We've discussed this before I am sure, but.....
If a baptized professor becomes either very convinced that he was saved AFTER baptism and that he was baptized as an unbeliever, or else the man denies his professed faith and rejects the faith for a number of years before repenting and believing at some later time in life (and is convinced, again, that his former profession and his former baptism was not as a believer), would you advocate "re-baptism" of that man (or, worded more baptist-y, "a first true baptism of that man.")
A thing can be irregular but still valid, right?
But a wrong mode or the baptism of the wrong subject has been held by most baptists to invalidate the action, and thus the above baptism would not merely be irregular but invalid and therefore not a true baptism.
What is your position?
If a baptized professor becomes either very convinced that he was saved AFTER baptism and that he was baptized as an unbeliever, or else the man denies his professed faith and rejects the faith for a number of years before repenting and believing at some later time in life (and is convinced, again, that his former profession and his former baptism was not as a believer), would you advocate "re-baptism" of that man (or, worded more baptist-y, "a first true baptism of that man.")
A thing can be irregular but still valid, right?
But a wrong mode or the baptism of the wrong subject has been held by most baptists to invalidate the action, and thus the above baptism would not merely be irregular but invalid and therefore not a true baptism.
What is your position?