Upvote:2
I believe the question highlights an interesting point : that we should we see (by two different examples) that if someone is baptised (but in a limited way) then it is not essential that they be baptised again, but they could be.
After all, they have made a public profession through baptism which is one of the main features of baptism.
I say this because I was also baptised in a limited way and largely in ignorance, at the age of sixteen (over 50 years ago). But on later being received into a more enlightened congregation, they did not require me to be re-baptised.
However I had previously been 'christened' as an infant (although I remember it because, through circumstances, it was delayed until I was five) but I wanted to be baptised as an adult at the age of sixteen.
This was accepted by a congregation and they were willing to baptise me a second time, but as a converted adult. However, although sincere at the time, I was still very ignorant and I moved quickly from that congregation in my spiritual progress.
So, in the first case, I was 're-baptised' which was a necessary thing to do for doctrinal and fellowship reasons.
But in the second case I was not, for it was not deemed essential to do so.