greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
One thing about baptism that really struck me when I was in seminary is its similarity to baby dedications that Baptists do. Contrary to much rhetoric from the paedo side, Baptists really do believe in bringing up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. I think that baby dedications prove that. I think that Baptists who dedicate their children actually have a deep-seated need to say something about the status of their children. They KNOW that their children are different from the world's children, and that they are different from pagans. Therefore, Baptists who dedicate their children may actually be much closer to paedo-baptism than they might think. Here are some parallels: both baptism and dedication acknowledge that God is a God to us and to our children; both baptism and dedication say that we want to include our children, not exclude them; both baptism and dedication involve the church in witnessing certain vows that the parents take; and both baptism and dedication give the children to the Lord.
The difference is that I don't believe there is any biblical warrant for infant dedication. The passage usually cited is when people bring their children to Jesus and He blesses them. But that was people bringing their children to Christ, not the church. It is not called a dedication there either, and there is no indication that this was supposed to be a regular principle of the church. It seems to be a one time occurrence. On the other hand, there seem to me to be indications that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of inclusion in the people of God. The continuity of the Abrahamic covenant with the New Covenant (a la Galatians 3) also seems to point in the direction of baptizing infants. And there are other arguments as well. The strongest one is definitely that of covenantal continuity in the administration of the covenant. What is the status of children? Are they in or out? If they are in, then why not give them the sign of being in?
The difference is that I don't believe there is any biblical warrant for infant dedication. The passage usually cited is when people bring their children to Jesus and He blesses them. But that was people bringing their children to Christ, not the church. It is not called a dedication there either, and there is no indication that this was supposed to be a regular principle of the church. It seems to be a one time occurrence. On the other hand, there seem to me to be indications that baptism replaces circumcision as the sign of inclusion in the people of God. The continuity of the Abrahamic covenant with the New Covenant (a la Galatians 3) also seems to point in the direction of baptizing infants. And there are other arguments as well. The strongest one is definitely that of covenantal continuity in the administration of the covenant. What is the status of children? Are they in or out? If they are in, then why not give them the sign of being in?