If our nation had any moral fibre left, we as a nation would rise up and stop the abortion racket, in a legal manner. The most dangerous place for a baby in America, is in its mother's womb.

A baby is a living human being before it leaves its mother's womb. Common sense should tell you that. Many Scriptures teach that the baby in the womb is a person, and not a fetus or some tissue. "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations." (Jer. 1:5) "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." (Psa. 139:13-16)
When Mary visited Elisabeth, the babe leaped in her womb. It was already a baby in the womb, and not just a fetus or a lump of tissue. "And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy." (Luke 1:41, 44)

This is a second ingredient that you can add to the mixture for "The Recipe for Disaster." Teach evolution and atheism in the schools. Remember that is the recipe that the Soviets used for the destruction of Soviet Russia. If you teach evolution, you are teaching children that there is no God. Atheism is the result, so there is no judgement of God to fear, and no hell to suffer in. So why should anyone fear to do whatever they want to do.

Of course we must get the Bible out of the schools if we are going to complete this recipe. If the little darlings would read the Bible they might learn that killing, stealing, and fornication would be wrong. Now that would be a tragedy would it not? Having the ten commandments posted in the classroom might offend some atheist, Hindu, or Moslem. Now wouldn't that be a tragedy. Never mind that the Bible was once a textbook in our schools, and children learned how to read, by using it. Never mind that teachers used to keep a copy on their desk. Now children have been punished for bringing a Bible to school, even if they read it on their own time. We are really making progress in adding the ingredients for producing disaster in our country.

This is not an attack on godly teachers in our classroom. They are doing the best they can under the restrictions that they are burdened with. There are many other decent teachers who are sincere, but their heads have been filled with mush while getting their education. They have been victimized by a godless system of teacher education.

To succeed they have also taken prayer out of the schools. Thanks to O'Hair and the liberal Supreme Court that was done years ago. Of course if O'Hair is dead, she knows better by now, but this awful curse continues year after year. Since they are teaching that there is no God to pray to, why bother to pray. Not many people seem to care, and therein lies the problem. We are far more interested in treating the symptoms of the problem, than dealing with the real cause of the disaster.

Take discipline out of the schools. No longer can children be spanked or seriously punished for their conduct in the classroom. The teacher who does spank a child, may be attacked by an irate parent, or sued in court. The teacher will lose his/her job. When I was going to school, disobedient children were spanked. If they had not been, it is doubtful if there would have been much learning in class. Frankly, I am ashamed to admit it, I received a spanking at school a number of times. I never ever thought of going home and telling my parents. I was always hoping that I could keep if from them, because if they knew, they would give me another one when I got home. Usually there was some blabber mouthed kid that would tell it, so I was in for it then.

Take the three R's out of school. Reading, Riting, and Rithmetic, used to be at the heart of our teaching in the schools. Now we have substituted social studies, and many other almost meaningless studies. Children finish school, and they know very little of history, reading, writing or arithmetic. Many read poorly, cannot write a legible sentence, and cannot handle numbers without a calculator. Don't blame the kids, put the blame where it belongs. Now the president wants to put a computer in every classroom, so they can hook up to the Internet. This is insanity! Unproven philosophies are being substituted for time proven truths. Be sure and teach a lot of self-love, self-esteem, and self gratification if you want to help produce the recipe for disaster.

Before World War II, there were very few mothers in the work place. The ones that worked outside the home were single girls, widows, and some who had to work to feed their children, because of a husband who was disabled or had abandoned them. World War II brought the mothers into the factories and they never have returned home. Now both parents have been put in the work place. Baby sitters and nursery schools can raise the little ones, and when they are a little older they can become latch-key kids. That way they can come home and do whatever they want to do, watch anything they want to, or go anywhere they want to go.
Now most couples cannot get by on one income. The advertising media has led them to want more things than they can afford. Credit card companies have passed out cards like they were just scraps of plastic. Never mind what happens to the kids, just get all those wonderful things that the world has to offer.

Another part of the recipe is, raise your children without taking them to a Bible teaching church or Sunday School. After all, the kids can make up their own minds whether they want to go to church or not. Don't push your kids into Bible Christianity, the devil will give them all the religion they will need.

Make sure you make the TV the entertainment center of the home. The children can watch all the violence, sex and immorality they want to, and it will keep them entertained for 17,000 to 25,000 hours before they are 18-years of age. The youths in Littleton watched "Natural Born Killers" over and over again. Why deny such pleasures to your children? They can learn that homosexuality is just an alternative lifestyle, and that everybody should try it some day. Make sure you eat all of your meals in front of the TV. It will keep you from having to carry on a family conversation around the table. Be sure and not turn it off, after all you might miss something.

Give the children all the violent games that can be played on the TV. Make sure they have some of the designer death games, so they can enter into the game. Never mind that some of their targets are innocent and virtuous. The good part is that they will be able to watch the animated body parts explode and disintegrate like a firecracker. Don't be too surprised if they try it someday with real guns and explosives. It really helped the two young men that killed fifteen in Littleton, Colorado, as they played these kind of games over and over again.

Get your computer hooked up to the Internet, so your children can learn how to make pipe bombs, and do a lot more cool things, they can't learn in schools. They can view pornography, child porn, homosexual acts, and even bestiality. They can learn how to get high on drugs, and how to make them, on the Internet. Don't pay any attention to the preacher's advice when he says that children should never be allowed to hook up to the Internet when a parent is not in the room.

Leave prayer and Bible study out of the home. Besides it takes up too much time. You don't have time for that, because there is a new movie down at the theater, or there is a good movie coming on HBO. You should never deprive your children of the opportunity of watching all of the 63 channels you get with your cable service. Of course you don't have time to sit down and talk to your children and learn what they think, what they are doing, and who their friends are. You can find out all that after they get in trouble. After all you must stick to the recipe for disaster. If you don't get all the ingredients in there, the disaster may not happen.

Hollywood and TV are as wicked as hell. They produced "Natural Born Killers," which the boys from Littleton watched over and over again. Hollywood and TV are not there just to entertain, but their purpose is to destroy Christianity, morals, and everything that is decent. They are there to dethrone God in our lives. They tantalize and create lustful desires in the viewer. Fornication, adultery, and homosexual scenes are being produced to seduce, degrade, and to destroy decency in your children. Sam Morris used to say that when the angels flew over Hollywood, they traveled a thousand miles in the air, so they would not get their wings dirty. Of course he said that to show people how wicked this industry is.

Give the children a handful of money and send them off to Movie 16. This will get them out of your hair for most of the day. They can watch all kinds of violence, cars blowing up, buildings being bombed, and people being destroyed by many methods. Beside all this they can get their sex education from homosexuals and adulterers. Anyone in Hollywood that has not been married several times, and who does not cheat on his mate is freak and an outcast in Hollywood.
When a person wrote Disney and protested the homosexual lifestyle promoted in their films, and quoting Scripture against it, he was strongly rebuffed. According to the American Family Association, a Disney executive wrote and told the person, "How about getting your nose out of the Bible (which is ONLY a book of stories compiled by MANY different writers hundreds of years ago) and read the Declaration of Independence (what our nation is built on) where it says `All Men are Created Equal' -- and try treating them that way for a change!? Or better yet, try thinking for yourself and stop using an archaic book of stories as your crutch for your existence." Walt Disney would turn over in his grave, if he knew the company he founded was doing such things.

Be sure and get all of the news and opinions from the major TV networks. That way, you can think like the robot they will program you to be. The major networks will twist the news, emphasize the wrong parts of the news, and promote twisted ungodly thinking. If you think they won't, then they have already have gotten you. They do almost everything in a manner to support liberalism and ungodliness. Their "in depth" reports usually have about as much substance and depth as a saucer full of koolaid.

Here is where I lay most of the blame for the debacle we are in. Years ago most preachers stopped preaching the Bible and standing for righteousness. Liberalism long ago captured the denominational colleges, seminaries and publishing houses. The preachers in the main come out as liberals. The publishing houses produce the brain washing books and Sunday School literature. The fundamentalists, who are not the modernists, are busy promot ing themselves, and producing unsaved church members who will end up in hell. Even the Bible believing Baptists among them have quit teaching the distinctive doctrines of Baptist.

Churches are now in the entertainment business. Rock music, plays, skits, jokes and visual aids have replaced the preaching of the Word of God. Most churches have no dress standard, nor do they stress the practice of personal separation of the members. Now it is popular to watch the Super Bowl in the church, rather than to have a worship service. Where is the stressing of holy living, and consecration to God? The few Bible believers in the churches have become cold, indifferent and worldly. Conformity to the world is the order of the day, and no attention is given to Romans 12:1-2. Most people are not interested in how much Bible is preached in a church, and how closely it adheres to the Word of God. No, they are interested in the social life, and a program that will make them feel good. Most are not interested in what their children will be taught in Sunday School and church, but they are interested in how much worldly activities the church can furnish their children. That way the church can take responsibility for their children, and that will get them out of their hair.

The Supper Room has been substituted for the Upper Room. There is not much emphasis on prayer, worship, and the learning of the things of God. The church has become a glorified country club, a place to be entertained, appeased, and make people to feel good about themselves. Thank the Lord all churches are not like that. There are still seven thousand that have not bowed the knee to Baal, but they are getting smaller in number every day. I am sorry that many are defecting to the church growth movement, and the Charismatic movement. One by one they are falling by the wayside. A few sound churches are being started, but not nearly as many as are needed.

The recipe for revival is the key to survival. We need to see revival in the churches that still believe the truth. We cannot sit at ease in Zion, while a world around us is damned. The Bible has the answer to the disaster of the day. If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (II Chron. 7:14) If we do not take God's recipe, we are doomed to complete our recipe for disaster. Then it can be said of us, as it was with Israel long ago, "the LORD arose against his people, till there was no remedy." (II Chron. 36:16)

What about the role of the government in the recipe for disaster? Unfortunately our government is immoral, ungodly, and is dominated by some of the most wicked men. Some of them are liars, adulterers, crooks and homosexuals. When most of them get elected they are far more interested in getting reelected, than doing what is best for our country. It is helping to bring about the disaster. Many people think the government ought to pass more laws to suppress crime and violence. The truth of the matter is, we cannot expect them to have the solution. They are a part of the problem, but more of a symptom than the actual cause of our disaster. Expecting the solution to come out of Washington is just as foolish as thinking that you can get a cool drink of clean water from a mud puddle in the street. Gun control laws will not stop the events like happened in the school shootings and bombings in Littleton, Colorado. The solution is far more complex, and it is unattractive to the average American.

Long ago President John Adams said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

If President Adams was correct, and he was, where does that leave our country today? We are following the recipe for disaster. Does anybody care? Thank God some do, but they are very much in the minority. As long as the economy is good, the stock market is high, employment is easy to find, and money is plentiful, most Americans are satisfied to follow this dangerous recipe for disaster.

Another statement of the Baptist principle is this: Baptism is not necessary to salvation. The assertion sometimes made that Baptists hold that no man can be saved unless he is baptized, is the falsest, absurdest, and most idiotic declaration that ever was made in ecclesiastical controversy. It is difficult to speak with courtesy of such ignorance or malice. The very reason why Baptists practice baptism and not sprinkling, is the fact that they hold that baptism is in no way essential to salvation. The history of the matter is this: The baptism of the apostolic churches was immersion, if the tautology of the expression may be permitted. So say Luther, Calvin and Wesley; so say all standard church historians, as Phillip Schaff, Dean Stanley, Neander, Hase, Guerike and Krutz. On this point there is absolutely no difference of opinion among specialists in church history. No writer worthy of being classed with the historians named would dissent from their position. There is no proof that sprinkling was ever practiced before the middle of the Third Century. Take the following among many other learned witnesses to the meaning of baptism:

Grimm's Lexicon of the New Testament, which in Europe and American stands confessedly at the head of Greek lexicography, as translated and edited by Professor Thayer of Harvard University, thus defined "baptize": "1. To dip repeatedly, to immerse, submerge. 2. To cleanse by dipping or submerging. 3. To overwhelm. In the New Testament it is used particularly of the rite of sacred ablution, first instituted by John the Baptist, afterwards by Christ's command received by Christians and adjusted to the contents and nature of their religion, viz.: an immersion in water, performed as a sign of the removal of sin, and administered to those who, impelled by a desire for salvation, sought admission to the benefits of the Messiah's Kingdom. With `eis' to mark the element into which the immersion is made; `en' with the dative of the thing in which one is immersed."

Professor Moses Stuart, one of the ablest scholars America has produced, declared: "Baptizo means to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this" (Essay on Baptism, p. 51, Biblical Repository, 1883, p. 298).

"The Greek language," as Hiscox has said, "is rich in terms for the expression of all positive ideas and all varying shades of thought. Why, then, did our Lord in commanding, and his apostles in transmitting his command to posterity use always and only that one word `baptize,' to describe the action, and that one word `baptizma' to describe the ordinance to which he intended all his followers to submit ? The word `louo' means to wash the body, and `nipto' to wash parts of the body; but these words are not used because washing is not what Christ meant: `Rantizo' means to sprinkle, and if sprinkling were baptism this would have been the word above all others; but it was never so used. `Keg' means to pour; but pouring is not baptism, and so this word was never used to describe the ordinance. `Katharizo' means to purify, but it was not used for the ordinance. The facts are clear and the reasoning conclusive."

John Calvin, the great theologian, scholar and commentator, whom Schaliger pronounced the most learned man in Europe, says: "The very word baptize, itself, signifies to immerse; and it is certain that immersion was observed by the ancient church." Commenting on the baptism of the eunuch, he says: "Here we perceive how baptism was administered among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body in water."

Luther, the great German reformer, says: "The term `baptism' is Greek; in Latin it would be translated `mersio,' since we immerse anything into water that it may be covered with the water."Works, Vol. 1, p. 71 Wit. 1582.

Melanchton, the most scholarly and able co-laborer with Luther, says: "Baptism is immersion into water, with this admirable benediction." Melanc. Catec. Wit., 1580.

Adam Clark, the great Methodist commentator, says: "Alluding to the immersions practiced in case of adults, wherein the person appeared to be buried under the water as Christ was buried in the heart of the earth."Com. on Col. 2:12.

Frederick Meyer, one of the ablest and most accurate exegetes of the present age, says: "Immersion which the word in classic Greek and in the New Testament ever means."Com. on 7:4.

Dean Alford says: "The baptism was administered by the immersion of the whole person." Greek Testament, Matt. 3:6.

Schaff, the well known church historian, says: "Immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original form. This is shown by the very meaning of the words, `baptize, baptizma, baptizmos,' used to designate the rite." Hist. Apos. Ch., p. 488, 1851.

Dean Stanley, the distinguished scholar and historian of the Oriental Church, says: "The practice of the Eastern Church, and the meaning of the word leave no sufficient ground for question that the original form of baptism was complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters."Hist. Eastern Ch., p. 34.

Prof. Fisher, of Yale College, the accomplished scholar and historian, says of the apostolic age: "The ordinary mode of baptism was immersion." Hist. Christ. Ch., A. 41.

John Wesley, the celebrated founder of Methodism, says: "Buried with Him, Alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion." Note on Rom.

Neander says : "In respect to the form of baptism, it was in conformity to the original institution, and the original import of the symbol performed by immersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely penetrated with the same."Ch. Hist., Vol. 1, p. 310; also Plant and Train, Vol. 1, p. 222.

Schaff says: "Finally, so far as it respects the mode and manner of outward baptizing, there can be no doubt that immersion, and not sprinkling, was the original form."Hist. Christ. Oh. p. 488.

Pressense says: "Baptism, which was the sign of admission into the church, was administered by immersion. The convert was plunged beneath the water, and as he arose from it he received the laying on of hands."Early Years of Christianity, p. 374.

Krutz says: "Baptism took place by complete immersion."Ch. Hist., p. 41.

In regard to the teaching of the New Testament touching alike the subjects and the act of baptism, the scholars of the world are practically unanimous. The way that infant baptism and substitutes for baptism came to be practiced is easily stated. The idea had erroneously arisen that no one could be saved without baptism, and when a man was converted on his dying bed when too sick to be baptized, that is, immersedthe question arose as to what should be done. The idea was advanced that in such a case of necessity it would suffice to pour water on him. Thus the use of pouring and sprinkling came in with the unscriptural, unreasonable, and dangerous doctrine that baptism was essential to salvation. At first they were used only in cases of necessity. In the Greek Church immersion is still the standard of baptism. It continued such in the Roman Catholic Church for over a thousand years.

Immersion was the usage in the Church of England down to the time of the reformation, and is still prescribed in the Prayer Books. But pouring and sprinkling from their greater convenience came to be used more and more, till they finally largely supplanted baptism. But their use would never have been thought of but for the superstitious and abominable idea that a man's soul would be lost if he died without baptism. Now the Baptist declares that baptism is not necessary to salvation.

Therefore the Baptist says that if a Christian can be baptized according to apostolic usage and divine command, he should be; but if a man is converted on a dying bed, when he cannot be baptized, let him die without baptism. If a man's physical condition makes it impossible to obey the command, in his case it is not binding. The thief on the cross could not obey this command; still Jesus promised him Paradise that very day. A Baptist does not consider that he is ever at liberty to use a human substitute, such as pouring or sprinkling, for the divine command of baptism. Not considering baptism to be essential to salvation, he is not troubled at the idea of a convert's dying without baptism. It has been said that Baptists make too much of baptism; but, in fact, no religious body, except the Quakers, make so little of it as they. And the reason why they do not practice pouring and sprinkling as well as baptism is because it does not trouble them in the least to let a convert, who cannot yield obedience in baptism, die unbaptized. Their adherence to baptism, which in rare cases cannot be administered, shows that they are in the least `ritualistic,' but have very low ideas as to the necessity of baptism. They, however, regard Jesus Christ as the only King and Lawgiver in Zion, and His Word as the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice, and so they observe baptism as He commanded and as the apostles practiced and taught; And now this Baptist doctrine, that baptism is not necessary to salvation, the idea that a man's soul will not be lost, even though he dies unbaptized, is a doctrine which not only is supported by the Bible, but is one that commands the respect of men outside the church. The Baptists are not medievalist, but they are the especial exponents of Biblical and also of Nineteenth Century ideas.

Another point in which Baptists are the exponents both to New Testament and modern ideas is their doctrine of religious freedom, the tenet that the civil magistrate has no authority over a man's religious creed and usage. This was originally a distinctively Baptist idea. For this idea they have again and again shed their blood. It is not long since that if a man advanced the doctrine of religious freedom it was known thereby immediately that he was a Baptist. Baptists have been much praised for having first preached this great doctrine, now held universally in our own country and increasingly in other lands; but this doctrine is merely a logical deduction from the fundamental Baptist principle.

In the Jewish nation, and for that matter in ancient Gentile nations, as, for instance, the Roman Empire, the church and state were one. The Jewish high priest was a civil officer and the Roman emperor was Pontifex Maximus. The civil and ecclesiastical governments were identical, or at least originally affiliated; and, of course, the magistrate had authority in matters of religion. And in the middle ages, the prevalence of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration and the consequent nearly universal baptism of infants, made every child not only a citizen but also a member of the church. Thus church and state became again identified, or at least conterminous, and the civil magistrate became the servant of the church as well as the state.

The logical development of Baptist principles led to the great doctrine of religious freedom. A moment's thought will show that there is no ground for saying that the only reason why Baptists did not persecute, as did others, was because they did not have the power to do so. They often had occasion to speak on this subject. For instance, one Thomas Van Imwalt, a Baptist, confessor in Tyrol, when examined in prison, was asked whether in case his people had the power they would not force their doctrines on all nations, answered: "No, it would be foolish for them to endeavor to bring anyone to believe by force, for God will accept only a willing and unconstrained heart." They saw, in that day, that while a man might be brought to baptism and the Lord's Supper, he could not by force be brought to believe. And they believed that it was not baptism and other ceremonies, but only unconstrained belief, that made a man a Christian; they saw that it was impossible to make a man a Christian by force, and so they never attempted it, even when they had the power.

There is a doctrine held by all intelligent Christians which formerly was set forth by Baptists alone, namely the doctrine of the salvation of all who die in infancy. It is only in recent times that this doctrine has been generally held. It is not very long ago that if a man said the dying infant of a heathen or Turk was saved, all who heard him knew at once that he was a Baptist. But this doctrine, denied by others, was adopted by Baptists as a logical outcome of their fundamental principle. The doctrine that baptism wrought salvation led to the so-called baptism of infants; infant baptism would never have been thought of but for this doctrine of baptismal regeneration. This doctrine is the root of which infant baptism is the fruit, and its story is one of the most fearful the student of history anywhere finds.

In Leckey's "History of Rationalism" occur the following burning lines: "According to the unanimous belief of the early church, all who were external to Christianity were doomed to eternal damnation, and therefore even the new-born infant was subject to the condemnation unless baptism had united it to the church. At a period which is so early that it is impossible to define it, infant baptism was introduced into the church; it was universally said to be for the remission of sins, and the whole body of the fathers without exception pronounced that all infants who die unbaptized were excluded from heaven. All through the middle ages we trace the influence of this doctrine in the innumerable superstitious rites which were devised as substitutes for regular baptism. Nothing, indeed, can be more curious, nothing can be more deeply pathetic than the record of the many ways by which the terror stricken mothers attempted to evade the awful sentence of their church. Sometimes the baptismal water was sprinkled upon the womb; sometimes the still-born child was baptized in the hopes that the Almighty would antedate the ceremony. These and many similar practices continued all through the middle ages in spite of every effort to extirpate them, and the severest censures were unable to persuade the people that they were not effectual, for the doctrine of the church had wrung the mother's heart with an agony that was too poignant even for that submissive age to bear. Weak and superstitious women who never dreamed of rebelling against the teaching of their clergy, could not acquiesce in the perdition of their offspring, and they vainly attempted to escape from the dilemma by multiplying superstitious practices or by attributing to them more than orthodox efficacy."

To illustrate Mr. Leckey's remarks, we may quote from the decrees of a synod at Cologne in 1280. After prescribing immersion as the only regular baptism (as it was in the Roman Catholic Church for more than a thousand years) it goes on to say: "But in case there is fear that an infant will die before it is born, if the head of the infant * * * some one shall pour water over the head, saying, `I baptize thee.'" It will not be denied that the Caesarean operation has often been performed in Roman Catholic countries, and occasionally in other countries, that the child may be saved by baptism, even though the mother should die, her eternal safety being already secured. One does not like to refer to matters of this delicate nature; but it is time that the superstitions and barbarities which are thus connected with infant baptism were rebuked with great plainness of speech as unworthy even of the most degraded heathen. Some have called infant baptism a beautiful ceremony. But, in fact, it is the efflorescence of a most gross superstition, and, viewed in the light of church history, it is only horrible and repulsive. As the little infant is borne in its gay robes down the aisle, the language of the ceremonial is that except some drops of water be sprinkled on its forehead that beautiful little being would writhe in the flames of hell. Who dare, even in symbol, teach such a horrible doctrine? How can a few drops of water, or an ocean, change the child's relations to God? In any case, the child has no more penal sin than a rose or a snowflake.

THE DOCTRINE THAT ALL DYING IN INFANCY ARE SAVED WAS FIRST TAUGHT BY THE BAPTISTS. THEY HELD THAT NOT ONLY AN ADULT BELIEVER WOULD BE SAVED, THOUGH HE DIED WITHOUT BAPTISM, BUT THAT ALL DYING IN INFANCY WERE SAVED. This doctrine continually appears in the charges against Baptists who were put to death for their faith. For instance, Henry Craut, Justus Mueller and John Peisker were beheaded in Jena in 1536, not by Roman Catholics, but by their Protestant brethren, the Lutherans. Among their announced views was the doctrine that "all infants, even those of Turks, Gentiles and Hebrews, are saved without baptism." The first time this doctrine appears in a non-Baptist creed it is mentioned only to be condemned. The Augsburg Confession of 1530 says: "Damnant Anabaptists, qui improbant baptismum, puerorum et affirmant pueros sine baptismal salvos fieri." They (the churches putting forth this creed) condemn the Anabaptists (nickname of the Baptists) who reject the baptism of children and declare that children are saved without baptism.

Even in our own country similar opposition was once manifested against the Baptist faith. When Clarke, Holmes and Crandall were imprisoned and fined in Boston, Mr. Clarke, when standing stripped at the whipping post, had his fine paid by a humane man, who was greatly affected by the sight of a scholar, a gentleman, and a divine in such a situation. On asking, "What law of God or men had he (Clarke) broken?" Endicott replied to Clarke, "You have denied infant baptism and deserve death." Persecution of those who so deny is the natural result of the belief which led to the practice of infant baptism. We again affirm that it is a practice contrary to Scripture even as interpreted by non-Baptist scholars, and also to the sound reason of all intelligent men who are not prejudiced lay early training and one-sided education.

To sum up, I would say that the fundamental principle of the Baptists, and one formerly held by them alone, is that A MAN'S SALVATION DEPENDS SOLELY ON PERSONAL FAITH IN CHRIST AND THE RESULTANT CHANGE OF INWARD CHARACTER, AND NOT ON BAPTISM AND OTHER CHURCH ORDINANCES. As a result, they affirm that faith must be personal; that no man can believe for another, no parent for the child; and that, therefore, THE CHURCH IS NOT MADE UP OF "BELIEVERS AND THEIR CHILDREN" EXCEPT SO FAR AS THE CHILDREN ARE THEMSELVES BELIEVERS. THEY HOLD THAT ANY OTHER VIEW OF THE CHURCH IS WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF SCRIPTURE OR COMMON SENSE. They administer baptism only to those who profess faith in Christ and give evidence in daily life of having been converted. They administer immersion, the act of baptism in the apostolic church, and when this is impracticable they let the convert die without baptism. Holding that a man is not made a Christian by baptism and other outward acts, only by a change in his spiritual nature, which can not be brought out by force, they therefore insist that no outward force or form shall be used to make men Christians, and that the civil magistrate shall confine himself entirely to civil affairs, not interfering in purely religious matters. Holding that baptism is not necessary to salvation, they hold that not only believing adults, but also all who die in infancy, even the heathen children, are saved.

These ideas, which not very long ago were held by Baptists alone, are now held by the most enlightened men outside of the Baptist ranks, and I consider them also the teachings of the New Testament. This is another reason "why I am a Baptist."

IF I TAKE THE BIBLE ONLY AS MY GUIDE, I MUST BE A BAPTIST; IF I DISCARD IT AND TAKE TRADITIONS OF MEN, I COULD NOT CONSISTENTLY STOP UNTIL I HAD REACHED ROME. But I am not likely to start on the downward grade. If I were not a Baptist, logically I would have to be a Roman Catholic. The Catholics are perfectly consistent, but unscriptural; grant their premises and logically you must adopt their conclusions. THE BAPTISTS ARE ALSO CONSISTENT AND AT THE SAME TIME SCRIPTURAL; GRANT THE BAPTIST PREMISE AND YOU MUST ACCEPT THE BAPTIST CONCLUSION. But the Congregationalists, the Methodists, the Presbyterians, and the Episcopalians are not consistent. THEIR POSITION IS HALF ROMANIST, HALF BAPTIST. They have no logical standing ground; There are but two consistent and logical positions, one of which is held by the Romanists and the other by the Baptists. Every consistent, logical and unprejudiced thinker will take one or the other. HERE ON THE WORD OF GOD THE BAPTISTS STAND; they are consistent; they antedate existing denominational divisions; they are consistent Protestants; they are truly apostolic; baptism is the apostolic ordinance. Their position is impregnable. Historically, Baptists are not Protestants; doctrinally, they are the most consistent Protestants. While the Bible stands, they shall stand, and the "Word of God shall stand forever." God has given them wonderful prosperity. They are increasing in the United States today much faster than the population of this, the most rapidly populating country in the world; they are in sympathy with all progressive American ideas; and at the same time are loyal to the Word of God. They love their brethren of all denominations; they are ready to unite with them in all forms of Christian activity. They use constantly the Master's prayer for his disciples "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us."

If ever there is organic unity, it will begin at the baptistry. Every denomination in Protestant Christendom and in the entire Roman and Greek churches can agree upon baptism, that is, immersion, as taught by our Lord and his apostles. The Greek church, numbering quite 90,000,000 of adherents, has ever been a stout witness on behalf of baptism. The Roman church joyfully accepts it, and all the Protestant churches join hands with these two great bodies. ON NO SUBSTITUTE FOR BAPTISM CAN ALL THE DENOMINATIONS AGREE. We are not now arguing a point; we are simply stating an uncontrovertible fact. Do men really want organic Christian union? Are they in earnest when they proclaim this desire? ARE THEY WILLING TO FOLLOW CHRIST INTO THE WATERS OF BAPTISM? Are they willing to join hands with the brethren in all centuries and in all climes? Here is the opportunity; here is the truly apostolic ordinance.

If they will follow apostolic injunction and example they all can say: "We are buried with Him by baptism into death." And then there may be, if it is desired, organic union without doing violence to the convictions of any, and in acknowledging harmony with the Word of God. It would be easy to fill pages with the names of learned authorities on all these points, and the simple-minded disciple of the Lord Jesus, with no guide but the New Testament, comes to the same conclusion. May the Holy Spirit lead all believers into all truth!

Reader, has Pastor MacArthur given good, sound, scriptural reasons for being a Baptist? If you are a real Christian, can you give as good, sound, scriptural reasons for not being a Baptist? If your Savior was not ashamed to be baptized by a Baptist, why should you be? If your Savior took His stand with a Baptist in doctrine and practice, why should not you? If it was important enough for Him to do this, is it not important enough for you to do it? Do not try to ease your conscience with the fact that great and good men have not done this. Were they greater and better than your Savior and Lord? Shall you think more of their example than of your Savior's example? Is it right to follow even your father or mother in preference to the example of your Savior? He said, "Follow me;" will you do it?

Your church relationship means your influence for the doctrines of that church. Is it right for your influence to be against the doctrines you believe? It is not a question of the name, though no one in this day has any more right to reject the name and be ashamed of it than John the Baptist had. But it is a question of the truth taught by the churchthe doctrines. The purpose of the church is to be "the pillar and ground of the truth."1 Timothy 3:15.

Let it be understood distinctly that the one who repents and accepts Christ as complete Redeemer, as complete Savior, is sure of heaven; for "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15 :3); and "Our Savior Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity" (Titus 2:13, 14), said: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life" (John 5:24). Hence, church relationship and baptism have nothing whatever to do with salvation. But He said: "If ye love me, keep my commandments;" and if He died for our sins (1 Cor. 15:3), and redeemed us from all iniquity (Titus 2:13, 14), and gives us eternal life with the promise that we shall never perish (John 10:28, 29), and lets us know now that we are saved and certain of heaven (John 5:24), ought we not to love Him tenderly and sincerely enough to follow Him in baptism and let our church relationship be what His Word teaches?

Reader, do you love Him enough to do this?

Remember, Jesus Himself said, "If a man love me he will keep my words," and "He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings" (John 14 :23, 24); and God's servant of old said, "Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice" (I Sam. 15:22); and the Savior said, "But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9). There was one who, facing his duty to the Savior, asked, "What shall I do, Lord?" (Acts 22 :10) who, when he saw the Lord's will, said, "Immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood" (Gal. 1:16); and there was another who "cared for none of those things" (Acts 18:17). They represent two great classes today; with which class will you take your stand?

Baptist churches are the only churches on earth that require a person to profess to be saved before the person unites with the church or is baptized. If, now, the New Testament teaches this and you, reader, see that it teaches it, you cannot be true to your Lord and not take your stand in a New Testament church. If the New Testament does not teach this, then you cannot be true to your Lord and unite with a Baptist church.

Three closing questions for the redeemed reader:

First, if every other redeemed person on earth were in a real New Testament church, would you stand out against the New Testament church or would you unite with it? "But," says the reader, "the great majority of professing Christians are not Baptists, and never will be." That is doubtless true; but "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil" (Ex. 23 :2); and it is surely evil to know God's will and refuse to bow to it.

Second, our Lord taught us to pray, "Thy will be done." Is it right, is it truthful, to know his will, and pray, "Thy will be done," and yet refuse to do His will?

Third and last, "Despise ye the church of God" (1 Cor. 11:22)?