# To Such Belong the Kingdom



## Warren (Oct 15, 2016)

If infants of believers can be dedicated to the Kingdom, why can't they be baptized into the Kingdom to which they belong?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Oct 15, 2016)

Who says they can be "dedicated" to the Kingdom?

That's more of a General Baptist thing, and not so much a Reformed Baptist thing.


----------



## Warren (Oct 15, 2016)

Where'd the practice begin?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 16, 2016)

Warren said:


> Where'd the practice begin?



See Gen 17.

'Dedication' is the innate desire to include children-totally unbiblical if the sign is not placed first. As well, since this mentality is hijacked from Hannah and her dedicating of her son Samuel to the temple services, it would only be logical that all parents that 'dedicate' their child to God would leave said child with the pastors. Since there is no longer a temple, dedicating would be a form of judaizing and illicit.


----------



## Warren (Oct 16, 2016)

I was "dedicated" as a child. Hence my curiosity. Thanks for helping, fellas.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 16, 2016)

_ so his parents took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. 23 The law of the Lord says, “If a woman’s first child is a boy, he must be dedicated to the Lord.”_

I am NOT advocating for baby dedication so don't jump all over me, but to be fair, we are the church of the firstborn (Heb 12.23) and if people appeal to the example of Joseph and Mary dedicating baby Jesus, I put it in the category of things not worth dividing over. And no, they didn't leave the baby at the Temple. 

What bothers me is the inconsistency of not baptizing babies and then letting little kids take communion in my Baptist experience. But on the other hand, I saw PCA parents who held to Covenantal theology and baptized their babies, and yet would not let their young children who professed the Lord and had tender hearts for the Lord and wanted to take communion, to partake. I'd say both sides have inconsistencies.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 17, 2016)

lynnie said:


> _ so his parents took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord. 23 The law of the Lord says, “If a woman’s first child is a boy, he must be dedicated to the Lord.”_
> 
> I am NOT advocating for baby dedication so don't jump all over me, but to be fair, we are the church of the firstborn (Heb 12.23) and if people appeal to the example of Joseph and Mary dedicating baby Jesus, I put it in the category of things not worth dividing over. And no, they didn't leave the baby at the Temple.
> 
> What bothers me is the inconsistency of not baptizing babies and then letting little kids take communion in my Baptist experience. But on the other hand, I saw PCA parents who held to Covenantal theology and baptized their babies, and yet would not let their young children who professed the Lord and had tender hearts for the Lord and wanted to take communion, to partake. I'd say both sides have inconsistencies.



Just to be accurate, Jesus was being 'circumcised' here. Mary had finished purification after giving birth and was being obedient to the Abrahamic covenant by placing the sign of covenant upon him. 

Generally speaking, the aberrant 'baby dedication' theme is derived from 1 Samuel 1:21-28 as mentioned earlier, and yes, they were left at the temple. 

13 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2*Sanctify unto me all the firstborn, whatsoever openeth the womb among the children of Israel, both of man and of beast: it is mine.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 13.

11*And it shall be when the LORD shall bring thee into the land of the Canaanites, as he sware unto thee and to thy fathers, and shall give it thee, 12*That thou shalt set apart unto the LORD all that openeth the matrix, and every firstling that cometh of a beast which thou hast; the males shall be the LORD’s.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 13:11–12.

The word 'dedicate' as it is used in Exodus chapter 13 denotes 'setting the child apart' as how most Reformed believers do in a few ways:
1) Placing the sign of covenant upon our male children
2) Agreeing with 1 Cor 7:14-that our Children are holy because God, sets them apart.

Matthew Henry helps with the term 'of the first born' having to do with those of old who had a veiled view of the gospel:

Here will be the general assembly of the first-born, the saints of former and earlier times, who saw the promises of the gospel state, but received them not, as well as those who first received them under the gospel, and were regenerated thereby, and so were the first-born, and the first-fruits of the gospel church; and thereby, as the first-born, advanced to greater honours and privileges than the rest of the world. Indeed all the children of God are heirs, and every one has the privileges of the first-born. The names of these are written in heaven, in the records of the church here: they have a name in God’s house, are written among the living in Jerusalem; they have a good repute for their faith and fidelity, and are enrolled in the Lamb’s book of life, as citizens are enrolled in the livery-books. 

Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 2405.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 17, 2016)

Actually Scott, that dedication was 40 days after Jesus birth. It was the time of purification for a baby boy. 

But to be fair, in my experience in Calvinist Baptist land, most-not all- people don't do it for any particular reason based on any scripture. It is just what Baptists do so they do it without thinking about it. If you quiz them as to why based on the bible they would have to try to figure out an answer. 

It doesn't really bother me the way altar calls do, and use of the word "altar", but I digress. I suppose to answer the OPs original question, he should consult the many many many lengthy PB threads by Baptists as to why babies are not baptized....I could give a short reply of average Baptist thought but he can do better with google on PB.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 17, 2016)

lynnie said:


> Actually Scott, that dedication was 40 days after Jesus birth. It was the time of purification for a baby boy.
> 
> But to be fair, in my experience in Calvinist Baptist land, most-not all- people don't do it for any particular reason based on any scripture. It is just what Baptists do so they do it without thinking about it. If you quiz them as to why based on the bible they would have to try to figure out an answer.
> 
> It doesn't really bother me the way altar calls do, and use of the word "altar", but I digress. I suppose to answer the OPs original question, he should consult the many many many lengthy PB threads by Baptists as to why babies are not baptized....I could give a short reply of average Baptist thought but he can do better with google on PB.



Lev 12:
12 The Lord said to Moses, 2 “Say to the Israelites: ‘A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

6 “‘When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the tent of meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering.[a] 7 He shall offer them before the Lord to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.

“‘These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl.

Seems like I was wrong about the circumcision; You are correct, it was 40 days, but the purification was for Mary. The 'dedication' you speak of is not the same dedication that Hannah did w/ Samuel. 

and all the firstborn of man among thy children shalt thou redeem. 14*And it shall be when thy son asketh thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shalt say unto him, By strength of hand the LORD brought us out from Egypt, from the house of bondage: 15*And it came to pass, when Pharaoh would hardly let us go, that the LORD slew all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both the firstborn of man, and the firstborn of beast: therefore I sacrifice to the LORD all that openeth the matrix, being males; but all the firstborn of my children I redeem. 16*And it shall be for a token upon thine hand, and for frontlets between thine eyes: for by strength of hand the LORD brought us forth out of Egypt.

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ex 13:13–16.

I believe you are squeezing the meaning to say what it is not...God commanded a sacrifice for the firstborn; it is a setting apart, but not a 'dedication'. 

6299. פָּדָה padah (804a); a prim. root; to ransom:—any means redeem(1), ransom(4), ransomed(7), redeem(24), redeemed(18), redeems(1), redemption price(1), rescued(1), surely redeem(1), way been redeemed(1).

Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).


----------



## lynnie (Oct 17, 2016)

Scott, I am not squeezing anything because I do not believe in OT Temple worship which has been surpassed/fulfilled by worship in spirit and truth. The OP asked a question and I am trying to explain what at least some of the mindset is. You are not going to be able to have an intelligent discussion with a Baptist about this if you can't understand what the thinking is. It is not my thinking. 

You don't start with this. You start with introducing Covenantal concepts where people are Dispensationalists, or thoughful questions about what carries over from the OT in worship when with a Calvinist ( singing, prayer, reading scripture) and what does not. Do blood sacrifices carry over? Do other sacrifices? Does incense and special garments? Do we celebrate the feasts the OT way? Are there prophets with direct revelation? ( be prepared for the occasional charismatic yes answer). People have to think it through logically before you say that this dedication does not carry over. This is a deeply ingrained tradition and not easily changed. 

And going back to the OP, it is a separate subject from not baptizing babies for a Reformed Baptist. Don't lump them together. We could just as easily set you up as carrying over OT circumcision in your theology- but let's not go there now  I am not saying all or most paedos have an OT mindset, but I have heard some speak in such a way that it could be construed as such ( not referring to anybody on the PB). If you are going to start talking about not having OT worship and dedicated babies, and then speak about baptism and circumcision in such a way that you sound hypocritical and stuck in the OT circumcision rites, you shoot yourself in the foot so just be careful talking about it and how you present it.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 17, 2016)

lynnie said:


> We could just as easily set you up as carrying over OT circumcision in your theology- but let's not go there now



I think we need to distinguish between the Old _Testament_ and the Old _Covenant_ before we discuss the validity of what is being "carried over" or not.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 17, 2016)

lynnie said:


> Scott, I am not squeezing anything because I do not believe in OT Temple worship which has been surpassed/fulfilled by worship in spirit and truth.



What I said did not advocate for any NT temple worship-all I did was apply OT principles based on scripture for what Mary and Joseph were doing at the time.



lynnie said:


> You are not going to be able to have an intelligent discussion with a Baptist about this if you can't understand what the thinking is.



I understand the thinking; I was a credo-baptist for the first 7 years of my walk.As I mentioned in my first post, it is an innate desire to include the children into the covenant community without actually placing the sign on the child. 

To answer your second paragraph, anything that had a direct relationship to the temple has been done away with. I have no idea how you have come away from this conversation thinking I am advocating for anything like that.



lynnie said:


> And going back to the OP, it is a separate subject from not baptizing babies for a Reformed Baptist. Don't lump them together.



Well, i get that; however, it is not truly a separate subject. The sign is commanded and everybody should be placing it as per Gen 17.



lynnie said:


> easily set you up as carrying over OT circumcision in your theology



Thats fine. Please do. The sign has changed, but the requsite has not as it was for 'all generations'. 




lynnie said:


> I am not saying all or most paedos have an OT mindset, but I have heard some speak in such a way that it could be construed as such ( not referring to anybody on the PB).



Most all the reformed think along that line....Many things we subscribe to had it's birth in the OT, and it's reality at the cross.

Ultimately, to dedicate a child, like most people understand the term and the process is a mockery of God's word and in light of Gen 17, He hates it!


----------



## lynnie (Oct 17, 2016)

Hum. I did not think you were advocating for anything unbiblical. Sorry if I miscommunicated. I was trying to answer the OP in such a way that if he is involved with relatives or friends dedicating their babies, he could maybe get some thoughts on the subject and approaching it with them. 

I've had some success with the "altar" in my old charismatic associations. Jesus said we don't worship in Jerusalem or in Samaria, not in a place. Hebrews says we have an altar, what does that mean, is it the front of the church; is it the communion table? Is the Holy Spirit more present there than in the pew? You'd be amazed at the mystical magical mentality that up front is more holy than the back row. 

I've seen a few people give up the use of that word entirely. A light bulb goes off and they get it. But you have to work these things through slowly. You are not going to get anywhere telling happy people with a cute new baby that God hates what they are doing. 

I think you should be careful. Proverbs says God hates 6/7 things and lists them. He hates divorce. Amos and Isaiah speak of Him hating the assembly and sacrifices and sabbath keeping when the hearts were far from him. Saying he hates baby dedications is a bit strong. Maybe they grieve the Holy Spirit, I don't know. Maybe they are something where God is patient and merciful. 

At any rate OP, take it slow, and talk about what things carry over from the OT in worship and what does not, and is the ceremonial dedication still binding on us today. If you present it right and give them a chance to think about it maybe you will see some fruit.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 17, 2016)

lynnie said:


> Hum. I did not think you were advocating for anything unbiblical. Sorry if I miscommunicated. I was trying to answer the OP in such a way that if he is involved with relatives or friends dedicating their babies, he could maybe get some thoughts on the subject and approaching it with them.
> 
> I've had some success with the "altar" in my old charismatic associations. Jesus said we don't worship in Jerusalem or in Samaria, not in a place. Hebrews says we have an altar, what does that mean, is it the front of the church; is it the communion table? Is the Holy Spirit more present there than in the pew? You'd be amazed at the mystical magical mentality that up front is more holy than the back row.
> 
> ...



God hates illicit worship, so much so that He has killed a few people because of it, to which I refuse to believe that has ceased. Illicit worship is a reproach to Christ and dedicating a baby, apart from placing the sign upon them, as commanded, is no less than idolatry.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 17, 2016)

Brothers and sisters,
I think there's more heat than light here. The Reformed have no use for the issue; most of our 1689Baptists have no desire to defend it.

Frankly, it would just be simpler/better if an advocate of _infant-dedication_ (and I don't know if any are on the PB) offered a justification. And then, different people could offer their critiques--on the practice, not the person.

At this moment, there's all sorts of complicating layers being stacked in the thread. Plus misleading exegesis. Etc. As I said, more heat than light my friends.


----------

