Thread: Re-Baptism
View Single Post
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 06-12-2008, 07:11 PM
Hippo's Avatar
Hippo Hippo is offline.
Puritanboard Sophomore
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: London, UK
Posts: 610
Thanks: 77
Thanked 221 Times in 137 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenas View Post
I think your poll is fatally flawed because it doesn't distinguish between what one thinks of re-baptizers, and baptizers doing so because the first one wasn't considered valid.

Re-baptizing implies a recognition of the first, but a need or doctrine that dictates a Baptism must be done again, even though the first one holds some measure of validity.

The other type aren't re-baptizers at all, but only baptizers who do so visibly again for the express purpose that the first baptism was no baptism at all, ergo no baptism has ever occured.

Re-baptizers, in my book, are heretics. Baptizers doing so because the first batpsm was no baptism are not.

I think those affirming the heresey of the latter is one you would take issue to, and to that one you have my answer.

As the poll asks, whether re-baptizers are heretics are not, I answer yes.
Good points here.

I would have to say that if one accepted a first baptism but repaptised anyway then that would be heretical.

I do not think that the question envisaged such a situation, but the terminology allows for such an understanding and renders the polls results fairly useless.
__________________
Mike
London City Presbyterian Church
London
England

"Surely, we wish to be orthodox, but we must first learn what real orthodoxy is. Surely, we wish to be progressive, but we must first have a basis to progress from."