Universal Setting

The point: Strive to be perfect in all the will of God, not just content with saving your souls.

Martin quotes Thornwell's distinction between latitudinarianism (few convictions) and bigotry (no fellowship for disagreement) to illustrate the balanced approach needed in studying God's whole will, including baptism.

Everything in its place is a just maxim or rule, but it by no means implies that comparatively small things are entitled to no place. Because church government, and I add baptism, is not the great thing, it does not follow that it is nothing. We are as far removed, and then you kids, he uses a 50 cent word. We are as, with inflation, it's probably a dollar word now.

2:55 - 3:25 Read in full sermon

The point: Do not be disappointed by a sermon on baptism, but expect a new sight of Christ and a fresh understanding of His salvation through it.

He compares the preached word coming to the ear to baptism and the Lord's Supper coming to sight and touch, explaining that ordinances are simply the gospel presented to other senses, not a different gospel.

I have water without on a rainy day and now water within as the preacher is going to expound on baptism. May I say, if you've even had a whisper of a thought in that direction, you reflect both an ignorance of the nature of gospel ordinances and probably a prejudice that has been built up because of improper teaching on the subject. For you see, the visible ordinances of the gospel, are simply the gospel presented to the other senses as the preached word is presented to the ear. It is no different gospel in baptism or in the Lord's Supper.

5:06 - 5:45 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: He systematically reviews multiple instances of baptism in Acts (Pentecost, Samaria, Ethiopian Eunuch, Cornelius, Lydia, Philippian Jailer, Crispus, John's disciples)…

He uses the examples of birds on a limb and a man distracted by Peter's beard to illustrate that baptism is only for those who have the capacity to hear and intelligently receive the preached word.

They that received this word were baptized. Now, what about the birds who sat on the limb of a tree and heard Peter preach? Well, they were not baptized because they had no capacity to receive the word. They that received the word were baptized.

15:04 - 15:18 Read in full sermon

Driving home: The moment you separate the pledge from the flag to which the pledge is given, you have stripped it of meaning and significance. Likewise, God is joined baptism with the preaching of and response to the act of pledging a…

The act of pledging allegiance to the flag is used to illustrate that an action (like baptism) only has meaning and significance when performed in conjunction with the object it represents (the gospel), otherwise it's 'meaningless mumbo-jumbo'.

When you stand in school, I don't know if they even do that in school anymore, but we used to. We used to stand in school and put our hand over our heart and say every morning, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, One nation, and a little phrase. Under God...

30:14 - 30:34 Read in full sermon

Driving home: Take away the gospel and whatever. What is left in what is called baptism is a mere nothing. It is a nehushtim.

He uses the analogy of visiting someone's house primarily to deliver a message, but accepting an offer for lunch, to explain Paul's statement 'Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel' as an 'absolute for the relative' – emphasizing the primary purpose without denying the secondary.

Are you speaking with forked tongue? No, no. He's using a figure of speech in Corinthians. It's called an absolute for the relative.

32:45 - 32:52 Read in full sermon

Driving home: Take away the gospel and whatever. What is left in what is called baptism is a mere nothing. It is a nehushtim.

He refers to the brazen serpent being called 'nehushtim' (a nothing) when it was worshipped, to illustrate that baptism, when detached from the gospel, becomes a meaningless, superstitious religious ceremony.

That is, my primary concern was not to administer an ordinance, but to proclaim the gospel apart from which the ordinance has no significance. Take away the gospel and whatever. What is left in what is called baptism is a mere nothing. It is a nehushtim.

33:30 - 33:48 Read in full sermon

The point: Do not cling to silly religious forms or pin hopes for eternity upon them, especially if they deny the gospel.

He cites Isaiah 1, where God calls Israel's sacrifices and feast days a 'stench in my nostrils' when detached from truth, to show God's view of religious ceremonies (like baptism) performed without the true gospel.

The Word of the Gospel, the Apostolic Gospel preached, and the Word of the Apostolic Gospel embraced. You want to read how God feels on ceremonies that even He Himself has instituted when they are detached from truth and from reality? You read Isaiah chapter 1. God had instituted the sacrificial system through Moses. God had instituted their special feast days. And you know what the Israelites did? They thought that in maintaining the sacrifices and the feast days, they would be able to do it. They thought that in maintaining the truth of God and the effects of truth upon their lives, God woul...

36:53 - 37:50 Read in full sermon

Driving home: Can we conceive of so absurd a situation in which the apostles would proclaim a gospel by lips and then obscure and contradict it in the visible word of baptism?

He explains that the purpose of an illustration or object lesson is to clarify and illuminate a point, not to blur or obscure it, applying this to how baptism should function in relation to the gospel.

Can we conceive of so absurd a situation in which the apostles would proclaim a gospel by lips and then obscure and contradict it in the visible word of baptism? What's the purpose of an illustration?

40:15 - 40:28 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: The second implication is that baptism's significance in apostolic thought never obscured or contradicted any fundamental truth of the gospel; rather, it was meant to enforce and…

He uses the analogy of driving a nail through a board and clinching it by bending it over to illustrate that baptism should enforce and secure the truth of the gospel in men's hearts, not drive it out or obscure it.

Or does it enforce them? There were times when we were working on this building, when we renovated it some six and a half years ago. There were times when we were working certain jobs in which you wanted to make a living. You wanted to make sure the nails were really fastened, and you'd take a nail that was longer than the board was wide.

42:28 - 42:47 Read in full sermon

The point: If unconverted, turn from sin and embrace Jesus Christ in faith to be saved, without needing water, church membership, or prayers of others.

He quotes Herbert Carson's 'Farewell to Anglicanism' to highlight disturbing language in the Anglican liturgy that implies infants are regenerated and grafted into Christ's body through baptism, obscuring salvation by faith alone.

Herbert Carson in his excellent book, Farewell to Anglicanism, gives a biography of his own struggles when he was in the Anglican church. These were some of the words of the liturgy that greatly disturbed him. After speaking to the godparents that they would, as it were, be the ventriloquist for the baby, Dost thou renounce the devil? Dost thou believe?

46:18 - 46:44 Read in full sermon

In this part of the sermon: Martin argues that any doctrine of baptism suggesting grace is 'funneled through the water' obscures the gospel's dominant note of salvation by faith alone, critiquing Lutheran…

He quotes Charles Hodge's 'Systematic Theology' where Hodge states parents sin grievously by neglecting infant baptism, suggesting it may be a 'means of their salvation,' which Martin argues obscures the fundamental note of the gospel.

Oh, how this great truth of the gospel, apostolic gospel is obscured in this absurd and Christ dishonoring doctrine of baptism that puts the water somewhere between the sinner and his need and Jesus Christ in the plentitude of his grace. Would you believe so able a theologian as Charles Hodge, and I check this quote to make sure that it wasn't a misquote. In defending the doctrine of infant baptism, Hodge says, quote, Those parents sin grievously against the souls of their children who neglect to consecrate them to God in the ordinance of baptism. Let the little ones have their names written i...

48:33 - 49:36 Read in full sermon

The point: Do not need a 'prostitution of baptism' to be a faithful parent; rely on the command of Ephesians 6:4 to nurture children in the Lord.

He quotes from a Psalter's liturgy on baptism, showing questions and prayers that assert children are 'sanctified in Christ' and 'received... as members of Thine only begotten Son' through baptism, which he argues denies salvation by faith alone and blood-line independence.

I read from the Psalter, which is used in many of the traditional reformed churches. I read from the liturgy on baptism. Listen carefully. These questions are to be addressed to the parents.

58:57 - 59:12 Read in full sermon