Make no mistake about it. Men often love to make rules that are not in the Bible and call them Biblical.
The new President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Frank Page, "...affirmed that he believes re-baptism is necessary in the case of a person who was baptized by immersion following salvation in a church with 'incorrect theology,' including one which rejected eternal security of the believer."
Now I certainly believe in the eternal security of the believer, but the issue for baptism Biblically is not the fine points of theology, but the professed regeneration of the candidate. In other words, are you born again? Are you a believer in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior?
But in an echo of the Pharisees, man sometimes likes to make his own rules, call them Biblical, then parse them to the "enth" degree to cover all situations that might arise, forgetting that the Holy Spirit will be leading.
What's interesting is that President Page has a controversial background of promoting women Pastors, which he has since recanted as "incorrect theology".
Does that mean that those who were baptized in his church during those years when he held his former view should now be re-baptized? He would, of course, say, "Certainly not." There again, because one not only makes his extra-biblical rules, but then refines them according to his own sub-rules, legalism remains a slippery fish to get a hold on.
He also has written a book against Calvinism. Does that mean someone baptized in an SBC church that teaches what he would call the "incorrect doctrine" of Calvinism should be re-baptized. And on it goes.
Side Note: By the way, when Page says re-baptism is "necessary", necessary for what? Salvation? He would say, "Of course not." What then? Well, it's for putting your name on the rolls for "membership" (dare I say, another extra-biblical teaching?).
And that's "Legalism In The News" for today, folks.