Replies

I agree completely.

There are Baptist churches that will not accept the baptism of any other church. Landmark Baptists are this way. If you want to be a member, it is understood that you will be baptized by them. Period. And you will not be eligible for sharing in the Lord's Supper in their church unless baptized by them.

Beyond that, Piper's poor discipline here encumbers his church with petty troublemakers and 'special cases'. Again, we would need to know more about how Piper's church is run and whether he has the sole authority in this matter. He probably doesn't as we Baptists don't generally elevate our clergy to papist thrones. I doubt Piper is a pope and, if he were, he might have maintained proper Baptism practice. I'd like to know before I accuse him.

It does not appear that the persons rejecting anabaptism are at medical risk or anything. And we assume they're modern Americans and shower every day and also swim and jump in hot tubs and water-ski pretty often. So they're not afraid of water. It appears they're afraid of following Christ's simple commandment to believe and be baptized as were all the baptized in the New Testament, including Christ Himself.

People who are reluctant to be baptized are suspicious and should never be admitted to any church's membership. Naturally, they should also expect that they will undergo examination of their doctrinal views by the pastor and deacons. Generally, I've come to conclude that a Baptist should not be allowed to vote on church matters unless he understands Baptist distinctives and a minimal amount of Baptist history and his church's constitution. Ignorant persons are almost an inevitable source of problems among the membership.

Although I have been baptized, if I desired to join a church, I wouldn't reject being baptized again.

Once is sufficient. But repetition for the sake of belonging to a church with a sound membership is no burden to either the church or to any believer. However, I would not consent to being baptized by 'laying back' as I don't believe it is scriptural and is merely a stupid and pietistic notion of some nineteenth century preachers who thought it looked nice or was somehow more symbolic than the simple scriptural act of immersion in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the only standard commanded by scripture. To exceed that simple standard or to impose additional requirements is to add to scripture. If a church attempted to force anyone into their laid-back baptisms, I would consider that church to be scripturally unsound and in violation of its proselytes' Baptist liberties.

Oh, yeah, and none of those stupid swishy white choir robes either. Just dunk 'em.