# Southern Baptist Baby Dedications



## Ranger

As I was sitting in the worship service two weeks ago during a time of infant dedication, I couldn't help but think of the statements made by the pastor. The purpose of the dedication was:

1. A sign to the world that this child was dedicated to Christ.
2. A reminder to the parents that they would raise the child in a Christian home and present Christ and the gospel to the child.
3. As a picture of the new life we are given in Christ.
4. A dedication on the part of the church towards praying for the salvation of the child.

Really, that's not too far from the baptism that my niece received in a LCMS church. The only difference was that she was &quot;receiving the word of God&quot; as Luther's catechism states. Credobaptists are so opposed to signs on unbelieving infants, but isn't this in effect what we are doing and saying in a dedication service?

[Edited on 5-15-2004 by Ranger]


----------



## panicbird

Off topic: Kyle, I just wanted to thank you for your John Owen quote. It summed up perfectly what I was trying to say in a sermon I am preaching tomorrow. I am going to quote it tomorrow.

Where did you get it?

Lon


----------



## Ranger

It's in &quot;The Glory of Christ.&quot; I'm off to a wedding but if you need page numbers or anything, I can get them for you when I get home this evening.


----------



## panicbird

I do not need page numbers, though the Turabian in me wants to properly footnote it in my manuscript. I will, however, refrain and just note that the quote is from John Owen's [i:9a0bd8dc33]The Glory of Christ[/i:9a0bd8dc33].

Lon

[Edited on 5-15-2004 by panicbird]


----------



## sundoulos

1. Infant baptism is not unique to Southern Baptist churches

2. When I was a Presbyterian I used to call baby dedication &quot;dry cleaning.&quot;

3. Baptism is a requisite for salvation in Lutheran churches.

4. Infant dedication imparts no grace to anyone.

5. &quot;Parents have a right to dedicate their children to God, as living sacrifices and spiritual priests; and an obligation is thereby laid upon them to serve God faithfully [i:267d75d87b]all the days of their life.[/i:267d75d87b] [sic] -- Mathew Henry (I question the spiritual priests statement)

6. Infant dedication offers the child to God and requires of the parents a more-than-ordinary commitment (often not recognised) to channel their children's maturation in a godly direction.
 and


----------



## tcalbrecht

Just one observation:

[quote:3d5caa9052][i:3d5caa9052]Originally posted by sundoulos[/i:3d5caa9052]
4. Infant dedication imparts no grace to anyone.

[/quote:3d5caa9052]

Neither does believer baptism, as I understand Baptist theology. So baptizing an infant vs. dedication would be no different in this regard.

[Edited on 5-17-2004 by tcalbrecht]


----------



## Christopher

&quot;Dry Cleaning&quot;!!! Hahahahahah. Rolling brother!!!


Ranger,
Not all Baptist Churches participae in the Baby dedication ritual.
It certainly is not a Biblical ordinance but I don't have a problem with it now days as long as it is done correctly.


----------



## A_Wild_Boar

No baby dedications in the church I go to.

I think its practiced mainly in charasmatic and seeker sensitive &quot;non denominational&quot; churches. I call them Bapticostals. Weird mix between arminian baptists and pentacostals. ie Calvary Chapellites.


----------



## Christopher

Boar,
Actually it is a very wide spread practice in SBC churches in the South and other regions. These churches are far from being charimatic.


----------



## sundoulos

[quote:afbc32e57e]
Neither does believer baptism, as I understand Baptist theology. So baptizing an infant vs. dedication would be no different in this regard
[/quote:afbc32e57e]

I was responding to the comparison with Lutheran infant baptism.


----------



## Ianterrell

Where do Baby dedications draw their biblical foundation from? &quot;Baby dedications&quot; in scripture look a bit different. Not many SBC parents are leaving there babies with the &quot;priest&quot; (ala Samuel and Eli). 

Hannah and Samuel are the source text if I'm correct for baby dedications. Seems inconsistent with the biblical example to me.


----------



## Philip A

Richard Barcellos has but forth the Reformed Baptist argument against the practice in a small pamphlet called &quot;Baby Dedications Ancient &amp; Modern: Are They Biblical?&quot; that is available from ARBCA.

[Edited on 5-17-2004 by Philip A]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Actually, "baby dedications" in SBC churches don't dedicate the babies, they really are a dedication of the parents and church to be diligent in attempting to raise the children in a Biblical manner.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

That can only happen within covenant families which Credos deny.

Seems to continue to be "can't have your cake and eait it too."


----------



## Scott Bushey

1 Sam 1:22 But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the LORD, and there abide for ever.
1 Sam 1:23 And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; only the LORD establish his word. So the woman abode, and gave her son suck until she weaned him.
1 Sam 1:24 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the LORD in Shiloh: and the child was young.
1 Sam 1:25 And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli.
1 Sam 1:26 And she said, Oh my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto the LORD.
1 Sam 1:27 For this child I prayed; and the LORD hath given me my petition which I asked of him:
1 Sam 1:28 Therefore also I have lent him to the LORD; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the LORD. And he worshipped the LORD there.

It seems that Lord has allowed the devil a foot hold here in allowing many to be blinded by veiling the Abrahamic promise. It should be noted that that which the dedicators wish to accomplish in this illicit act, i.e. the dedication, is crushed under the truth of scripture. God did not ask Hannah to forsake his promise and sign by submitting to the dedication instead of placing the sign of circumcision on Samuel; he was indeed circumcised on the eighth day! The sign was placed faithfully! The command was made, and so the family was obedient.The undescernable charasmatics or these present day, poorly educated [i:a1e2a1838d]non denominationals[/i:a1e2a1838d] seem to have misplaced their scriptures. They have ripped apart the bible to facilitate their needy flesh by supposedly doing something to these children of theirs, after all, it seems so natural to do something with these children. We are Christians, they are our children. Surely God will be blessed in this, this dedication. Wrong! He is not, He is displeased! This present day error and it's embracee's grind thier teeth at placing the holy sign upon their seed, as if they would even consider that, instead, they concoct some idea, an idea that is not biblical in any shape or fashion. What they have done is sin and no less. Their exegesis of this profound [i:a1e2a1838d]dedication[/i:a1e2a1838d] is no less than a dedication to the devil himself, as the way they have derived it, is akin to using the bible like a fortune cookie.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

No offense, but that last post was just rediculous and way off base.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

[quote:d82bc275c1="joshua"][quote:d82bc275c1="WrittenFromUtopia"]Actually, "baby dedications" in SBC churches don't dedicate the babies, they really are a dedication of the parents and church to be diligent in attempting to raise the children in a Biblical manner.[/quote:d82bc275c1]

Then what's the purpose of calling them "baby" dedications...why not "parental" dedications? Sincerely...[/quote:d82bc275c1]

Actually, in our church we called them Parent/Baby Dedications, and no where in the ceremony was any responsibilty or sacredness placed upon the baby itself.. all responsibility was placed on the parents and congregation to raise the kids in a Biblical manner.

And, for what it's worth, I'd never do one if these in my church if I was pastor.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

[quote:560102fd75]And, for what it's worth, I'd never do one if these in my church if I was pastor.[/quote:560102fd75]

Good. You will adding into he church a rite that has no place in Scripture.

baby dedication in the OT with Hannah is the only proof text. If you want to follow that, then you have to GIVE your baby to the pastor of the church, as Hannah GAVE Samuel for service in the temple.

Seems strange to me also that SBC churches would look to Hannah and Samuel in the OLD TESTAMENT for a NEW TESTAMENT practice done int he CHURCH. Does not seem to follow their radical discontinuity in all this.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Also, I've never heard of any SBC pastor using any Scriptures for proof of doing a 'parent' dedication.

I've never heard it in my 21 years as an SBC church attender, but maybe my church was just different. *shrug*


----------



## Scott Bushey

So here's what we have. We have these people dedicating their children in liu of placing the sign on them. They use Hannah and Sam as an example to go by......however, their example embraced the sign; they dedicated even after placing the sign. So, what we have here is something that is totally ridiculous, unbiblical and sinful. Nothing less than a tool of the devil to facilitate the flesh.


----------

