Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenas  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. |
For these reasons, I voted "Not Sure." There is some ambiguity to this question, and what needs to be sorted out first is: "What is true baptism?"
If one accepts the papist "baptism" as valid, then there is no reason to "rebaptize."
However, if the papist baptism is seen as the pagan ritual it is, and thus is no true baptism, then one who is Scripturally baptized, (even though he he was once a recipient of the "so-called papist baptism)," is not being re-baptized, but is in truth being baptized for the FIRST time!
__________________
Sterling Harmon
Coventry, CT
PCA
Deacon
________________
"Whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God."
--
John Calvin, Institutes III:xv.3.
"Our Lord God must be a good man, to be fond of worthless fellows. I cannot like them, and yet I, myself, am one."
--
Martin Luther, Table Talk