Over on the "other" side of the aisle, they are talking about whether RC baptism is valid or not. This raises some interesting questions. I wonder . . . * If RC baptism is invalid because of the corruption of the RC church, why did the reformers refuse to be "re-baptized" again themselves, accepting their RC baptism as valid? Why did they so condemn the Anabaptists for practicing "re-baptism" for denying the validity of RC baptism? * Wouldn't it be more consistent for a paedo-baptist to accept the historical position that the validity of the baptism does not depend upon the purity of the church or the officiant?