# Baby Dedication



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 4, 2006)

Im not set on paedo-baptism yet. But I want to know why baptists dedicate there babies and if scripture instructs us to do so. I have nto seen it in scripture yet.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2006)

> 1 Samuel 1:1-28 KJV 1 Samuel 1:1 Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite: 2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children. 3 And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the LORD, were there. 4 And when the time was that Elkanah offered, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions: 5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb. 6 And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb. 7 And as he did so year by year, when she went up to the house of the LORD, so she provoked her; therefore she wept, and did not eat. 8 Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons? 9 So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. Now Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the LORD. 10 And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed unto the LORD, and wept sore. 11 And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head. 12 And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli marked her mouth. 13 Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken. 14 And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee. 15 And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the LORD. 16 Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial: for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken hitherto. 17 Then Eli answered and said, Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him. 18 And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight. So the woman went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad. 19 And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her. 20 Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD. 21 And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the LORD the yearly sacrifice, and his vow. 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. 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. 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. 25 And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli. 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. 27 For this child I prayed; and the LORD hath given me my petition which I asked of him: 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.



Nathan,
In response to a internal need for the credo baptist to be obedient to Gods covenant, some credo baptists rip this passage out of context relating to Hannah's prayer to God. Proper hermeneutics reveals two things: 1) Hannah is submitting to _leaving_ baby Samuel @ the temple for service w/ the Priests and 2) Hannah assuredly had _the sign_ placed on baby Samuel on the eighth day. Dedication as Hannah's did not obstruct the trees for the forest! They knew the importance of the Abrahamic covenant. The credo that submits to this type of thing in light of rebelling against the command to place the sign (Gen 17) is doubly deceived as if they would do a simple study on the passage they would see that it has nothing to do with the way it is being used in their cases. I have never seen one parent leave their child with the Pastor of their congregations after the ceremony! in my opinion, it is an internal need of each and every credo parent to feel that their child is somehow in Gods grace even though their theology contradicts the premise. The paedo however, has a hope and that hope based upon Gods promise and covenant.

Previously discussed here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=6237&highlight=baby+dedication


----------



## dannyhyde (Nov 4, 2006)

Hello Nathan,

That was a question I always wondered when I was an evangelical. In my book on covenantal baptism, I "dedicate" a chapter to this topic, dealing with often cited texts for dedication—Samuel, Samson, John the Baptist, and even Jesus.

What was also interesting in researching, was that many churches in San Diego that dedicate children of professing believers do so on the basis of the same texts of Scripture that we use to explain their baptism—Genesis 17, 1 Corinthians 7, etc.

Here is a link to the book, Jesus Loves the Little Children, at Amazon: Amazon.com: Jesus Loves the Little Children: Why We Baptize Children: Books: Daniel R. Hyde


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 4, 2006)

Awsome thank you brothers  

Now Im slowly becoming more convinced of paedo-baptism. But it just seemed to me that BD is baptist alternative to PB.

In Christ,
Blade


----------



## elnwood (Nov 4, 2006)

And confirmation is the paedobaptist alternative to baptism.  

Many if not most Reformed Baptist churches do not practice infant dedication because they see it as a violation of the Regulative Principle. Neither the church that I attend nor the Baptist church I attended previously had infant dedications.

Interestingly enough, infant dedication is also practiced in at least one PCA church. See page 6.
http://www.presbyteriannews.org/volumes/v6/5/pr6-5.pdf


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 4, 2006)

elnwood said:


> And confirmation is the paedobaptist alternative to baptism.
> 
> Many if not most Reformed Baptist churches do not practice infant dedication because they see it as a violation of the Regulative Principle. Neither the church that I attend nor the Baptist church I attended previously had infant dedications.
> 
> ...



I'm with you on the confirmation thingy; To me, it is an inconsistency in light of the faith we place in Gods promise. We say, I believe this to be true, then we confirm; which really confirms nothing! To me, confirmation is baptistic. 

In regards to the article; a generation or two from now, the PCA will no longer be the organization you see before you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 4, 2006)

elnwood said:


> And confirmation is the paedobaptist alternative to baptism.


What confessional Presbyterian church practices Confirmation? Just curious.

Confirmation is a Roman sacramental rite.

We do have education for communicant membership. And examination by Session. Like Jesus was examined by the church (Lk. 2:46ff) before his required attendance at the Covenant Meal (Ex. 23:17; 34:23f; Deut. 16:16).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 4, 2006)

Scott Bushey said:


> Nathan,
> In response to a internal need for the credo baptist to be obedient to Gods covenant, some credo baptists rip this passage out of context relating to Hannah's prayer to God. Proper hermeneutics reveals two things: 1) Hannah is submitting to _leaving_ baby Samuel @ the temple for service w/ the Priests and 2) Hannah assuredly had _the sign_ placed on baby Samuel on the eighth day. Dedication as Hannah's did not obstruct the trees for the forest! They knew the importance of the Abrahamic covenant. The credo that submits to this type of thing in light of rebelling against the command to place the sign (Gen 17) is doubly deceived as if they would do a simple study on the passage they would see that it has nothing to do with the way it is being used in their cases. I have never seen one parent leave their child with the Pastor of their congregations after the ceremony! in my opinion, it is an internal need of each and every credo parent to feel that their child is somehow in Gods grace even though their theology contradicts the premise. The paedo however, has a hope and that hope based upon Gods promise and covenant.
> 
> Previously discussed here: http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=6237&highlight=baby+dedication



I would just add that this "dedication" was a promise of placing Samuel under the Nazaritic vow - an ordinance of the Old Covenant that only could be made by someone within the Covenant. In this case it was made _for_ the child by the parents with that pesky little notion that children are bound by vows that their parents make for them.

It must also be noted that Hannah did not precisely make the vow because a vow could not be ratified unless the husband approved it. Note that her husband commands her to keep the vow made. Yes it was her vow initially but was ratified by Elkanah in that he permitted the vow to stand.

The whole passage is Covenantal from A to Z and it is quite ironic that those who are trying to wrest themselves from any notion that their children stand in solidarity with them in the Covenant would use an example of a Naziritic vow as a justification for baby dedication!


----------



## elnwood (Nov 5, 2006)

Care to elaborate on this? I think you're hinting at something, but I'm not sure what.



Scott Bushey said:


> In regards to the article; a generation or two from now, the PCA will no longer be the organization you see before you.


----------



## elnwood (Nov 5, 2006)

Ah, _confessional_ Presbyterian church. I went to a PCUSA church in my teens, and they had confirmation, so I assumed that they all did. Apparently not.

The Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) has confirmation. There are probably others.
http://www.rcus.org/main/pub_confirmation_handbook.asp



Contra_Mundum said:


> What confessional Presbyterian church practices Confirmation? Just curious.
> 
> Confirmation is a Roman sacramental rite.
> 
> We do have education for communicant membership. And examination by Session. Like Jesus was examined by the church (Lk. 2:46ff) before his required attendance at the Covenant Meal (Ex. 23:17; 34:23f; Deut. 16:16).


----------



## Greg (Nov 5, 2006)

The church I used to attend practiced baby dedications. Whenever a dedication was performed, the pastor would always make a point of why they didn’t baptize infants. He would say that you couldn’t find infant baptism in the New Testament. He explained that what we do find elsewhere is the practice of infant dedication. He would then cite the OT verse that Scott posted above as evidence.

What I find interesting now about this line of reasoning is how this particular church made such an emphatic point to reject something because it is not found in the NT, yet turn around and embrace something else that is likewise not found in the NT either. And as was pointed out, the OT verse that is used by them to support baby dedication is taken out of context.

What I find as ironic with those who adhere to baby dedications is that they refer to the OT for the support of their belief, yet it is precisely when you begin in the OT that one arrives at exactly that which they reject, namely the inclusion of infants in the covenant and the administration of the covenantal sign.


----------



## beej6 (Nov 5, 2006)

elnwood said:


> Ah, _confessional_ Presbyterian church. I went to a PCUSA church in my teens, and they had confirmation, so I assumed that they all did. Apparently not.
> 
> The Reformed Church in the United States (RCUS) has confirmation. There are probably others.
> http://www.rcus.org/main/pub_confirmation_handbook.asp



Do we have any RCUS experts here? I'm certainly not one, but I would have a hard time believing that they practice confirmation as a sacrament, as opposed to using that term (which I would admit is confusing) for catechizing their children.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 5, 2006)

The Constitution for the RCUS reads:



> SECTION 3
> 
> The Sacraments
> 
> ARTICLE 181. The sacraments of the Church instituted by Christ are two: Holy Baptism and the Lord's Supper.



They do use the term 'Confirmation"



> PART I
> 
> MEMBERS -- CONGREGATIONS -- OFFICES
> 
> ...


----------



## elnwood (Nov 5, 2006)

No Reformed church has any sacraments other than the two, to my knowledge. (And no Baptist church considers infant dedication an ordinance). I never said that Reformed churches practiced confirmation as a sacrament. All I meant was that having already-baptized children give a profession of faith that then allows them to partake in the Lord's Supper and fully participate in the New Covenant community is analogous to Adult Baptisms, which also is a profession of faith that allows them to partake in the Lord's Supper and identifies them as part of the New Covenant community.

While the biblical justification for infant dedication is not very strong, the evidence for a "confirmation" before partaking in the Lord's Supper is also not very strong, and it seems both traditions are grasping at each other's practices.



beej6 said:


> Do we have any RCUS experts here? I'm certainly not one, but I would have a hard time believing that they practice confirmation as a sacrament, as opposed to using that term (which I would admit is confusing) for catechizing their children.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Nov 5, 2006)

elnwood said:


> Care to elaborate on this? I think you're hinting at something, but I'm not sure what.



Yes, Scott...please spell it out for me...we need to know.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 5, 2006)

LadyFlynt said:


> Yes, Scott...please spell it out for me...we need to know.



Do I really need to spell it out? This is no more than an assertion: The PCA is divided right now on the federal Vision issue. In time, there will be a split over this. A number of the body will head south over this. As well, a section of PCA churches are no longer reformed at all. The confession is no more than a piece of paper. Worship has digressed to the point that even woman are reading scripture from the pulpits. Music being used in the worship services has gone from the psalms & hymns, to contemporary everyday music. It is not difficult to see that in a generation or two the organization itself will no longer function under the auspices of biblical Calvinism.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Nov 5, 2006)

Thread split: "Is the NEW really NEW or is it just Consummated?"

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=16918


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 8, 2006)

How long has baby dedication been in practice?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 9, 2006)

Split off discussion on the PCA's subscription to the WCF here:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=17033


----------

