G'day all.

In the parent thread, (Nigel B. Mitchell) wrote:

It is still baptism, and there is no suggestion that a person baptised in this way should later be re-baptised, or is in any way a second-class or inadequate Christian.

I'd like to take this as a motivation for exploring the other extreme: Not the question of whether or not rebaptism should be required (this topic has almost been exhausted), but whether or not rebaptism should be allowed.

By way of introduction, the Uniting Church has extremely strong views on this. They will not rebaptise people under any circumstances, and in cases where there is any possible doubt, ministers are instructed to use words such as "If you are not already baptised, I baptise you...".

I personally consider this to be legalism in the other extreme, which is puzzling, coming from a church which waves its liberalism as a banner, almost.

There are many situations where baptism and the symbolism involved can be extremely meaningful to the person being baptised. For example, survivors of sexual abuse understand more than most of us what is meant by "cleansing".

Now that I've shown my bias, I hereby throw it open to the floor.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage