Are baby dedications sinful? Unbiblical?
- Thread starter vgallo6
- Start date
- Status
The question is bound to be addressed in a variety of ways. From the Baptist-fold, where such dedications are found as such, you will find defenders and detractors.
From within the same Baptist-fold, comparisons will doubtless be drawn to Presbyterian practice re. infant-baptism. From the Presbyterian perspective, however, there is no valid comparison. This means that the nature of a Presbyterian evaluation of such dedications is bound to be different from either the Baptist defense or despite of the practice.
Andrew's terse observation is probably as close to a common-ground (Baptist and Presbyterian) expression of disapproval as can be made. The issue is thus put as essentially a matter of strict Regulative Principle application.
The main NT line of defense of the practice, from a Baptist perspective, has to be (I dare say, though I'm not speaking as a Baptist) the bringing of the infants to Jesus, Lk.18:15. This could conceivably be read as "approved example," although it comes up short of being clearly (or classified under) a specific element of worship as defined by Scripture, according to a typical ReformedBaptist understanding of the issue.
Presbyterians would see Lk.18:15 as theologically coherent with their theology of baptism (which includes infants); but this text should not be used as any direct ground for baptism. In the final analysis, Presbyterians basically do not have a "dedication" issue over which to wrangle.
From within the same Baptist-fold, comparisons will doubtless be drawn to Presbyterian practice re. infant-baptism. From the Presbyterian perspective, however, there is no valid comparison. This means that the nature of a Presbyterian evaluation of such dedications is bound to be different from either the Baptist defense or despite of the practice.
Andrew's terse observation is probably as close to a common-ground (Baptist and Presbyterian) expression of disapproval as can be made. The issue is thus put as essentially a matter of strict Regulative Principle application.
The main NT line of defense of the practice, from a Baptist perspective, has to be (I dare say, though I'm not speaking as a Baptist) the bringing of the infants to Jesus, Lk.18:15. This could conceivably be read as "approved example," although it comes up short of being clearly (or classified under) a specific element of worship as defined by Scripture, according to a typical ReformedBaptist understanding of the issue.
Presbyterians would see Lk.18:15 as theologically coherent with their theology of baptism (which includes infants); but this text should not be used as any direct ground for baptism. In the final analysis, Presbyterians basically do not have a "dedication" issue over which to wrangle.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
I dedicate babies... I baptize them.
Baby dedications which are a part of the corporate worship service are a violation of the Regulative Principle of Worship. Baby dedications which are outside of the corporate worship service are not. If baby dedications promote works-righteousness, they are evil and shouldn't be practiced at all.
Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”, and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”
This is the idea behind it, at least in some places. As a Baptist who is fully comfortable with both paedos and credos and can fellowship with either, I am not comfortable with this ritual. All believers are part of the church of the firstborn:
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven
So if you are presenting your kid to the Lord like Mary and Joseph did, the implication being that the kid is now part of the "church of the firstborn", would it not make more sense to baptize? At best it seems like a legalistic sort of practice.
Most of the time I think parents are just so happy they had this cute baby, and they feel encouraged to go dedicate themselves to raising the kid as a Christian. There is always prayer for the parents and a public vow by the parents. So you can think of it as parent dedication. That is really what it is, the parents dedicating themselves. Don't think of it as baby dedication, think of it as parental vows.
This is the idea behind it, at least in some places. As a Baptist who is fully comfortable with both paedos and credos and can fellowship with either, I am not comfortable with this ritual. All believers are part of the church of the firstborn:
But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven
So if you are presenting your kid to the Lord like Mary and Joseph did, the implication being that the kid is now part of the "church of the firstborn", would it not make more sense to baptize? At best it seems like a legalistic sort of practice.
Most of the time I think parents are just so happy they had this cute baby, and they feel encouraged to go dedicate themselves to raising the kid as a Christian. There is always prayer for the parents and a public vow by the parents. So you can think of it as parent dedication. That is really what it is, the parents dedicating themselves. Don't think of it as baby dedication, think of it as parental vows.
whirlingmerc
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
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
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
There is no such thing as less strict versus strict versus super strict versions of the regulative principle of worship. Either something is commanded for worship or it is not. One can disagree over whether an alleged scripture rises to the level of a warrant but the principle is the principle. The only thing Purim can prove if it is truly a counter example to the Reformed RPW is the normative (i.e. Episcopal, RC, etc.) principle that the church may institute ceremonies and days. And that is exactly how it is used by those advocates. Presbyterians have long had their answers to that alleged counter example (Mordecai was a prophet, the day was a civil institution for mirth and gladness, etc. cf. Gillespie, English Popish Ceremonies {2013}, 234, 245-248, 280).
Rich Koster
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I see it as making a ceremony to promise what you should be doing by default.
whirlingmerc
Puritan Board Sophomore
Of course all of life is worship.
Not sure why Mordecai would be considered a prophet, do you know why?
---
because of the Talmud?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai
The Talmud lists Mordecai and Esther as prophets.[10] The Talmud says Mordecai prophesied in the second year of Darius.
Mordecai's genealogy in the second chapter of the Book of Esther is given as a descendant of Kish of the Tribe of Benjamin. Kish was also the name of the father of King Saul, and the Talmud accords Mordecai the status of a descendant of the first King of Israel.[11]
The Targum Sheni gives his genealogy in more detail, as follows: "Mordecai, son of Ya'ir, son of Shim'i, son of Shmida, son of Baana, son of Eila, son of Micah, son of Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul, son of Kish, son of Aviel, son of Tzror, son of Bechorath, son of Aphiah, son of Sh'charim, son of Uziah, son of Sheshak, son of Michael, son of Elyael, son of Amihud, son of Shephatya, son of Psuel, son of Pison, son of Malikh, son of Jerubaal, son of Yerucham, son of Chananya, son of Zavdi, son of Elpo'al, son of Shimri, son of Zecharya, son of Merimoth, son of Hushim, son of Sh'chora, son of 'Azza, son of Gera, son of Benjamin, son of Jacob the firstborn, whose name is called Israel."
___
I also see a contraversy that Mordecai was the same as Malichi
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/malachi/1.htm
"...Jews have been divided. Rab Nachman says Malachi was Mordecai; and that he was so called because he was second to the king. R. Joshua ben Korcha contradicts him, and affirms Malachi is Ezra; and to him agrees the Chaldee paraphrase on Malachi 1:1 which says, that Malachi, his name is called Ezra the scribe; but, as Kimchi observes, Ezra is never called a prophet, as Malachi is, only a scribe; wherefore in the Talmud (d), where this matter is debated, it is concluded thus; but the wise men say, Malachi is his name; that is, it is the proper name of a man; there was a man of this name, that wrote this prophecy; not Mordecai, nor Ezra, nor Zerubbabel, nor Nehemiah, as some have thought; but Malachi:..."
Not sure why Mordecai would be considered a prophet, do you know why?
---
because of the Talmud?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordecai
The Talmud lists Mordecai and Esther as prophets.[10] The Talmud says Mordecai prophesied in the second year of Darius.
Mordecai's genealogy in the second chapter of the Book of Esther is given as a descendant of Kish of the Tribe of Benjamin. Kish was also the name of the father of King Saul, and the Talmud accords Mordecai the status of a descendant of the first King of Israel.[11]
The Targum Sheni gives his genealogy in more detail, as follows: "Mordecai, son of Ya'ir, son of Shim'i, son of Shmida, son of Baana, son of Eila, son of Micah, son of Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, son of Saul, son of Kish, son of Aviel, son of Tzror, son of Bechorath, son of Aphiah, son of Sh'charim, son of Uziah, son of Sheshak, son of Michael, son of Elyael, son of Amihud, son of Shephatya, son of Psuel, son of Pison, son of Malikh, son of Jerubaal, son of Yerucham, son of Chananya, son of Zavdi, son of Elpo'al, son of Shimri, son of Zecharya, son of Merimoth, son of Hushim, son of Sh'chora, son of 'Azza, son of Gera, son of Benjamin, son of Jacob the firstborn, whose name is called Israel."
___
I also see a contraversy that Mordecai was the same as Malichi
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/malachi/1.htm
"...Jews have been divided. Rab Nachman says Malachi was Mordecai; and that he was so called because he was second to the king. R. Joshua ben Korcha contradicts him, and affirms Malachi is Ezra; and to him agrees the Chaldee paraphrase on Malachi 1:1 which says, that Malachi, his name is called Ezra the scribe; but, as Kimchi observes, Ezra is never called a prophet, as Malachi is, only a scribe; wherefore in the Talmud (d), where this matter is debated, it is concluded thus; but the wise men say, Malachi is his name; that is, it is the proper name of a man; there was a man of this name, that wrote this prophecy; not Mordecai, nor Ezra, nor Zerubbabel, nor Nehemiah, as some have thought; but Malachi:..."
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Huh? What do you mean by this in the context of what we particularly seem to be referring in this thread of public worship? Is there not a distinction made by the Lord between all of life (which ought to be lived to the glory of God) and public worship?
whirlingmerc
Puritan Board Sophomore
If it was a point of contention in a local church they might consider moving a baptism or dedication to before the formal worship starts, some also move announcements before the formal worship starts.... of course worship has already been going on since all of life is worship
I would tend to leave it to personal conscience and the decisions of the elders of a local congregation.
The regulative principle finds its basis in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 21.1 which reads:
“But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.”
I personally don't see baptism or dedications being from the imaginations of men. There are various dedications and baptisms in the Bible.
I see room for conscience. Baptism and dedication may be done in a gospel centered way and that is fine with me.
Cutting a birthday cake in a church service and passing it out, I would have problems with... that would be from the imaginations of men.
I would tend to leave it to personal conscience and the decisions of the elders of a local congregation.
The regulative principle finds its basis in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Section 21.1 which reads:
“But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshiped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture.”
I personally don't see baptism or dedications being from the imaginations of men. There are various dedications and baptisms in the Bible.
I see room for conscience. Baptism and dedication may be done in a gospel centered way and that is fine with me.
Cutting a birthday cake in a church service and passing it out, I would have problems with... that would be from the imaginations of men.
Last edited:
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
Michael you quote the WCF 21, but the very context of that is not every day life but the public worship of the Lord. Hence it contains the elements of public worship like the reading, preaching and hearing of God's word, as well as the sacraments (which are not to be done outside of the public worship of God), also the very section on the Sabbath showing it to be on the first day of the week again showing that there is something more holy (4th commandment) that takes place on the 1st day of the week than on the other days - that is the public worship of God spoken of in Ch. 21. So it seems perhaps that you are mixing things and using John Frame's line of argumentation.
whirlingmerc
Puritan Board Sophomore
OK... so would it make a difference if it was done before the 'formal worship" began.
I went to a church that moved announcements to before 'formal worship began' for that reason
Romans 14:6
One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
I went to a church that moved announcements to before 'formal worship began' for that reason
Romans 14:6
One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
Romans922
Puritan Board Professor
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:
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"
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:
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"
whirlingmerc
Puritan Board Sophomore
Actually, the letter to the Romans would be largely a non Jewish audience. I would probably take the statements as the book is driving to an end in a broader sense
but I understand your perspective.
but I understand your perspective.
Gforce9
Puritan Board Junior
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.
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Lynnie is correct that Baptists see baby "dedications" as dedications of the parents. In practice, it really is not about the baby much at all.
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.
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.
whirlingmerc
Puritan Board Sophomore
One thing I really appreciate about the church in NY I go to is that when a teen goes off to college, the elders come up and lay hands on them and the whole church
prays for them up front of the church. I have no problem praying for those teens, or the parents / baby, having the parents and church dedicated to the members or yet to be saved and praying for the baby. I see it as part of the prayer ministry of the church. Prayers for all sorts of people are part of apostolic admonition and that would include children of the church.
prays for them up front of the church. I have no problem praying for those teens, or the parents / baby, having the parents and church dedicated to the members or yet to be saved and praying for the baby. I see it as part of the prayer ministry of the church. Prayers for all sorts of people are part of apostolic admonition and that would include children of the church.
Pilgrim
Puritanboard Commissioner
It boils down to what you believe about the RPW. In the past, both Baptists and Presbyterians were more focused on it. (That's not to say there aren't SOME in both camps who adhere to it today.) Indeed, one of the biggest "old Baptist" objections to infant baptism was that there is no explicit warrant for it in the NT. If that argument is right, then there is likewise no warrant for dedication as performed in many churches. But surely some kind of prayer during worship recognizing the birth and the duties of the parents, etc. is not improper. But that's not a dedication in the way it is practiced in many Baptist and baptistic churches today.
I think there is something to that. But I'd be surprised if the practice started (or at the least become rather prevalent) before the last century. The only church I've ever been a member of that did baby dedications was a congregation of The Wesleyan Church. At the time I had the idea that it was basically a "dry baptism". Many of the members were former Episcopalians, Methodists, Catholics, etc.
In a somewhat related note, in his systematic theology, Robert Duncan Culver (a minister in the Evangelical Free denomination) relates a story of a baby dedication he did once. He said afterwards that a woman asked that if the baby had died before the dedication, would he have gone to hell? Old ways die hard, Dr. Culver said. Most if not all of his ministry took place in Roman Catholic and Lutheran country, if I'm not mistaken.
I think there is something to that. But I'd be surprised if the practice started (or at the least become rather prevalent) before the last century. The only church I've ever been a member of that did baby dedications was a congregation of The Wesleyan Church. At the time I had the idea that it was basically a "dry baptism". Many of the members were former Episcopalians, Methodists, Catholics, etc.
In a somewhat related note, in his systematic theology, Robert Duncan Culver (a minister in the Evangelical Free denomination) relates a story of a baby dedication he did once. He said afterwards that a woman asked that if the baby had died before the dedication, would he have gone to hell? Old ways die hard, Dr. Culver said. Most if not all of his ministry took place in Roman Catholic and Lutheran country, if I'm not mistaken.
vgallo6
Puritan Board Freshman
What happens at the dedications i've witnessed is the parents and the baby go before the congregation and the Pastor asks the parents to vow before the Lord that they will raise the baby in the Lord, then asks the congregation to vow to pray for them and support them. This happens during the worship service.
Is it a prayer with some encumbrances or an unwarranted ceremony? Or as some observer might ask, what's the difference? Usually time.
As youngins in the faith we justified it with this. Boy were we off track.
whirlingmerc
Puritan Board Sophomore
And a slight rabbit trail.... Since the mother of Samuel made a vow before the baby was conceived, I think rules of the husband or father having to set the vow aside
the day they heard it apply. If the husband or father dismissed it as unlikely and did not, the vow would stand, later would be too late. Samuel was dedicated before conception... not the same thing on several counts.
the day they heard it apply. If the husband or father dismissed it as unlikely and did not, the vow would stand, later would be too late. Samuel was dedicated before conception... not the same thing on several counts.
Last edited:
Loopie
Puritan Board Freshman
In reference to the OP, I just recently witnessed a baby dedication at the church where my in-laws attend (we were visiting for the weekend). As a Baptist I do not agree with the idea of 'baby dedication', at least in the way that the term implies.
The dedication that I saw was at the beginning of the service, after the announcements. All the parents went up with their cute babies, and they were asked by the pastor to make a vow to train their children up in the Lord. Then the pastor asked the congregation to vow to support, assist, and remind the parents of their duty.
So in this case it was more of a parent dedication. One could perhaps even see it as a covenant being made between the parents and the congregation, with both groups taking vows to do certain things. The one thing I did not approve of though was that the babies all received paper certificates to show that they were dedicated. That made absolutely no sense to me (since, if anyone was to get a certificate it really should be the parents).
Now, I have no problem with public vows or public prayers in the church before or after the worship service. I have seen in some churches that when missionaries would be leaving to go to where God called them, they would come to the front of the church where the elders would lay hands on them and the pastor would lead the congregation to pray for them. The same would be true for those who were leaving the church for a long period of time (people moving to another country or state, or people going off to college). The same was also true for those getting deployed to warfare, such as in Afghanistan or Iraq.
That being said, I have no problem with parents taking their children up to the front where the church would pray for them (for both the parents and the children). I also have no problem with the parents making a public vow to (essentially) do their job. In all honesty I think that the public marriage vows that a couple makes could probably include the future raising of children, and so there might not be a need for a couple to make public vows of parenting only when they become parents. Still, I see no issue with children being brought forth to be prayed for publicly before or after the worship service (which is what I have seen several churches also do regarding the sick and injured).
I guess my only disagreement is in calling it 'baby dedication'. It really is a dedication of the parents, and perhaps even more accurately it is just a 'praying over' of the parents and their new-born children. I definitely do not see the need for anyone to be receiving a certificate, since we typically don't give certificates to every single group of people that we pray for publicly. Just my two cents.
The dedication that I saw was at the beginning of the service, after the announcements. All the parents went up with their cute babies, and they were asked by the pastor to make a vow to train their children up in the Lord. Then the pastor asked the congregation to vow to support, assist, and remind the parents of their duty.
So in this case it was more of a parent dedication. One could perhaps even see it as a covenant being made between the parents and the congregation, with both groups taking vows to do certain things. The one thing I did not approve of though was that the babies all received paper certificates to show that they were dedicated. That made absolutely no sense to me (since, if anyone was to get a certificate it really should be the parents).
Now, I have no problem with public vows or public prayers in the church before or after the worship service. I have seen in some churches that when missionaries would be leaving to go to where God called them, they would come to the front of the church where the elders would lay hands on them and the pastor would lead the congregation to pray for them. The same would be true for those who were leaving the church for a long period of time (people moving to another country or state, or people going off to college). The same was also true for those getting deployed to warfare, such as in Afghanistan or Iraq.
That being said, I have no problem with parents taking their children up to the front where the church would pray for them (for both the parents and the children). I also have no problem with the parents making a public vow to (essentially) do their job. In all honesty I think that the public marriage vows that a couple makes could probably include the future raising of children, and so there might not be a need for a couple to make public vows of parenting only when they become parents. Still, I see no issue with children being brought forth to be prayed for publicly before or after the worship service (which is what I have seen several churches also do regarding the sick and injured).
I guess my only disagreement is in calling it 'baby dedication'. It really is a dedication of the parents, and perhaps even more accurately it is just a 'praying over' of the parents and their new-born children. I definitely do not see the need for anyone to be receiving a certificate, since we typically don't give certificates to every single group of people that we pray for publicly. Just my two cents.
Last edited:
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
My church has the same practice as Loopies does. We call it a baby dedication because one element in the service is an explicit recognition that the baby ultimately belongs to God and not the parents.
- Status
