# Dedication of Babies



## JP Wallace

So someone on another thread mentioned in passing that 'most Baptists dedicate their babies'.

Unless I'm very mistaken this is most certainly not the case in the UK. Is it indeed the case in the USA?

If so, I must admit that I am grieved and mystified. I just cannot understand how anyone would reject covenant (infant baptism) which has a venerable history and a solid exegetical case, only to adopt a practice which has, at least in my opinion, zero exegetical basis and little or no historical data to back it up.

a) straw poll - what's your take on the prevalence of this practice?

b) can anyone actually exegetically make a case for it (whether you agree with it or not)?


----------



## Romans922

a) from what I have seen in baptist, non-denominational, non-reformed, non-presbyterian congregations. Infant dedication is very prevalent in the USA.


----------



## ericfromcowtown

In Canada too.


----------



## VictorBravo

It might be common among many baptists and evangelicals, but I've never actually seen any such thing in my circles.

I will say it is emphatically *not* practiced in the Reformed Baptist churches I'm associated with. I'd be very surprised to see any church holding seriously to the 1689 LBCF allowing for such a practice.


----------



## JP Wallace

Well Raymond that's why my jaw is hitting the floor (perhaps I'm naive) because all my friends and colleagues in the States are of a very distinctly RB flavour and none practice it. I'd be surprised if confessional guys are doing this. But I really didn't know it was a prevalent practice in more 'evangelical' circles.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

All of the SBC churches around me do some variation of "baby dedication".


----------



## N. Eshelman

The exegetical reason that is cited the most and often is Samuel. 

My "go to" statement- if Samuel is the reason that you dedicate your infants, then you had better leave them at church, because they become under the care of the ministers. <---- Doesn't ever go over too well. 

Also, I would note that while I think the practice is thoroughly unbiblical, it does show that in the heart of hearts of Baptists and evangelicals.... babies are in the covenant and should receive some mark of it. 

Friends, baptize your babies.


----------



## JP Wallace

I should add I have no problem with parents prayerfully 'dedicating' their children to the Lord in the 'bring them up in the fear and admonition' sense of the word (and such). What I'm referring to is the ceremony.


----------



## JP Wallace

N. Eshelman said:


> Friends, baptize your babies.



Touche!

Line me against a wall and make me choose - I'd go for baptism.



N. Eshelman said:


> Also, I would note that while I think the practice is thoroughly unbiblical, it does show that in the heart of hearts of Baptists and evangelicals.... babies are in the covenant and should receive some mark of it.



I'd say because it's unbiblical Nathan that it is not at all related to the covenant but to rank superstition. But I know what you mean.


----------



## JML

JP Wallace said:


> a) straw poll - what's your take on the prevalence of this practice?



I have never seen this practice in any Baptist church that claims to be Reformed. However I have seen it in many Southern Baptist congregations in the USA. 



JP Wallace said:


> b) can anyone actually exegetically make a case for it (whether you agree with it or not)?



Having formerly been a Southern Baptist pastor, the times that I saw it done it was tied to Ephesians 6:4

"And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord."

It was the parents promising to do so.

I obviously disagree with the practice.


----------



## Pilgrim

JP Wallace said:


> So someone on another thread mentioned in passing that 'most Baptists dedicate their babies'.
> 
> Unless I'm very mistaken this is most certainly not the case in the UK. Is it indeed the case in the USA?
> 
> If so, I must admit that I am grieved and mystified. I just cannot understand how anyone would reject covenant (infant baptism) which has a venerable history and a solid exegetical case, only to adopt a practice which has, at least in my opinion, zero exegetical basis and little or no historical data to back it up.
> 
> a) straw poll - what's your take on the prevalence of this practice?
> 
> b) can anyone actually exegetically make a case for it (whether you agree with it or not)?



It seems to be pretty widespread here in many Baptist churches as well as in all kinds of baptistic non denominational churches. But there are also many Baptist churches (i.e. a good many non "Reformed" ones by whatever definition) that do not practice it. If I were to hazard a guess I'd say that baby dedication is more common in larger suburban and urban churches that are more likely to have members who are not from a Baptist background. In general those kinds of churches aren't going to place a lot of emphasis on being a Baptist, historic confessions and the like and tend to be more broadly evangelical in their outlook and emphasis. 

As far as scriptural justification, I haven't seen any but I'd be interested to see someone try to make a case for the practice from the Bible. I suppose some might wish to employ Luke 2:22 in such an effort. 

One thing to note is that early Baptists basically rejected infant baptism using RPW type arguments i.e. no explicit warrant for the practice is to be found in the Bible. (Not looking to debate that here.  ) But now most Baptists (in the USA at least) have no concept of the RPW. Many are doing good to know why Baptists do things differently than the Presbyterians or Methodists, and in some cases, the Roman Catholics! (The same goes for most any denomination, especially where the people have been in one church for their entire life.) 

Doesn't T.E. Watson suggest at the end of _Baptism Not for Infants _that something like baby dedication would not be inappropriate? But I'm not sure if his affiliation was Baptist in a formal sense. I seem to recall him stating that mode is not that important as well. If I recall correctly his background was Anglican but I may well be mistaken and/or could have him confused with someone else. We recently moved and I think Watson's book is still packed away. So I can't confirm this at the moment. The Australian Presbyterian minister Rowland S. Ward mentions Baptists performing dedications in his _Baptism in Scripture and History_ so perhaps the practice is not uncommon Down Under.


----------



## JP Wallace

Wow. Compare this palaver to the simplicity of the Westminster Directory of Public Worship's order!

Baby Dedication | Bible.org - Worlds Largest Bible Study Site


----------



## AThornquist

I'm not in favor of baby dedications but I personally find it more preferential than anything. When I think of baby dedications it is as extensive as parents with newborns being brought up front and being prayed for, that the parents would raise the child well and that the child would be converted. Is this the practice in question here as well, or is my understanding of "baby dedications" different?


----------



## JML

AThornquist said:


> When I think of baby dedications it is as extensive as parents with newborns being brought up front and being prayed for, that the parents would raise the child well and that the child would be converted. Is this the practice in question here as well, or is my understanding of "baby dedications" different?



The ones I have seen were more formal and included vows (taken by the congregation as a whole & by the parents). Although, I am sure there is a wide range in practice.


----------



## JP Wallace

Andrew - see the link above - if this is typical it goes well beyond what you note!


----------



## AThornquist

I just read the link in post #12. _That_ is definitely not what I had in mind when I was thinking of baby dedications.


----------



## DMcFadden

With 34 years as an ordained Baptist minister, I guess it would be OK to weigh in here.

Most American Baptists, Southern Baptists, and Conservative Baptists (CBA) (= 18+ millions) and MANY non-denominational and independent churches practice infant dedication.

My guess is that other than a few thousand Reformed Baptists and the denominations that baptize infants, most Protestant groups in the USA probably do practice infant dedication.


----------



## John Bunyan

Most churches practice 'baby dedication' here (I've never personally seem a protestant church which didnt), and, as AThornquist said, the practice consists only on praying for the children and it's fathers. No vows, no big ceremony.


----------



## VictorBravo

AThornquist said:


> I'm not in favor of baby dedications but I personally find it more preferential than anything. When I think of baby dedications it is as extensive as parents with newborns being brought up front and being prayed for, that the parents would raise the child well and that the child would be converted. Is this the practice in question here as well, or is my understanding of "baby dedications" different?



Andrew, strictly speaking, there is nothing wrong with bringing such matters up for prayer. There is Confessional authority to make a lawful vow as part of a worship service too. (Chap 23 of LBCF).

The problem is that it can turn into a ceremony of some sort, subject to social pressures and invoking church authority to an undefined end. Are we going to pressure all parents to make such vows? What if they cannot in stable confidence hold to them? I can see it being similar to the emotional pressure involved in altar calls, etc. 

Such weight gives this kind of ceremony the appearance of a quasi-sacrament or ordinance. The only ordinances allowed are Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and we are reluctant to give the appearance of adding to these.


----------



## Pilgrim

AThornquist said:


> I'm not in favor of baby dedications but I personally find it more preferential than anything. When I think of baby dedications it is as extensive as parents with newborns being brought up front and being prayed for, that the parents would raise the child well and that the child would be converted. Is this the practice in question here as well, or is my understanding of "baby dedications" different?



As far as I know that's correct. I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. But with regard to the baptism debate between ourselves and our Reformed paedobaptist brethren, many of the paedobaptists would argue that this practice of dedication suggests that there is something instinctual and natural about doing such a thing, despite the antipaedobaptism of those practicing it. As I recall it, that is the point that Rev. Dr. Ward makes in the book I mentioned in my earlier post.


----------



## au5t1n

My old SBC did it. It is common in the SBC. There are indeed vows taken by the parents and the congregation.


----------



## DMcFadden

No big ceremony? Perhaps. But, I've always seen some kind of vows (even if written by the pastor for the day). When I lived in CA, the pastor of our church would call the family up in front, have a surrogate for "godparents," ask the couple to make promises and take vows, pray over the child, and then walk the entire length of the worship center middle aisle (VERY large building) holding the infant while the congregation sang "Jesus Loves the Little Children."

For those who think that it is most typically a low key thing with a prayer, check out this recommendation: http://bible.org/article/baby-dedication.

Frankly, even when I was a Baptist and did dozens/hundreds of baby dedications, it always seemed to me kind of curious that if you don't believe in sacraments, you end up inventing them. J.I. Packer calls the practice of baby dedication a "dry baptism." Sad.


----------



## JML

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> All of the SBC churches around me do some variation of "baby dedication".



Being from the Southeastern USA, I agree with Ben. It is quite common in that area of the country. Unfortunately, in some areas of the Southeast, there is not much difference between the Southern Baptists and the United Methodists so it could be a practice pulled over from the Methodists that was made "Baptist." In fact, a minister on the staff of my parents' church in Alabama (United Methodist) is also on staff at the Southern Baptist church across the street. The UMC service is from 10-11 and the SBC service is from 11-12. He participates in both.


----------



## JP Wallace

VictorBravo said:


> Such weight gives this kind of ceremony the appearance of a quasi-sacrament or ordinance. The only ordinances allowed are Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and we are reluctant to give the appearance of adding to these.



Amen. What church doesn't pray for it's new babies and what church doesn't pray for their parents and for their faithfulness? That's enough and has plenty of biblical warrant.


----------



## John Bunyan

I've not seem vows taken by any of the involved persons, the only thing that I've seem is the pastor praying that the parents might be wise enough to teach, and their children patient enough to learn. There were no vows, and no ceremony (it's usually done after or before service; the parents take their children to the front of the church, they pray, the pastor prays, they sit down again, normally people in the pews pray for them too).


----------



## JP Wallace

Pilgrim said:


> that this practice of dedication suggests that there is something instinctual and natural about doing such a thing, despite the antipaedobaptism of those practicing it.



I have instincts about my children, that I'll admit (1 Cor 7:14), but it doesn't draw me to adopt a ceremony without a shred of biblical warrant.


----------



## Kim G

I grew up in non-reformed Baptist circles, and I saw many infant dedications. However, none of them were a "ceremony." The parents brought the child up front and the pastor prayed for the parents and the child, then they were seated. No vows, no godparents, etc.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Every SBC church I was part of growing up had infant dedication with mutual vows. I used to ask my Dad what was different about this and infant baptism, and he would say "It saves on the water bill."


----------



## Jack K

I've always seen vows. In fact, in my experience the ceremony is hardly distinguishable from a Presbyterian infant baptism except for the absence of water and pronouncement of the trinitarian formula.


----------



## PhilA

JP Wallace said:


> So someone on another thread mentioned in passing that 'most Baptists dedicate their babies'.
> 
> Unless I'm very mistaken this is most certainly not the case in the UK. Is it indeed the case in the USA?




I cannot comment on “most Baptists” but I would state that it has been my experience that infant dedication is widely practised in the UK in Credo-type churches. I would recognise the similarity of the dedication services I have witnessed, even in a church claiming to be Reformed Baptist, to the content of the link to which you refer. In fact, the current church I attend is the first I have attended not to practise infant dedication.


----------



## Raj

In our set up, what I have seen and practiced is call the parents in the front, along with their new born. The pastor takes the child in his arms (congregation joins in prayer), thanks God for the life of the child, ask God to keep him safe and healthy as he/she grows. He then goes on to Ask God to bless the parents lives, and child's godly family atmosphere. No promises and vows made.


----------



## bug

I have never 'dedicated' a baby, I will however hold a thanksgiving service for a newborn child, and I will call upon the parents and church, reminding them of their duty to bring that child up in the admonition and fear of the Lord.


----------



## JML

bug said:


> I will however hold a thanksgiving service for a newborn child



What do you mean by "thanksgiving service"? A separate service from the usual or a part of the regular Lord's Day service?


----------



## jwithnell

> if Samuel is the reason that you dedicate your infants, then you had better leave them at church




You have the voluntary OT thank offerings and the WCF recognition of particular times set apart for thanksgiving, so I'd have a hard time arguing against a thanksgiving service. As for dedication ceremonies, I love the above statement attributed to JI Packer: "dry baptism." It has seemed to me that parents understand that their children should be recognized as part of covenant community and had to invent a way to formalize it.


----------



## Peairtach

The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.


----------



## bug

John Lanier said:


> bug said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will however hold a thanksgiving service for a newborn child
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean by "thanksgiving service"? A separate service from the usual or a part of the regular Lord's Day service?
Click to expand...


My preference is seperate 

---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------




Peairtach said:


> The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.



How so? Before you answer though friend, one thing I have learnt is that within "the baptists" there are many different practices and beliefs in regards to almost anything - any blanket statement is always an over simplification. We are not a denomination, some of us associate with other like minded baptist congregation some are entirely independent.


----------



## DMcFadden

The reference to Baptists becoming Presbyterian is quite true for many groups.

In my former denomination (1.4 million), we had a standing judicatory committee on which I served for 31 years (17 or so as chair). We examined the written materials, psychological evals, and conducted oral ordination exams on each and every candidate prior to recommending that the church proceed with ordination. Over the years, this added up to around 500 candidates in our Pacific Southwest judicatory. If that isn't "presbyterian" (small p), I don't know what is.

In independent churches an ad hoc ordination council of local pastors is often called to examine a candidate. My eldest son pastors a large independent church where his ordination council included Baptists, Methodists, independents, and Pentecostals. They even invited me to come out from CA to take part in the IL examination.


----------



## PaulMc

Most reformed baptist churches in England that I have had connections with practice 'infant dedication' - the most well known would be Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.


----------



## JM

AThornquist said:


> I'm not in favor of baby dedications but I personally find it more preferential than anything. When I think of baby dedications it is as extensive as parents with newborns being brought up front and being prayed for, that the parents would raise the child well and that the child would be converted. Is this the practice in question here as well, or is my understanding of "baby dedications" different?



That's the way I've seen it practiced. No vows.


----------



## JP Wallace

A comment about how this all somehow shows that Baptists have some kind of innate desire to recognise the covenant status of their children- could the baptist not argue in a similar way that presbyterians who require a credible profession for communicant membership are innately displaying their desire for regenerate membership?

In my opinion both arguments are weak and unprovable and therefore useless.


----------



## Jack K

jwithnell said:


> It has seemed to me that parents understand that their children should be recognized as part of covenant community and had to invent a way to formalize it.



Exactly my thoughts. Of course, when I point this out to my Baptist pastor he'll say Presbyterians understand that kids should have to show faith and so we paedobaptists invented "professional of faith" or "confirmation" ceremonies to formalize it.

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------




JP Wallace said:


> A comment about how this all somehow shows that Baptists have some kind of innate desire to recognise the covenant status of their children- could the baptist not argue in a similar way that presbyterians who require a credible profession for communicant membership are innately displaying their desire for regenerate membership?
> 
> In my opinion both arguments are weak and unprovable and therefore useless.



Ah, I see you think like my pastor.


----------



## JP Wallace

Jack K said:


> Ah, I see you think like my pastor.



No I don't Jack, I think both arguments are petty and fallacious.


----------



## Jack K

JP Wallace said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see you think like my pastor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I don't Jack, I think both arguments are petty and fallacious.
Click to expand...


In the sense that when you hear the one argument, you think of the other... and recognize both to be the same sort of cheap shot.

Take the arguments as being made lightheartedly. The point of my post was that although I'd like to be able to discount Baptist practices this way, I actually understand the argument to be weak, miss the heart of the issue and fail to show the "other side" that you actually understand them. The easy Baptist comeback shows just how weak it is. And I suspect my Baptist pastor (who does baby dedications) would agree that the discussion needs to be much more substantive than these arguments.


----------



## JP Wallace

Jack K said:


> In the sense that when you hear the one argument, you think of the other... and recognize both to be the same sort of cheap shot.



Correct, both are playground arguments.

Some of us understand and respect covenant theology and paedobaptist theology, and indeed feel a tension that we do not conform to our historic roots. In addition we do believe our children are different in some sense. None of this draws us to dedications. 

Dedications however are very widely practiced it seems by those who have little or no interest in any of these things. Is it likely that this is because of some latent guilt or something like that? I think not. Dedications it seems to me are practiced with virtually no theological or exegetical foundation. They show no connection at all to covenant theology.

In addition a common baptist argument against covenant baptism is that it is based on superstition. That to my mind is unfair at the best of times. In the context of the apparent widespread practice of infant dedications, it is a bad joke and hypocrisy of the highest order.


----------



## kodos

I've known YRR style Calvinistic Baptistic churches do them, but not sure I know of any Confessional ones that practice it. When our youngest daughter was born, we were new in the faith and had her dedicated. I really cannot see much of a difference between what we did in that Evangelical Church from an infant baptism - except for the Trinitarian formula and water being absent!


----------



## DMcFadden

Maybe I read the arguments differently . . . 

Neither "argument" is a slam dunk. However, insofar as they paint with a broad brush, making observations in the general they seem true enough to me in that . . .

* Trying to come to terms with the covenant nature of children will either lead you to baptism or a substitute ceremony (i.e., infant dedication).

* Trying to come to terms with the biblical data on the importance of a credible confession of faith will lead you to either credo baptism or to confirmation.

As long as we still see through a glass darkly, we will find ourselves disagreeing on some of the details and implications of Biblical teaching. But, the psychological need for Biblically observant Christians to accommodate all of Scripture, even those verses that don't fit as obviously in our interpretative schema will continue to give rise to these kinds of "balancing" efforts.

Using these as na-na-na-na-na arguing points might be childish. Trying to understand why people who take the Bible seriously come up with some of their odd (in the minds of others) practices is pretty sensible . . . to me.

I take this kind of broad stroke taxonomy observation in the same category as the one that observes that when the empire was around, committed Christians often found episcopal government self-evident; when parliamentary democracy was on the rise, committed Christians sometimes gravitated to presbyterian government; and when society was promoting "democracy," we see a rise in congregational church polity. Another example of pedagogically helpful simplification is the Calvinist principle that "what is not commanded is prohibited" vs. the Lutheran principle that "what is not forbidden, is permitted." Maybe it is just my innate simplemindedness. But, I like these kinds of shorthand ways of comparing different systems of thought. 

Certainly truth is much more complex, but that is the point. My pea brain needs handy ways to make complicated ideas more accessible and memorable. And, even a certified "smart guy" like J.I. Packer was known to quip that "infant dedication" is basically a "dry baptism." In my mind that is the same kind of harmless observation that carries a lot of truth.


----------



## NHK1618

a. I have never seen a baby dedication in a church of the Southern Baptist Convention. In my current church (and its wider denomination) that is charismatic, credobaptist, and somewhat Reformed; the Elders hold baby dedications regularly (a few times per year).
b. I cannot and will not make a case for baby dedication since I believe that those infants, being born of believing parents, are part of the Covenant and hence to be baptized instead of simply dedicated. Other infants, not born of believing parents, are not of the Covenant and are to be baptized only upon a credible profession of faith.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

Peairtach said:


> The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.



Interestingly enough, I have found that the practice of ordination is in serious decline. Many pastors today have never been ordained. Honestly it is just a piece of paper that you can buy at Lifeway.


----------



## DMcFadden

Bill The Baptist said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, I have found that the practice of ordination is in serious decline. Many pastors today have never been ordained. Honestly it is just a piece of paper that you can buy at Lifeway.
Click to expand...


One more example of the general baptistification of American religion. If we become any more egalitarian, maybe we can ape some of the sects and promote 4 and 5 year old kid "preachers." Dropping ordination is part of the the post-denominational landscape.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

DMcFadden said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interestingly enough, I have found that the practice of ordination is in serious decline. Many pastors today have never been ordained. Honestly it is just a piece of paper that you can buy at Lifeway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One more example of the general baptistification of American religion. If we become any more egalitarian, maybe we can ape some of the sects and promote 4 and 5 year old kid "preachers." Dropping ordination is part of the the post-denominational landscape.
Click to expand...


Ordination was important back in the days when many pastors never attended seminary. This was a way of ensuring that this particular man was indeed called by God and had been tested and there were actual people who would testify to that fact. Now that churches expect their pastors to have at least a Masters degree from a seminary, this just seems less neccesary. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but seems to be the way it is moving.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

I attend a Baptist Church for now and it angers me when I see a baby dedication. I think to myself, though do not say it out loud, why are you refusing the sign and seal of God's covenant if you are dedicating your children to God? make no sense to me.


----------



## FenderPriest

For what it's worth, and it seems that I'm the only person to say this thus far in this thread, we dedicated our son. He wasn't baptized, nor was it a mock baptism, because the dedication was our recognition of the gift he was from the Lord and our solemn oath before the congregation to raise him in the fear and admonition of the Lord, in a home loving King Jesus, as well as an oath from the congregation to hold us accountable to this end. I haven't spoken up before now because the waters weren't too welcoming on the subject. I only comment here in light of McFadden's post. We are seeking to live under the rule of the Bible and be overtly grateful for the gifts of life our little ones are to us (especially in light of the culture of death we live in).


----------



## KMK

DMcFadden said:


> Over the years, this added up to around 500 candidates in our Pacific Southwest judicatory. If that isn't "presbyterian" (small p), I don't know what is.



Thanks in large part to your efforts, Dennis, Transformation Ministries has emerged from the dust a much more 'Baptist' association. My church is considering membership this summer.

----------------

Paul, I am surprised at your surprise. Baby dedications only scratch the surface of the a myriad of 'alien' practices in Baptist churches in America. How about altar calls, Super Bowl parties, divorce ceremonies, and prayer 'labyrinths'?


----------



## JonathanHunt

PaulMc said:


> Most reformed baptist churches in England that I have had connections with practice 'infant dedication' - the most well known would be Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.



This is true.


----------



## DMcFadden

FenderPriest said:


> For what it's worth, and it seems that I'm the only person to say this thus far in this thread, we dedicated our son. He wasn't baptized, nor was it a mock baptism, because the dedication was our recognition of the gift he was from the Lord and our solemn oath before the congregation to raise him in the fear and admonition of the Lord, in a home loving King Jesus, as well as an oath from the congregation to hold us accountable to this end. I haven't spoken up before now because the waters weren't too welcoming on the subject. I only comment here in light of McFadden's post. We are seeking to live under the rule of the Bible and be overtly grateful for the gifts of life our little ones are to us (especially in light of the culture of death we live in).



Sorry I didn't make it explict. We dedicated all 5 of our children when I was a Baptist pastor. At this point of my theological pilgrimage, I would have them baptized if it were possible to get a "do over."


----------



## glazer1972

My daughter was dedicated as an infant. She was baptized later when she believed.


----------



## lynnie

We are in our third Calvinist baptist church in 33 years of marriage. They all do it.

I see it like Jesus being dedicated in the ceremony of the firstborn at the temple. Now, we who are in Christ are part of the church of the firstborn. ( Hebrews 12:23). So, the dedication is like saying your child is part of the church of the first born. It does seem more logical to just baptize them instead if you see it that way.


----------

