Seriously though, I’ll also add that back when I was attending this church (about 15 years ago) there we’re actually some Grace Brethren churches that were considered “open” to membership by those who had not been baptized by triune immersion. Our particular church was not open, and it was an ongoing debate within the denomination (actually, they don’t call themselves a denomination, but rather, a fellowship of churches).

Alvin, thanks for your comment. Some thoughts and questions I have for you:

1. Your first question is an important one, “What is baptism?” Is baptism a sign of regeneration alone or is it a sign of the new covenant ushered through Christ or both? The paedo-baptist would argue that the latter definition would be a critical interpretive grid for understanding baptism. As a parallel sign to the old covenant, it would be a sign of the people of God and not just regeneration. As you prob know Alvin, the paedobaptist argument is pretty intricate. I think JP appreciates the theological depth of a paedobaptist’s understanding of baptism and the credobaptist cannot so easily dismiss the argument by simply saying there is no paedobaptism in the Bible.

2. You said, “If one wants to be part of the local body yet refuses to subscribe to its tenet, then it is unethical.” If you were in suburban Alabama (this actually was a position a friend of mine was in) where there were only Baptist churches that preached the Gospel faithfully, and liberal churches that were Presbyterian, and he was a paedobaptist, to want to be a part of the local body of a Baptist church there is ‘unethical’? Isn’t that quite possibly far too broad of a statement?

3. On your point, “Moreover, if one was baptized as infant, prior to salvation, then how can that be a valid baptism to begin with? Subsequent to salvation, one refuses to be baptized (scripturally that is - immersion) but wanting to hinge on infant baptism is PLAIN DISOBEDIENCE to biblical mandate!” again I would point out that the paedobaptist argument would be that from a covenantal view, this is in no way PLAIN DISOBEDIENCE to the biblical mandate. In Acts, the paedobaptist would argue that in a generation where no one trusts in Christ and are turning to him, of course there would be no infants being baptized. We’re talking about a first generation of believers. Whether you think this argument is tenable or not, it certainly casts some possibilities into the pciture that perhaps it isn’t PLAIN DISOBEDIENCE.

4. What if the Chinese chef decided that so long as this man values the Chinese food, but his tastebuds are so accustomed to steak, that the chef decides he’d be willing to cook him the steak? Does that mean that the Chinese restaurant is no longer a Chinese restaurant? No, it means for this man, the chef has shown grace to that man. Now if the man demanded that the chef wash his laundry, he doesn’t belong.

Yes, a Baptist church has distinctives. But I think most Baptists would say what ultimately defines them is the Gospel, not baptism by immersion. At least I think this would be so.

4. “Why should Piper’s Baptist-forefathers die for that mode?” Is it possible that those forefathers died for something that they didn’t have to die for? Yes, their murderers will be held accountable. But dying for something does not mean that it makes it legitimate (1 Cor 13:3).

Thanks Alvin for your words. They sharpen as iron sharpens iron.

Baptist are known for believer’s immersion (not sprinkling - because they are convinced that baptizo means immerse, period). Baptist - reformed or otherwise, believe regeneration precedes baptism. For the simple reason, without the prior, it’s mere dunking. If one wants to be part of the local body yet refuses to subscribe to its tenet, then it is unethical.

Furthermore, making it “optional” means to efface the Baptist’s distinction. Moreover, if one was baptized as infant, prior to salvation, then how can that be a valid baptism to begin with? Subsequent to salvation, one refuses to be baptized (scripturally that is - immersion) but wanting to hinge on infant baptism is PLAIN DISOBEDIENCE to biblical mandate! Piper or not, we need to understand that biblical pattern has always been salvation before baptism. FF BRuce said in Acts commentary that it doesn’t happen that one is saved but refused baptism (of course i’m paraphrasing here, off the cuff). Baptism pictures the believer’s union with Christ. No union without salvation!

If one isn’t Baptist and has no desire for immersion, then he should consider other assemblies whereby he can ethically participate and fellowship with other saints and serve the Lord. To insist on joining a Baptist church yet wanting to propagate one’s position is plain unethical. It’s not much different from a Midwestern caucasian entering a Chinse restaurant insisting on ordering prime beef steak, medium-rare, and getting upset that the chinese chef tells him to go next door to Kenny Roger’s Restaraunt (or other well-known beef steak restaurant). What makes a Chinese restaurant chinese?

I am appreciative of Piper’s ministry though not always agreeing to everything that comes out of DGM. We should consider church history and ask if theologically (and historically) speaking why is baptism such a big issue? Why should Piper’s Baptist-forefathers die for that mode?

Both good men are not talking about heresy. One is erroneous while the oher is right; both cannot be right. I am glad Grudem changed his mind. He is following the Word, not the convenient route.

So… after much debate and inner turmoil, my wife and I refused to be rebaptized with the extra dips, and sadly, we left that church. We couldn’t become actual members and felt both excluded and limited in our capacity there. We could never enter into ministry leadership without membership, and so we needed to find a church that would “accept” our baptism and grant us membership. It was a very sad experience- almost like a divorce to us. We left behind many good friends as a result.

When things like this end up happening in churches, something has gone seriously wrong!!