RE-BAPTIZED

I was baptized as a baby ... some 53 years ago.

I am too old to act on the thought now, but in my younger days I often considered getting "re-baptized". 

I wanted to be baptized on the basis of my own choice. I wanted to make my own profession of faith. 

Over the years I heard a few pastors say that getting re-baptized was not a problem, but most seemed to stand firmly against it. 

Your baptism was "a one-time thing" and is unrepeatable.

It seems funny to me now, but I don't remember anyone trying to make a Scriptural case for or against it. (Although I did hear arguments against infant baptism in general.) 

Then I came across Acts 19:1-7. 

IF I desired to make a case FOR re-baptizing, this is the passage I would turn to. 

Chapter 19 opens with Paul coming into Ephesus and finding a dozen disciples there. He asks if they have received the Holy Spirit and they reply, "Huh?"

So Paul asks, "Then what baptism did you receive?"

Their response? "John's baptism". 

Now John's baptism would have been public and it would have involved getting dunked in water.

But Paul says, "John's baptism? That was about repentance. He told people to believe in the one coming after him, Jesus." 

THEN HE BAPTIZES THEM "into the name of the Lord Jesus"! (19:5)

Afterwards, Paul lays hands on them and they receive the Holy Spirit and begin speaking in tongues and prophesying. 

So couldn't one argue from this that in Paul's mind it was essential that those being baptized understood what they were testifying to? It's obviously more than water and more than ritual. 

And doesn't Paul demonstrate that if those who have been baptized previously didn't "get it" the first time a re-do is in order?

What do you think?