Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin  I refrained from posting this in an other thread because my comment was not germain to the OP, however...
I just want to point out that "re-baptism" IS "re-baptism"!
The common dodge of calling re-baptism a *non re-baptism* since the first one is no baptism at all, but what we are doing is a *true* scriptual baptism. This is the logical fallacy of "begging the question".
I know we all like to claim that our practice is the "biblical way". I refer to the practice of infant baptism as the "biblical practice" in conversations & sermons.
However it is more than a little disingenious to claim that we are not engaged in "re-baptism" when in fact there can be no other name for the practice. It is fair game to claim that the previous baptism is nul, or irregular, or heretical, but claiming that it never happened is just silly.
Just my  about a personal pet pieve. |
If I were a Presbyterian (I once was for 27 years of my life), I would wholeheartedly agree with you because infant baptism IS baptism from that perspective.
Now that I'm a Baptist (for the recent 11 years of my life), I wholeheartedly disagree with you because infant baptism IS NOT baptism from this perspective.
I hope this helps... Maybe not... I'm retiring from this subject... There's more important matters to discuss. Kevin, if you think I'm rebaptizing your former Presbyterians joining our church, well, the only thing I can say is: I'm not...
