Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm wondering about the example of the feast of Purim... there was no command of God to celebrate Purim but in the providence of God it came to be celebrated as a practice. How does Purim fit in with a super strict regulative view?
A child of even only one believer is in some sense holy according to Corinthians - no stated requirement of only applying to baptized children that I can see. I would see it as a Christian liberty within the scope of prayers for various people the congregation should be praying for and is responsible for. Some infant baptisms virtually include dedication prayers as well. I don't see a problem unless it's rote or distracts from more important things. I find it a good reminder for congregations to pray for a child whether paedo baptism or paedo dedication.
Yes, some dedications are a bit analogous to paedo baptism, some confirmations a bit analogous to believers baptism in a sense. I think a person in good conscience might choose either. Infant regeneration I have more problems with. Assuming a baptized child of a believer is elect I see as problematic
Of course all of life is worship.
(3.) Because both the one and the other, if they be true believers, and are right in the main, have an eye to God, and do approve themselves to God in what they do, Rom_14:6. He that regards the day - that makes conscience of the observance of the Jewish fasts and festivals, not imposing it upon others, nor laying a stress upon it, but willing to be as he thinks on the surer side, as thinking there is no harm in resting from worldly labours, and worshipping God on those days - it is well. We have reason to think, because in other things he conducts himself like a good Christian, that in this also his eye is single, and that he regardeth it unto the Lord; and God will accept of his honest intention, though he be under a mistake about the observance of days; for the sincerity and uprightness of the heart were never rejected for the weakness and infirmity of the head: so good a master do we serve. On the other hand, he that regards not the day - that does not make a difference between one day and another, does not call one day holy and another profane, one day lucky and another unlucky, but esteems every day alike - he does not do it out of a spirit of opposition, contradiction, or contempt of his brother. If he be a good Christian, he does not, he dares not, do it from such a principle; and therefore we charitably conclude that to the Lord he does not regard it. he makes no such difference of days only because he knows God hath made none; and therefore intends his honour in endeavouring to dedicate ever day to him. So for the other instance: He that eateth whatever is set before him, though it be blood, though it be swine's flesh, if it be food convenient for him, he eateth to the Lord. He understands the liberty that God has granted him, and uses it to the glory of God, with an eye to his wisdom and goodness in enlarging our allowance now under the gospel, and taking off the yoke of legal restraints; and he giveth God thanks for the variety of food he has, and the liberty he has to eat it, and that in those things his conscience is not fettered. On the other hand, he that eatest not those meats which were forbidden by the ceremonial law, to the Lord he eateth not. It is for God's sake, because he is afraid of offending God by eating that which he is sure was once prohibited; and he giveth God thanks too that there is enough besides. If he conscientiously deny himself that which he takes to be forbidden fruit, yet he blesses God that of other trees in the garden he may freely eat. Thus, while both have an eye to God in what they do, and approve themselves to him in their integrity, why should either of them be judged or despised? Observe, Whether we eat flesh, or eat herbs, it is a thankful regard to God, the author and giver of all our mercies, that sanctifies and sweetens it. Bishop Sanderson, in his 34th sermon, upon 1Ti_4:4, justly makes this observation: It appears by this that saying grace (as we commonly call it, perhaps from 1Co_10:30) before and after meat was the common known practice of the church, among Christians of all sorts, weak and strong: an ancient, commendable, apostolical, Christian practice, derived down from Christ's example through all the ages of the church, Mat_14:19; Mat_15:36; Luk_9:16; Joh_6:11; Mat_26:26, Mat_26:27; Act_27:35. Blessing the creatures in the name of God before we use them, and blessing the name of God for them after, are both included; for eulogein and eucharistein are used promiscuously. To clear this argument against rash judging and despising, he shows how essential it is to true Christianity to have a regard to God and not to ourselves, which therefore, unless the contrary do manifestly appear, we must presume concerning those that in minor things differ from us. Observe his description of true Christians, taken from their end and aim (Rom_14:7, Rom_14:8), and the ground of it, Rom_14:9.
I would add that the neglect talked about is, in great part, due to its being a bona fide sacrament. Dedication is not the sign nor seal of the promise of God.It is a sin insofar as it generally involves neglecting what God has commanded, i.e. baptism ("it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance", WCF Ch. 28). It is a sin when it takes place in public worship, as it is not commanded.
I would love to see an historical treatment of where it came from. During my Baptist days, I always rolled my eyes at the idea of baby dedication as a kind of "dry baptism" invented to fill the hole that denial of infant baptism left.
To dedicate a child before or after worship depends on the purpose of the event. I still don't see the point in dedicating a child at any time, none have proven from the Scriptures that it ought to be done whether by command or implication. I suppose it would be helpful if we all had a full definition from the OP of what 'child dedication' actually is. Is it what some consider (wrongly) a sacrament? Is it for the purpose of blessing the child in some way or dedicating them as Hannah did with Samuel? And from such a definition I could better answer the question. But certainly it is not to be done in the public worship of the Lord for it is not commanded. You certainly don't see it in WCF 21 or even the 1689 LBCF.
As it has to do with Romans 14:6, you use it inappropriately in reference to the public worship of God today and the 4th commandment. It is dealing Jewish feasts and festivals, not the Sabbath/Lord's Day. Same with the passage in Colossians 2:16.
Matthew Henry is clear:
(3.) Because both the one and the other, if they be true believers, and are right in the main, have an eye to God, and do approve themselves to God in what they do, Rom_14:6. He that regards the day - that makes conscience of the observance of the Jewish fasts and festivals, not imposing it upon others, nor laying a stress upon it, but willing to be as he thinks on the surer side, as thinking there is no harm in resting from worldly labours, and worshipping God on those days - it is well. We have reason to think, because in other things he conducts himself like a good Christian, that in this also his eye is single, and that he regardeth it unto the Lord; and God will accept of his honest intention, though he be under a mistake about the observance of days; for the sincerity and uprightness of the heart were never rejected for the weakness and infirmity of the head: so good a master do we serve. On the other hand, he that regards not the day - that does not make a difference between one day and another, does not call one day holy and another profane, one day lucky and another unlucky, but esteems every day alike - he does not do it out of a spirit of opposition, contradiction, or contempt of his brother. If he be a good Christian, he does not, he dares not, do it from such a principle; and therefore we charitably conclude that to the Lord he does not regard it. he makes no such difference of days only because he knows God hath made none; and therefore intends his honour in endeavouring to dedicate ever day to him. So for the other instance: He that eateth whatever is set before him, though it be blood, though it be swine's flesh, if it be food convenient for him, he eateth to the Lord. He understands the liberty that God has granted him, and uses it to the glory of God, with an eye to his wisdom and goodness in enlarging our allowance now under the gospel, and taking off the yoke of legal restraints; and he giveth God thanks for the variety of food he has, and the liberty he has to eat it, and that in those things his conscience is not fettered. On the other hand, he that eatest not those meats which were forbidden by the ceremonial law, to the Lord he eateth not. It is for God's sake, because he is afraid of offending God by eating that which he is sure was once prohibited; and he giveth God thanks too that there is enough besides. If he conscientiously deny himself that which he takes to be forbidden fruit, yet he blesses God that of other trees in the garden he may freely eat. Thus, while both have an eye to God in what they do, and approve themselves to him in their integrity, why should either of them be judged or despised? Observe, Whether we eat flesh, or eat herbs, it is a thankful regard to God, the author and giver of all our mercies, that sanctifies and sweetens it. Bishop Sanderson, in his 34th sermon, upon 1Ti_4:4, justly makes this observation: It appears by this that saying grace (as we commonly call it, perhaps from 1Co_10:30) before and after meat was the common known practice of the church, among Christians of all sorts, weak and strong: an ancient, commendable, apostolical, Christian practice, derived down from Christ's example through all the ages of the church, Mat_14:19; Mat_15:36; Luk_9:16; Joh_6:11; Mat_26:26, Mat_26:27; Act_27:35. Blessing the creatures in the name of God before we use them, and blessing the name of God for them after, are both included; for eulogein and eucharistein are used promiscuously. To clear this argument against rash judging and despising, he shows how essential it is to true Christianity to have a regard to God and not to ourselves, which therefore, unless the contrary do manifestly appear, we must presume concerning those that in minor things differ from us. Observe his description of true Christians, taken from their end and aim (Rom_14:7, Rom_14:8), and the ground of it, Rom_14:9.
John Gill says basically the same thing, "therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations"
[h=1]1 Samuel 1:21-24English Standard Version (ESV)[/h][h=3]Samuel Given to the Lord[/h]21 The man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer to the Lord the yearly sacrifice and to pay his vow. 22 But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “As soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him, so that he may appear in the presence of the Lord and dwell there forever.” 23 Elkanah her husband said to her, “Do what seems best to you; wait until you have weaned him; only, may the Lord establish his word.” So the woman remained and nursed her son until she weaned him. 24 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull,[a] an ephah[b] of flour, and a skin of wine, and she brought him to the house of the Lord at Shiloh. And the child was young.