infant baptism same concept as infant dedication?

Status
Not open for further replies.

thistle93

Puritan Board Freshman
Hi! As a reformed baptist I am concerned by a group of covenant theologians who seem to say one cannot be truly covenantal unless they believe in infant baptism.

First, who was the first to tie OT circumcision to NT baptism? Because there is no place in Scripture that makes that jump. That does not mean that it is incorrect but we need to be careful our preconceived hermeneutic does not drive our interpretations.

Second, as a reformed baptist, I believe just as strongly as one who believes in infant baptism, that God made covenant not only with individuals but with families. And that covenant was not the same as salvation but a sign of blessing, because there were those in the covenant that were not saved.

Many of us who are baptist practice infant dedication, which we see as the same sign of the covenant that those see infant baptism as. Now let me be clear, I do not believe that baby dedications are an ordinance like baptism but either was OT circumcision. Again it was a sign of blessing and dedication on the place of believing parents. I also know that infant dedications are not in the Bible but neither are specific instances of infants (it does mentions young children and families) being baptized.

My point here is not in to get into a debate over the merits of believers baptism over infant baptism but that both reformed baptist and those who practice infant baptism have equal regard for God's covanental relationship.

Any books on this topic?:think:

For His Glory-
Matthew
 
Hi! As a reformed baptist I am concerned by a group of covenant theologians who seem to say one cannot be truly covenantal unless they believe in infant baptism.

First, who was the first to tie OT circumcision to NT baptism? Because there is no place in Scripture that makes that jump. That does not mean that it is incorrect but we need to be careful our preconceived hermeneutic does not drive our interpretations.

Second, as a reformed baptist, I believe just as strongly as one who believes in infant baptism, that God made covenant not only with individuals but with families. And that covenant was not the same as salvation but a sign of blessing, because there were those in the covenant that were not saved.

Many of us who are baptist practice infant dedication, which we see as the same sign of the covenant that those see infant baptism as. Now let me be clear, I do not believe that baby dedications are an ordinance like baptism but either was OT circumcision. Again it was a sign of blessing and dedication on the place of believing parents. I also know that infant dedications are not in the Bible but neither are specific instances of infants (it does mentions young children and families) being baptized.

My point here is not in to get into a debate over the merits of believers baptism over infant baptism but that both reformed baptist and those who practice infant baptism have equal regard for God's covanental relationship.

Any books on this topic?:think:

For His Glory-
Matthew

The difference is that Baptists separate the sign from the thing signified, whereas the Reformed distinguish without separating. Baptism signifies and seals all of the blessings of the New Covenant including the effectual call, regeneration, justification, etc. We baptize our children in faith that God will save them based on his covenant promise to be a God to us and to our seed. We believe that they are elect, unless and until they prove otherwise (which is the exception and not the rule.)

Is this what you believe?

And by the way, if you are going to make use of the Old Testament rite of dedication, you're setting a precedent that the Old Testament covenantal structure remains, i. e. where the sign of the covenant of grace, and of new life in the Messiah, that is, circumcision, was applied to all children of God's people. That is also the context of baby dedication. So you are going to have a hard time justifying your withholding of baptism for your infant children, under that view, since baptism signifies and seals in the New Testament exactly what circumcision signified and sealed in the Old Testament.

Colossians 2:11-12 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
 
I strongly disagree with you on a few points. Dedication might have one spot in the scriptures. It is with Hanna on dedicating her son Samuel in the Old Testament. It is not commanded nor is it something to be performed necessarily as a Covenant sign. Hanna pleaded with God for a son and she made a vow to give him to the service of God if God would be gracious to her. It was a vow she fulfilled without a ceremony of dedication. We are required by scripture to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It doesn't need a ceremony. I believe all of creation is commanded to do this.

We do not see we dedication as the same sign of the covenant as those who hold to infant baptism.

I could recommend books on the topic but I would encourage you to get a firm understanding on Covenant Theology first. I am not saying you don't understand it but I am suggesting that you are presenting some novel ideas in your Original Post.
 
Hannah's dedication of Samuel is nothing like the infant dedication services that churches do today. She made a vow (in an extraordinary circumstance) to give him to the Lord all the days of his life. She kept him until he was weaned (probably age 2 or 3, so technically not an infant) and then brought him with elements of sacrifice (the shedding of blood) to Eli and gave him to the judge of Israel (i.e., Samuel was no longer in Elkanah's household).

One more thing to consider: even though it's not mentioned in the text, I would safe it's safe to assume Samuel was circumcised. This is interesting in two regards: 1) even though there is no explicit mention of the circumcision, I don't know anyone who would deny this, and it would serve as a good and necessary consequence of assuming an ordinance has been performed even though there is no direct mention of it (much like Timothy at the beginning of Acts 16); 2) this would not mean that dedication somehow replaces circumcision, since Samuel was both circumcised and dedicated by his mother.
 
Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to the temple for the redemption ceremony of the first born. It signified that the firstborn son belonged to God. Before the creation of the Levitical Priesthood every firstborn male was to work full time in God’s service. But this was changed with Numbers 3:40-41:

“The LORD said to Moses: Record every firstborn male of the Israelite people from the age of one month up, and make a list of their names: and take the Levites for Me, the LORD, in place of every firstborn among the Israelite people, and the cattle of the Levites in place of every firstborn among the cattle of the Israelites.” The child was redeemed with money.

Hebrews says that we are come to the church of the firstborn. So a baby dedication declares that a baby is set apart unto God as part of the church of the firstborn. It is a covenantal act.


However, as Riley points out, And by the way, if you are going to make use of the Old Testament rite of dedication, you're setting a precedent that the Old Testament covenantal structure remains, i. e. where the sign of the covenant of grace, and of new life in the Messiah, that is, circumcision, was applied to all children of God's people. That is also the context of baby dedication. So you are going to have a hard time justifying your withholding of baptism for your infant children, under that view, since baptism signifies and seals in the New Testament exactly what circumcision signified and sealed in the Old Testament.

So I would have to say dedication is very covenantal for some parents, but, if you are going to do something symbolizing that the child belongs to the covenant people, you may as well baptize, seems to me. I guess the average dedication is just affirming that the child is in some way set apart by the faith of the parents, without quite as much promise as a paedo baptism? In my Baptist experience parents have very little of any theology about dedications, it is just traditional.
 
reply

The difference is that Baptists separate the sign from the thing signified, whereas the Reformed distinguish without separating. Baptism signifies and seals all of the blessings of the New Covenant including the effectual call, regeneration, justification, etc. We baptize our children in faith that God will save them based on his covenant promise to be a God to us and to our seed. We believe that they are elect, unless and until they prove otherwise (which is the exception and not the rule.)

Is this what you believe?

And by the way, if you are going to make use of the Old Testament rite of dedication, you're setting a precedent that the Old Testament covenantal structure remains, i. e. where the sign of the covenant of grace, and of new life in the Messiah, that is, circumcision, was applied to all children of God's people. That is also the context of baby dedication. So you are going to have a hard time justifying your withholding of baptism for your infant children, under that view, since baptism signifies and seals in the New Testament exactly what circumcision signified and sealed in the Old Testament.

Colossians 2:11-12 11 In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

---------
Hi! I did not want this to turn into a thread about baptism but I have a few things.

Infant circumcision of the OT did not represent the infant being regenerated or justified, so why would infant baptism? Again both OT & NT covenants and salvation are two separate issues. Are you telling me there are infants who experience the effectual call, regeneration, justification through their baptism but in the end are not saved? By saying that baptism is a seal of such upon infants, it sure sounds like it. For most people I have talked to who believe in infant baptism(besides Roman Catholics) they say the infants baptism gives no guarantee of the infants salvation but rather shows that because they are in a Christian home they have special benefits/advantages that others do not. There are those who come out of Christian homes who become reprobates and those who come out of the most horrible homes who are elect. This is not an issue of the covenant. So I can see how we do disagree.

Colossians 2:11-12 is referring to those who are alive in Christ (those who have received Him vs.1, through faith). This would not include infants.

You use signifies and seals in the same sentence but I believe these are two opposite concepts.

So while you would disagree on baptism issue, in your view can one who believes in believers baptism be included in those who espouse covenant theology?

Thank you!
For His Glory- Matthew
 
For most people I have talked to who believe in infant baptism(besides Roman Catholics) they say the infants baptism gives no guarantee of the infants salvation but rather shows that because they are in a Christian home they have special benefits/advantages that others do not.

Only to elaborate on this point a bit,
The infant child's baptism signifies the "holiness" of the child in the sense of being set apart to a position of privilege- having at least one believing parent who is a believer through whom might ordinarily be expected that the child be raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Also, being part of a covenant community of believers, through which the ordinary means of grace come (e.g. the Word, sacraments).

So, in that sense, it is one thing baptism would "seal."

You are quite right that does not guarantee the salvation of the infant child, but does "sign" the special position of privilege to which he is set apart.

There are other things baptism signifies, including generational promises that God's grace would work along the descendants of a believer, not a guarantee of salvation, but a promise real grace is present.
 
---------
Hi! I did not want this to turn into a thread about baptism but I have a few things.

Great, brother. Shoot!

Infant circumcision of the OT did not represent the infant being regenerated or justified, so why would infant baptism?

Actually, that is precisely my point. OT circumcision did signify regeneration and justification for OT saints just as baptism does for NT saints. This is clear from the statement of the apostle which I quoted in Collosians, where he talks about the underlying spiritual meaning of circumcision.

Again both OT & NT covenants and salvation are two separate issues. Are you telling me there are infants who experience the effectual call, regeneration, justification through their baptism but in the end are not saved?

No, that's not what I'm saying. To quote from the Westminster Confession,

WCF 28:1 Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,(1) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;(2) but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,(3) of his ingrafting into Christ,(4) of regeneration,(5) of remission of sins,(6) and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.

and

WCF 28:6 The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;

In other words, it signifies regeneration and justification, but this does not imply that the infant is already regenerated and justified. Although he may or may not be regenerated and justified at or before the moment of baptism, the timing of these acts of Gods' Spirit is not tied to the moment of Baptism. It may well occur many years later, and yet the sacrament validly pointed to his future regeneration and justification, etc.

By saying that baptism is a seal of such upon infants, it sure sounds like it.

It's like a stamp on a letter. It's God's promise to grant the child the grace of the new birth along with all the other blessings of the New Covenant.

For most people I have talked to who believe in infant baptism(besides Roman Catholics) they say the infants baptism gives no guarantee of the infants salvation but rather shows that because they are in a Christian home they have special benefits/advantages that others do not. There are those who come out of Christian homes who become reprobates and those who come out of the most horrible homes who are elect. This is not an issue of the covenant. So I can see how we do disagree.

There are exceptions, as you have noted, but there is also a rule. As the Canons of Dordtrecht stipulate, believing parents ought not to doubt the salvation of their infant children.

Colossians 2:11-12 is referring to those who are alive in Christ (those who have received Him vs.1, through faith). This would not include infants.

True, it is speaking of those who are alive in Christ. (Which may include infants, like in the case of infant John the Baptist.) The point is that what may be described as a spiritual baptism may also be described as a spiritual circumcision, because baptism and circumcision both denote the same thing, that is, participation in the Covenant of Grace and all its benefts, i. e. regeneration, justification, perseverance, sanctification, glorification, etc. So if they denote the same thing for God's people, then that means baptism replaced circumcision in the New Testament. For each one there is an outward sign/seal with the same underlying spiritual meaning attached to both, to be used under their respective administrations. You can't utterly separate the sign from the thing it signifies.

You use signifies and seals in the same sentence but I believe these are two opposite concepts.
They are not opposite in Reformed theology. It's not a bare sign, it's an authoritative sign with God's promise affixed to it, like a stamp on a letter.

So while you would disagree on baptism issue, in your view can one who believes in believers baptism be included in those who espouse covenant theology?

No, although I recognize that some Baptists are closer to Covenant Theology than others. Once a Baptist fully embraces Covenant Theology, the case for infant baptism is closed. This happens frequently when Baptists study Covenant theology, I have found. They become paedo-baptists.
 
I strongly disagree with you on a few points. Dedication might have one spot in the scriptures. It is with Hanna on dedicating her son Samuel in the Old Testament. It is not commanded nor is it something to be performed necessarily as a Covenant sign. Hanna pleaded with God for a son and she made a vow to give him to the service of God if God would be gracious to her. It was a vow she fulfilled without a ceremony of dedication. We are required by scripture to raise our children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. It doesn't need a ceremony. I believe all of creation is commanded to do this.

We do not see we dedication as the same sign of the covenant as those who hold to infant baptism.

I could recommend books on the topic but I would encourage you to get a firm understanding on Covenant Theology first. I am not saying you don't understand it but I am suggesting that you are presenting some novel ideas in your Original Post.

Thank you! I did forget to mention about Hannah and Samuel. I agree it does not need a ceremony but the ceremony helps the parents and the congregation remember their responsibility before God to raise the child in the Lord. Really it should not be called an infant dedication but really it is a parent/congregation dedication.

Even if you disagree that infant dedications are not a sign of the covenant, like circumcision, and there is not a need of a ceremony, hopefully you would see they are the outpouring of those who believe in covenantal theology but not infant baptism.

When you say we do not see dedication as a sign of the covenant, who do you mean? Surly you don't believe all reformed baptist believe the same on every issue. Are you meaning historically or currently? Have these changed over the years?

You said my interpretation was novel. Have you never heard this type of thinking before?

My main point in this thread was not to defend dedication as a sign of covenant but that those who believe in believers baptism can be just as covenantal as those who believe in infant baptism.

I believe I have a semi-good view of covenant theology (probably not as good as you) but maybe not of the majority reformed baptist view. What do the majority of reformed baptist believe is the new sign of covenant that replaced circumcision?

I would love a few book recommendations.

Thank you so much for all your help and insights!


For His Glory-
Matthew Wilson

---------- Post added at 05:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:46 PM ----------

So you are saying that there are infants that have been promised by God through their baptism regeneration and justification that will not receive it, being that not all who are baptized are saved?

---------- Post added at 05:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

Joseph and Mary brought Jesus to the temple for the redemption ceremony of the first born. It signified that the firstborn son belonged to God. Before the creation of the Levitical Priesthood every firstborn male was to work full time in God’s service. But this was changed with Numbers 3:40-41:

“The LORD said to Moses: Record every firstborn male of the Israelite people from the age of one month up, and make a list of their names: and take the Levites for Me, the LORD, in place of every firstborn among the Israelite people, and the cattle of the Levites in place of every firstborn among the cattle of the Israelites.” The child was redeemed with money.

Hebrews says that we are come to the church of the firstborn. So a baby dedication declares that a baby is set apart unto God as part of the church of the firstborn. It is a covenantal act.


However, as Riley points out, And by the way, if you are going to make use of the Old Testament rite of dedication, you're setting a precedent that the Old Testament covenantal structure remains, i. e. where the sign of the covenant of grace, and of new life in the Messiah, that is, circumcision, was applied to all children of God's people. That is also the context of baby dedication. So you are going to have a hard time justifying your withholding of baptism for your infant children, under that view, since baptism signifies and seals in the New Testament exactly what circumcision signified and sealed in the Old Testament.

So I would have to say dedication is very covenantal for some parents, but, if you are going to do something symbolizing that the child belongs to the covenant people, you may as well baptize, seems to me. I guess the average dedication is just affirming that the child is in some way set apart by the faith of the parents, without quite as much promise as a paedo baptism? In my Baptist experience parents have very little of any theology about dedications, it is just traditional.

Found your post very helpful. So maybe better to refer to infant dedication as a covenantal act than a sign of circumcision.
Sadly agree to many that it is just a tradition and do not know the foundation behind it. This is why it is vital that pastors do a better job explaining this.
Thank you! Matthew
 
Matthew,

The problem you're running into here is arguing for a practice that is a violation of the regulative principle of worship. I am assuming, as a Reformed Baptist, that you subscribe to the RPW; which basically is the biblical mandate that God has told his church how they are to worship him and that anything beyond that is forbidden in worship. Baby dedications are not found in scripture as being part of New Testament worship. Are there beneficial reasons for charging parents to raise their children in a Christian manner? Certainly. But notice the change in emphasis that I just made. Who is really being dedicated? The parents are the one's who have responsibility to raise their children. The father is ultimately responsible for making sure his child is exposed to the Gospel. In the end it's the parents who are dedicating themselves to the work of parenting. The child is passive in this; at least in his early years.

In my humble opinion the best venue for reminding parents of their Christian responsibility in parenting is from the pulpit; at least from a worship service perspective. Beyond that it is the work of pastoral ministry to affirm parents in their God-given role. Additionally, it is a ministry that all of us should share in as we stir our brothers and sisters on to love and good works.
 
To reply to your last post, Matthew...

infant dedication can only be thought of as a 'covenantal act' in the sense that people who do it think they're doing something covenantal. It is not given in Scripture in any sense as a covenantal act in the sense that both circumcision and baptism, but as you have said it's more or less 'just tradition' - man's tradition. Nowhere are dedications commanded as an act of faith by parents (though we do have some sort of dedications in narratives - they aren't normative). If dedications become an act expected of parents for their children, as effectively a commanded ordinance of the church, then the pastor (no matter how well he explains it) is overstepping his authority.
 
Matthew,

The problem you're running into here is arguing for a practice that is a violation of the regulative principle of worship. I am assuming, as a Reformed Baptist, that you subscribe to the RPW; which basically is the biblical mandate that God has told his church how they are to worship him and that anything beyond that is forbidden in worship. Baby dedications are not found in scripture as being part of New Testament worship. Are there beneficial reasons for charging parents to raise their children in a Christian manner? Certainly. But notice the change in emphasis that I just made. Who is really being dedicated? The parents are the one's who have responsibility to raise their children. The father is ultimately responsible for making sure his child is exposed to the Gospel. In the end it's the parents who are dedicating themselves to the work of parenting. The child is passive in this; at least in his early years.

In my humble opinion the best venue for reminding parents of their Christian responsibility in parenting is from the pulpit; at least from a worship service perspective. Beyond that it is the work of pastoral ministry to affirm parents in their God-given role. Additionally, it is a ministry that all of us should share in as we stir our brothers and sisters on to love and good works.

When I say I am a reformed baptist I am using it in the generic way. I am a baptist who believes in the Doctrines of Grace. So I have no idea what the RPW is. Please enlighten me.

I do not believe just because something is not mentioned in NT that it is therefore forbidden in a worship service. Only those things that go against Scripture or get in the way of the primary means of worship are to be forbidden.

I agree that it is actually a parent/congregation dedication that takes place. I try to make this clear whenever I dedicate a baby. I tell them (especially the father) that they are primarily responsible for the spiritual welfare and upbringing of the child.

---------- Post added at 05:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:27 PM ----------

Hi! Do either of these verse have any merit with child dedication as part of a covenant act?

Joshua 24:15 (English Standard Version)
15(A) And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD,(B) choose this day whom you will serve, whether(C) the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or(D) the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.(E) But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

1 Corinthians 7:12-14 (English Standard Version)
12To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.(A) Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
 
Matthew,

The problem you're running into here is arguing for a practice that is a violation of the regulative principle of worship. I am assuming, as a Reformed Baptist, that you subscribe to the RPW; which basically is the biblical mandate that God has told his church how they are to worship him and that anything beyond that is forbidden in worship. Baby dedications are not found in scripture as being part of New Testament worship. Are there beneficial reasons for charging parents to raise their children in a Christian manner? Certainly. But notice the change in emphasis that I just made. Who is really being dedicated? The parents are the one's who have responsibility to raise their children. The father is ultimately responsible for making sure his child is exposed to the Gospel. In the end it's the parents who are dedicating themselves to the work of parenting. The child is passive in this; at least in his early years.

In my humble opinion the best venue for reminding parents of their Christian responsibility in parenting is from the pulpit; at least from a worship service perspective. Beyond that it is the work of pastoral ministry to affirm parents in their God-given role. Additionally, it is a ministry that all of us should share in as we stir our brothers and sisters on to love and good works.

When I say I am a reformed baptist I am using it in the generic way. I am a baptist who believes in the Doctrines of Grace. So I have no idea what the RPW is. Please enlighten me.

I do not believe just because something is not mentioned in NT that it is therefore forbidden in a worship service. Only those things that go against Scripture or get in the way of the primary means of worship are to be forbidden.

I suggest based on the last two paragraphs that you look up and study the 22nd chapter of the confession that you have claimed in your profile as the one to which you subscribe, the London Baptist Confession of Faith. It clearly describes what is the basis for elements of worship as those things expressly commanded by God in His Word. You also should look at LBCF chapter 1, which also is useful in understanding the RPW, and LBCF 21:2, which specifies that it is impermissible to bind the consciences of church members by commanding anything not commanded in the Word of God.
 
When I say I am a reformed baptist I am using it in the generic way. I am a baptist who believes in the Doctrines of Grace. So I have no idea what the RPW is. Please enlighten me.

Matthew, a Reformed Baptist is different from a Calvinistic Baptist in many ways. First, RB's view scripture within a covenantal framework as opposed to the dispensational view of scripture. The RPW deals specifically with worship. You can find a good explanation of the RB view of the RPW by clicking HERE. Additionally, here is a good article on the distinctives of a Reformed Baptist.

As to the RPW, it's not because something is not mentioned in the NT that is forbidden, although New Testament worship is not the same as OT worship. The driving force behind the RB understanding of the RPW is what God has revealed to his church, through scripture, as to how he wants to be worshiped. Hannah's dedication of Samuel into religious service was a private matter, not a corporate worship matter. And since the New Testament church does not worship in accordance with Old Testament ceremonial rules, such a thing could not be repeated today. I believe that you are hard pressed to find a positive command in scripture to practice infant dedications.
 
[/COLOR]Hi! Do either of these verse have any merit with child dedication as part of a covenant act?

Joshua 24:15 (English Standard Version)
15(A) And if it is evil in your eyes to serve the LORD,(B) choose this day whom you will serve, whether(C) the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or(D) the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.(E) But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD."

1 Corinthians 7:12-14 (English Standard Version)
12To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.(A) Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

Not in my opinion. Neither of them makes any mention of the act of baby dedications. They certainly point to a) the active nature of the choice to raise a house to the Lord (which all husbands/fathers, Baptists and non-Baptists alike, are to take up) and b) to the nature of the children of a believing parent as set apart already by virtue of their being children of a believing parent - i.e., in my opinion, already by their nature those Peter referred to when he said that "the promise is unto you and your children".
 
Matthew, so let me ask you a question. How do you view the children in your congregation? Do you see them as a part of the same covenant community as their believing parents? Or do you see them as being separate from their believing parents, as a mission field needing to be evangelized and to be treated as non-believers until they make a profession of faith?

I think this is the crux of the difference between infant baptism and infant dedication. Infant baptism intends to make the statement that since this child is the child of believing parents, he or she is entitled to all the same rights, privileges, responsibilities and blessings of the covenant community as his or her parents (except communion) and is to be treated as a believer until they prove otherwise. Baptism is a sign that this child is indeed a part of this covenant because of the faith of the parents.

Baptist theology and practice often separates children from their believing parents and treats the children as a mission field needing to be reached rather than part of the covenant community. Thus the reason for the dedication instead of the baptism - the child is seen as an unbeliever, an outsider to the community of faith, and the dedication is the promise of the parents to do their best to evangelize the child in hopes he or she will come to faith later on. The child is not entitled to and does not receive the benefits and responsibilities of the covenant community until they make a profession of faith.
 
the child is seen as an unbeliever

The child is an unbeliever until such time as they place their faith in Christ. Infants are not born Christians.

OK, point taken. Perhaps I didn't say that quite right. But my point is that the children of believers are viewed very differently in churches that practice dedication as opposed to those that practice baptism.
 
reply

2) I do not see the infant dedication as an act of worship to God or as a church ordinance. It is just a commitment of the parents/congregation to the Lord to take their responsibility serious.
Is it taking place during the worship service? If so, how can it be said not to be an act of worship?
 
:ditto: I've always wondered that, and never heard a sound answer

---------- Post added at 10:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 PM ----------

oh wait. Infamy ha. just noticed that
 
the child is seen as an unbeliever

The child is an unbeliever until such time as they place their faith in Christ. Infants are not born Christians.

How can you know this? It seems that John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb. On top of that, if an infant cannot be regenerate, then no children dying in infamy can be saved. Is this your position?

Please don't tell me you are equating John leaping in the womb with regeneration.
While I believe that God's mercy is extended to infants who die in birth and that they are taken to Heaven we cannot be dogmatic about the fate one way or the other.
 
the child is seen as an unbeliever

The child is an unbeliever until such time as they place their faith in Christ. Infants are not born Christians.

How can you know this? It seems that John the Baptist was regenerate in the womb. On top of that, if an infant cannot be regenerate, then no children dying in infamy can be saved. Is this your position?

William, we cannot presume regeneration in the womb. Both of our confessions speak of "elect infants dying in infancy." However, this side of glory we are not able to witness the evidence of faith. We must leave that in the hands of God. But we do know what scripture teaches; namely that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Paul told the Ephesians that, in their former spiritual condition, they were dead in their trespasses and sin (Eph. 2:1). And while John the Baptist and Jeremiah may have very well been regenerated in the womb, that is not the normative state by which man is born into this world (see the previous passages I referenced).

RB's view every person who has not professed faith as a mission field, and I am glad that they do. If God blesses an RB couple with a child then that child should be raised to hear and see the Gospel at work. Why? Because it is the means of salvation. RB's are often accused of treating our children as little pagans. But if that were true we would expose them to paganism in our worship and practice. Actually, we view our children as gifts from God; understanding that God does bless covenantally through families and that we trust and hope that our children will come to faith in Christ. It all comes down to what God has clearly expressed in scripture. Good and necessary inference is fine, but there is no need for it when scripture speaks plainly.
 
Many of us who are baptist practice infant dedication, which we see as the same sign of the covenant that those see infant baptism as. Now let me be clear, I do not believe that baby dedications are an ordinance like baptism but either was OT circumcision. Again it was a sign of blessing and dedication on the place of believing parents.

I just now caught this in the original post.

Your characterization of OT circumcision misses the boat entirely. Circumcision was a sign of entrance into the visible covenant community. To call it merely a "sign of blessing and dedication on the placqe of believing parents" completely mischaracterizes the ceremony. I'm not sure where this interpretation comes from, but it isn't grounded on the Scriptural provision of circumcision.

You also seem to be asserting that baby dedications can serve as a sign of the covenant. You readily admit, though, that there are no infant dedication ceremonies in Scripture, and later in the thread, that it is a man-made tradition. We do not have the purview to invent covenant signs. Circumcision is manifestly shown to be a covenant sign (and commanded as such) all over the Old Testament scriptures. Baptism is similarly clearly commanded as a covenant sign. One might disagree on the objects of baptism - and clearly we do - but you cannot get away from the fact that in Scripture both Baptism and Circumcision are given as God's commanded covenant signs of entrance. Baby Dedication can in NO way be offered as a "new" covenant sign since men cannot dictate the terms of God's covenant and engage in such invention of signs for His covenant.
 
The promise was that John the Baptist would be "filled with the Holy Ghost from his mother's womb," Lk.1:15.

The fulfillment comes in v.41, and is commented on by the Spirit filled Elizabeth (so she spoke most truly), v44, "For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy."

What joy? A holy, sanctified joy; can it be doubted?

The only reason to say that John is not regenerated in utero is to claim apriori (because "that can't possibly be the case") that infants are incapable of such a blessing, ergo, some other explanation must be sought.

But the other conclusion is just as valid, and makes good sense of the data. The God of miracles can regenerate anyone, at any time, by giving that person faith, which is not dependent on a certain state of mind. The predicate is, that "faith" is not primarily an intellectual assent (however much, or when, the intellect is engaged), but it is a whole-soul operation, principally of love that observes and clings, much like a newborn child does its mother.

Christ is able to give to the least "capable" (humanly speaking) sufficient sight of him (with "eyes to see") and a heart made willing to embrace him who is freely offered to them as their Redeemer. It is for this cause we have hope for the infants who die in infancy, or the mental incapable--and that without resort to concocting some alternative way besides faith, for our hope in their salvation.

We need no hypothetical (and unbiblical) "age of innocence/accountability"; no justification by fiat; no post-mortem gospel-presentation; or any other reason. We may take the Bible at its word, when it says, "Without faith it is impossible to please God." Ergo, some infants, God must be able to make the most perfect little believers in him. Else, no infants can be elect or saved whatever (not being able yet to intellectually apprehend Christ in the gospel), and dying are lost.

Indeed, acknowledging election of some infants dying in infancy, we say that having been bestowed by Holy Ghost with a seed of faith, God does bring them directly to heaven where they only, ever, grow in grace and knowledge of Christ their Savior.

Now then, if John the Baptist (as just one example) was saved so soon, and surely there are those infants (like the first son of David and Bathsheba) who are in heaven because of salvation by faith alone, who are we to say that other infants who do not die in infancy may also be saved before they can articulate the faith they hold, or the Christ they love?

It falls to us, who are the instrumental means of developing our children's intellectual faith (assuming they are so endowed, and not so handicapped) and the rest of their development, to see that in time they can articulate the faith in which they are reared. We are not responsible should they ultimately reject the faith, the proof of their apostasy and reprobation, if they like Esau spurn the promise. They only show thereby that they never had God's mercy from the beginning.
 
We believe that they are elect, unless and until they prove otherwise (which is the exception and not the rule.)

Laying aside everything else for the moment, this is an unbelievable statement. Do you really believe this? It seems as though you're making this statement from a very small vantage point of historical reality. This may be the case in your particular church or town, but it certainly isn't the case historically, or even nationally right now.

I would say that one of the evidences that infant baptism is a violation of God's Word is that the vast majority of them grow up to trust in their baptism rather than trusting in Christ. So I would say the exception to the rule is really true belief once the child grows up.

The rival to this now days is the Baptist practice of baptizing anyone with a pulse (even children as young as 2 based upon a 'profession of faith'), and these kids growing up their entire lives believing that their little decision is proof of their salvation.
 
I would say that one of the evidences that infant baptism is a violation of God's Word is that the vast majority of them grow up to trust in their baptism rather than trusting in Christ. So I would say the exception to the rule is really true belief once the child grows up.

This is not evidence that it is "a violation of God's word" any more than credo/adult-only baptism is a violation of God's word as evidenced by the number of folks I've met who are also trusting in their (adult) baptism rather than trusting in Christ. Taking this line of reasoning, someone might come to a conclusion that women should not partake of the Lord's Supper (since there is no direct command in Scripture) and claim it to be "a violation of God's word" after considering a number of females who have come to the Lord's table in an unworthy and unrepentant manner.
 
I would say that one of the evidences that infant baptism is a violation of God's Word is that the vast majority of them grow up to trust in their baptism rather than trusting in Christ. So I would say the exception to the rule is really true belief once the child grows up.

This is not evidence that it is "a violation of God's word" any more than credo/adult-only baptism is a violation of God's word as evidenced by the number of folks I've met who are also trusting in their (adult) baptism rather than trusting in Christ.

You're right. "Evidence" was a poor choice of wording. Perhaps 'Anecdotal evidence' or 'circumstantial evidence' or 'experiential evidence' would've been better. My point is simply that I personally perceive a connection between the paedobaptist going beyond the bounds of scripture and harmful effects of faith/assurance within the visible church, *rather* than the other way around as was affirmed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top