[Havoc]

Rebaptizing is required if the first was invalid. It's a matter of if you lay that ball against the backboard once and it don't go in, you haven't scored until it does. Likewise if the message you recieved was in error, then your salvation may or may not be valid. And it was particularly abhorent that he should tell them they were in gross sin for offering to Roman Gods. Who cares? The word of God is grossly offensive to people who are sure they know better than God. I don't find rebaptising particularly interesting - it's actually quite valid. Especially in those cases where people think they are saved by being dunked in water. That is neither salvation nor Christ's baptism. As such, it isn't so much a matter of
Rebaptism as being saved and properly baptised in Christ's baptism. Of course, I'm sure that's beyond your comprehension and probably lost on you; but, then, we have your other comments to judge the thought process from whence it comes.

[IMRight]

I'm pretty sure the "rebaptising" they were refering to was because they didn't accept "infant baptism" as valid. If it was merely a hedge against baptism by an "invalid" priest being invalid... then I don't think it would be quite as interesting.