Child Dedication

[heartoflesh]

I wasn't sure what section to place this in, so please feel free to move it.

Our church does child dedication, and we have a newborn that we'll be dedicating sometime this year. I have a couple of questions about this.

Is there a Biblical mandate for this?

Is there any connection between dedication and covenant children?

 

[LadyFlynt]

From our studies (and I admit that my knowledge is limited) there is no biblical basis for it, in a sense. Hannah "dedicated" Samuel...that is what Baptists use...but it's not the same. From what I've been told, Baptists use "dedications" as a means of replacing the dedication part of paedobaptism without the water since they hold to believer's baptism (hubby and I were raised baptist)

 

[Scott Bushey]

....and, Hannahs son was circumcised on the 8th day, i.e. the sign was faithfully placed (as it should be today).

So, ultimately, the dedication is no less a slap in the face of God. in my opinion, it places a larger condemnation upon the child.

[Edited on 4-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
....and, Hannahs son was circumcised on the 8th day, i.e. the sign was faithfully placed (as it should be today).

So, ultimately, the dedication is no less a slap in the face of God. in my opinion, it places a larger condemnation upon the child.

[Edited on 4-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

So I shouldn't do it?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Rick Larson

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
....and, Hannahs son was circumcised on the 8th day, i.e. the sign was faithfully placed (as it should be today).

So, ultimately, the dedication is no less a slap in the face of God. in my opinion, it places a larger condemnation upon the child.

[Edited on 4-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

So I shouldn't do it?

I wouldn't; God didn't command it, did He? And for the record, being a literalist, one would have to abandon their child to the priest/pastor, as Hannah did!

[Edited on 4-26-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by Rick Larson
So I shouldn't do it?

Check out Richard Barcellos' pamphlet Baby Dedications Ancient and Modern. He is a confessional Reformed Baptist who argues against it. The pamphlet is available from CVBBS.

 

[heartoflesh]

thanks

 

[fredtgreco]

I agree with Philip. Barcellos is a very sound Baptist source!

Do you know what they call baby dedications?














Dry baptisms!

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Sneak a bottle of water into the service with you and make it a real dedication! :bigsmile:

 

[Presbyrino]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
And for the record, being a literalist, one would have to abandon their child to the priest/pastor, as Hannah did!

Also, no record of an infant dedication in the NT.

This is something that always confused me about my old, dispensationalist, church (Calvary Chapel), that performed baby dedications. They always cited the passage in 1 Samuel as support for the practice of infant dedications. But according to their interpretation scheme, the infant "dedication" of Samuel occured under the old dispenstaion of Law and should technically have no place in the age of Grace.

 

[govols]

Originally posted by Philip A

Originally posted by Rick Larson
So I shouldn't do it?

Check out Richard Barcellos' pamphlet Baby Dedications Ancient and Modern. He is a confessional Reformed Baptist who argues against it. The pamphlet is available from CVBBS.

Is there an online copy anywhere?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by sntijerina

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
And for the record, being a literalist, one would have to abandon their child to the priest/pastor, as Hannah did!

Also, no record of an infant dedication in the NT.

This is something that always confused me about my old, dispensationalist, church (Calvary Chapel), that performed baby dedications. They always cited the passage in 1 Samuel as support for the practice of infant dedications. But according to their interpretation scheme, the infant "dedication" of Samuel occured under the old dispenstaion of Law and should technically have no place in the age of Grace.

Steve,
Not trying to hijack the thread, but could you expound upon how you believe the law has 'no place' in the church today?

Have I misinterpreted what you said? If so, please forgive me.

 

[BobVigneault]

Also, no record of an infant dedication in the NT.

And in all due respect, no record of an infant baptism in the NT. (Writing for the minority.)

 

[Presbyrino]

Originally posted by Contra_Mundum
Scott,
Steve's talking about Calvary Chapel beliefs there...

Sorry, I wasn't clear, but I was reffering to Calvary Chapel/Dispensationlists beliefs.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Scott,
Steve's talking about Calvary Chapel beliefs there...

Bob,
You well know that we will argue that "household baptisms" quite properly assume an OT covenant theological background. "Household" has to be redefined under credo- presuppositions to exclude infants.

 

[BobVigneault]

You well know that we...... assume

Yes, I am well aware that the arguments for paedo-baptism are grounded in the doctrine of 'assuma scriptura'.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Oh ho!
2 can play that game, Mr. Credo-Redefinitas!

 

[heartoflesh]

At our church the baby dedication encompasses the following:

1) Introducing the child to the congregation

2) The parents vow to raise the child in a godly fashion, read them the Word of God, bring them to church, etc.

3) The congregation gathers around the family, lays hands on them, and the pastor prays for them.

What specifically is in error about any of this?

 

[govols]

Maybe it would be better to name it "A vow of godly rearin"?

My church does the same thing.

My church has no mandate in doing this though or do they believe that Bible dictates it as so.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by govols]

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by govols
Maybe it would be better to name it "A vow of godly rearin"?

My church does the same thing.

My church has no mandate in doing this though or do they believe that Bible dictates it as so.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by govols]

Right-- it's more of a "parental duty confirmation" than anything else. My pastor has brought up the Samuel thing, which I feel is an attempt to present it as a Biblical mandate. I find this is unneccessary. Why not just quote Ephesians 6:4?

 

[fredtgreco]

Two questions:

Is it an option? If so, why?

Is it in line with the RPW?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Rick Larson
At our church the baby dedication encompasses the following:

1) Introducing the child to the congregation

2) The parents vow to raise the child in a godly fashion, read them the Word of God, bring them to church, etc.

3) The congregation gathers around the family, lays hands on them, and the pastor prays for them.

What specifically is in error about any of this?

It's not biblical...............

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey

Originally posted by Rick Larson
At our church the baby dedication encompasses the following:

1) Introducing the child to the congregation

2) The parents vow to raise the child in a godly fashion, read them the Word of God, bring them to church, etc.

3) The congregation gathers around the family, lays hands on them, and the pastor prays for them.

What specifically is in error about any of this?

It's not biblical...............

That's a little vague.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Rick, one of the main problems and inconsistencies I see in it I explained throughout this thread.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
Is it in line with the RPW?

Good point.

 

[Puritanhead]

I\'m still a believer in \"Believer\'s Baptism\"

Originally posted by sntijerina
Also, no record of an infant dedication in the NT.

In fairness, there is no explicit record of infant baptism in the NT either. Paedobaptists make the inference largely based on the Roman soldier mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles who had his whole family baptized. As I Reformed Baptist, who was raised a Congregationalist (which also held to believer's baptism), I will readily admit I have heard some extremely asinine and absurd arguments, some profoundly Arminian, for believer's baptism. Nonetheless, the case for infant baptism has never has watertight as Presbyterians make it out to be. Our Lord Jesus Christ didn't get an infant baptism did he? That's right... he was baptized by submersion in the river Jordan and at a pretty ripe age. Even if I were to ever accept the proposition of infant baptism, I could never accept there is some inherent wrong in believer's baptism as so many Presbyterians would have me believe.


A Baptist and a Congregationalist were driving to a picnic one summer and saw all these kids running around in the sprinkler. The Baptist said, "Sheesh! Those kids have a pool in the backyard for crying out loud! What's wrong with them?" The Congregationalist replied, "I think their family belongs to one of those hydrophobic denominations..." The Baptist inquired, "Are they Methodists?" The Congregationalist replied, "Nah... they're Presbyterians."


Now, if only my Reformed Baptist church would use real "Communion Wine"-- we would get it all right.
:bigsmile:

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by Puritanhead]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

And in all due respect, no record of an infant baptism in the NT. (Writing for the minority.)

There's no examples of believer's-only baptism in the NT, either.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
From our studies (and I admit that my knowledge is limited) there is no biblical basis for it, in a sense. Hannah "dedicated" Samuel...that is what Baptists use...but it's not the same. From what I've been told, Baptists use "dedications" as a means of replacing the dedication part of paedobaptism without the water since they hold to believer's baptism (hubby and I were raised baptist)

Schaeffer calls them waterless baptisms!

 

[turmeric]

Jesus was baptized AND circumcised! Hmmm...!

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by govols
Maybe it would be better to name it "A vow of godly rearin"?

My church does the same thing.

My church has no mandate in doing this though or do they believe that Bible dictates it as so.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by govols]

We do to. See BCO 56-5. Of course we baptize them first.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
From our studies (and I admit that my knowledge is limited) there is no biblical basis for it, in a sense. Hannah "dedicated" Samuel...that is what Baptists use...but it's not the same. From what I've been told, Baptists use "dedications" as a means of replacing the dedication part of paedobaptism without the water since they hold to believer's baptism (hubby and I were raised baptist)

Schaeffer calls them waterless baptisms!

You guys act as though-- we negate the baptism ordinance altogether the way you talk. So called dedication whether declared in front of a congregation or between God and man in private, is nothing more than a family expressing its commitment to raise a child "in fear and admonition of the Lord." If you want to hold people in fault for that... than so be it.