I just got back from my meeting with Ligon Duncan.  Unfortunately I walked out with more questions than answers.  Conversation takes so much more time than it seems like it should, and before I knew it our time was up.

But for those interested, here are the ways Dr. Duncan responded to my questions, to the best of my memory:

I am considering being rebaptized because, as best as I can understand the teaching of scripture on baptism, I think my previous baptism as an unregenerate infant was invalid.  What counsel do you have for me?

He said the first thing to settle is what I think baptism is, then I need to move to who baptism is for, and finally I need to examine personally how that fits into my own decision.  In other words, the first thing is wrestling with the theology.

How serious is the decision to be rebaptized if the original baptism might have been valid?

Baptism is very serious.  He said that even within his relationships with Together for the Gospel, he, Mohler, and Dever all strive to make it clear they believe their differences on baptism are significant.  They work together for the sake of the gospel because of their unity in the gospel but they in no way want to minimize the importance of baptism.  In order to demonstrate its importance, he went to the story of Moses’ son who was not circumcized and how God sought to put him to death because of it (Exodus 4:24-26).  He said it was even more significant in Moses’ case because the law had been given to him and he was a representative of it, but nonetheless these are very important issues for us today as well.

Does it do harm to the gospel to be rebaptized when the initial baptism was valid?

Yes.  He said you see this problem among credobaptists who have been baptized several times.  He said it is often a result of a lack in the understanding that our salvation is not about what we do but about what God does.  Our baptism is meant to be about what God has done, so it should only be performed once because those who God has called he will keep to the end and there will not be any falling away or the need to be saved again, so when people are rebaptized, even if it’s because they think they weren’t really believers the first time, they send the wrong message.  They should, rather, go before the congregration and tell them about the faith they have found rather than being baptized a second time.

If a member of your church was rebaptized, would it be an occasion for church discipline?

No.  He said historically it would have been, but for the past 150 years (I think that was the number he said, I might be wrong) Presbyterians have in general tried to be more lenient in matters of conviction.  In other words, if someone is convinced by conscience they should be rebaptized, they will not be disciplined for doing so.  He said that the Presbyterian church wants membership in the church to be available to all who are genuinely Christians, and so they don’t make matters of non-essential doctrine an area that would in any way exclude someone from the church.

What is baptism?

It signifies regeneration, and it indicates faith, but it is fundamentally about what God does, not what we do.

Why were John’s disciples rebaptized?  (Acts 19:1-7) What was the purpose of John’s baptism?  Did it have any covenantal meaning?

When they were baptized by John, they underwent a baptism of repentance which signified that they were in need of a savior, but they didn’t know who the savior was.  It was a different kind of baptism from the Christian baptism we practice.  They were acknowledging their need for a savior, but when they are asked about the Holy Spirit, they don’t even know who the Holy Spirit is.  They would have at least heard of the Holy Spirit if they had been baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so they hadn’t received a Christian baptism.  They had simply received a baptism of repentance, which was not uncommon for Gentiles, but John gave it to Jews and the point in that baptism was the Jews admitting they too were unclean and in need of a savior.  John’s baptism did not have any covenantal meaning.

If a man, who had no family connections to the church, was baptized and later came to the conviction he had not been saved at the time of his baptism, would it be right or wrong for him to be rebaptized?

The man should not be rebaptized because even though he may not have had faith at the time, he did receive a valid baptism, which again is not about what man does but what God does.  He also said they do rebaptize people who were baptized as Mormons or other non-Trinitarian chruches or people who come from Catholic backgrounds and in their conscience do not believe the gospel they received from the Roman church was the true gospel.

If I understand correctly, the parents who are members of your church are given the option not to have their children baptized.  Is this true?

Yes.

How do you counsel parents who have a hard time deciding or disagree?

Parents go through some teaching before their first born is baptized and are given the opportunity to ask questions.  If they cannot come to a firm conviction on whether to baptize their children, he suggests they delay the baptism until they can come to a firm conviction.  He said his own mother was wrestling with this when he was born and it took her three years to come to a paedobaptist conviction, and his father was patient with her, so he was not baptized as an infant.  He said this was a good model to follow.

I attend a church that desires me to be rebaptized.  In the future I hope to either attend the Bethlehem Institute or the Sovereign Grace Pastors College.  I would assume they would want me to be rebaptized as well.  At what point does a person who finds these matters difficult to resolve simply submit to the elders of his church and those who are his spiritual leaders?

He was convinced that if I kept wrestling with it I would come to a firm conviction one way or the other.  I am not so convinced I will ever satisfactorily resolve the issue in my own mind, but he encouraged me to keep working on it until I was firmly convinced one way or the other, and seemed quite certain that it would happen.

Is there anything you would recommend for me to read?

He gave me Baptism in Scripture and History by Rowland S. Ward.

Questions I didn’t have time to ask:

I have heard Reformed theologians say that the children of believers are members of the new covenant.  Is that your position and if so what do you mean by members?

How do you resolve the problem Paul was wrestling with in Romans 9: namely, the “people of the promise” are often not the recipients of the promise?  How has God kept his promise to the members of the covenant who are not saved?

Scripturally, what is the most convincing argument to you either in favor of paedobaptism or against credobaptism?