Child Dedication

[Me Died Blue]

Let's not let this become a baptism debate...

Originally posted by Puritanhead
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.

But would you likewise acknowledge that in your system, you cannot really have any grounded hope that the raising of them in that way is doing any good, any more than a simple Gospel presentation to a random person would on any given day? If not, read the thread I linked above.

Also, how would any of you answer Fred's question about the RPW?

 

[govols]

Originally posted by 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.

Acts 16:31 - 34
Acts 18:8

 

[govols]

Originally posted by 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.

Anyone know of one? I don't want to pay $4 for shipping of a $1.50 pamphlet. :bigsmile:
Is there an online copy anywhere?

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by govols]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Acts 16:31 - 34
Acts 18:8

Professions of faith baptisms, not *believers* baptisms.

Back on topic...

 

[govols]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Acts 16:31 - 34
Acts 18:8

Professions of faith baptisms, not *believers* baptisms.

Back on topic...

Geesh, you young gun, you weren't on topic to begin with.

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Also, how would any of you answer Fred's question about the RPW?

I don't know how to answer it, because I have such a hard time understanding the concept. I never know what is allowed and what is not. Is telling the congregation you intend to be a godly parent to your child wrong? Is the congregation laying hands and the pastor praying wrong? I don't understand.

 

[doulosChristou]

Originally posted by Rick Larson
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?

Nope.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by govols

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

Acts 16:31 - 34
Acts 18:8

Professions of faith baptisms, not *believers* baptisms.

Back on topic...

Geesh, you young gun, you weren't on topic to begin with.

I wasn't saying that *you* needed to get back on topic, I was saying that we *all* needed to get back on the topic, per the moderator's suggesstion, nay command, above this dialogue. Such a wise old man as yourself should surely be aware of the sin of assumptions and jumping to conclusions with others, most especially with other believers, knowing that it is always best to assume one meant no harm with words of which we are not immediately sure as to the nature of their context and intent upon our first reading.

 

[Philip A]

Originally posted by govols
Anyone know of one? I don't want to pay $4 for shipping of a $1.50 pamphlet. :bigsmile:
Is there an online copy anywhere?

NO, NO, NO, you are thinking about it all wrong! You need to get a hold of the $1.50 pamphlet, so you must order additional books in order to make the $4 shipping worthwhile!

(I am always looking for excuses to buy more books, I'd be all over this one!)

But sadly, no, it is not available online that I have found.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by Philip A]

 

[LadyFlynt]

Originally posted by 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.

No, I'm not...I'm just saying that baptists basically tried to "split" covenantal baptisms...kinda the "have your cake and eat it too thing". They don't want to baptize infants, but yet they still want SOME symbol of bringing them into the church community.

However, here is one major difference I see between dedications and covenant/household baptisms...In dedications, only the parents promise to be responsible to raise up the child in the knowledge of Christ---in covenantal/household baptisms, the ENTIRE congregation makes this same promise...the congregation participates in holding the child and family responsible. I've seen how this plays out in both arenas later in the child's young life...and there is a difference.

(sheesh, I'm starting to sound like a paedo-baptist! Hubby would be proud)

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
No, I'm not...I'm just saying that baptists basically tried to "split" covenantal baptisms...kinda the "have your cake and eat it too thing". They don't want to baptize infants, but yet they still want SOME symbol of bringing them into the church community.

...

Fair enough--- I really think that debates on baptism are like beating a dead horse. Sure, both sides can point to the three or four scholarly books from both sides of the fence... and say that ends the baptism debate, but does it really?


In person, I have been of the mindset to set people straight when they make straw men arguments whether it's naive baptists that I have heard that proclaim Presbyterians believe in baptismal regeneration... or a Methodist who scoffs at Baptists because they think "droves of water" can save them. I kind of get tired of it all-- the non-sense-- the misrepresentation-- and the dogmatism over it all. Both sides make implicit arguments to upheld their view of baptism and there is no explicit pronouncement that vindicates either Presbyterians or Baptists--

This baptism-dedication thread is worn out In my humble opinion... and it's been played like a broken record. I cannot help but to tell jokes when people start to dwell on it.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by Puritanhead]

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by LadyFlynt
However, here is one major difference I see between dedications and covenant/household baptisms...In dedications, only the parents promise to be responsible to raise up the child in the knowledge of Christ---in covenantal/household baptisms, the ENTIRE congregation makes this same promise...the congregation participates in holding the child and family responsible. I've seen how this plays out in both arenas later in the child's young life...and there is a difference.

Actually, in the Assemblies of God church in which I grew up, the dedications always included the same promise by the congregation. Is that not the norm that most current or former credobaptists here have observed in dedications?

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
Actually, in the Assemblies of God church in which I grew up, the dedications always included the same promise by the congregation. Is that not the norm that most current or former credobaptists here have observed in dedications?

Yes, the congregation is asked to help keep the parents accountable, to pray for them, etc.

[Edited on 4-27-2005 by Rick Larson]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Rick,
The error is when they try and force the idea and contrast it with what Hannah did w/ Samuel.

 

[LadyFlynt]

sorry...not where I've been (Methodist, IFB, and SB)

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by Scott Bushey
Rick,
The error is when they try and force the idea and contrast it with what Hannah did w/ Samuel.

I accept that as an error, but am not sure that the whole idea has to be thrown out because someone has the wrong application. I can see where things like dramas, CCM worship, Powerpoints and the ilk are a brazen violation of RPW, but I'm having a hard time seeing how having a congregation hold a family accountable to Ephesians 6:4 with some prayer involved is.

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by 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.

It is much more than that. We believe that baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant and represents induction into the Visible Church. I see you are a Baptist, so this would be a point of disagreement between us. I was once as you. Study the covenants. I don't think you will long remain a Baptist, if you do.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
...Study the covenants. I don't think you will long remain a Baptist, if you do.

I forget that circumcision somehow proves the vitality of infant baptism.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by Puritanhead
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.

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
But would you likewise acknowledge that in your system, you cannot really have any grounded hope that the raising of them in that way is doing any good, any more than a simple Gospel presentation to a random person would on any given day? ...

Uh-ugghhh Nooooooo-oh... we're just begging the question here.

 

[Puritanhead]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Professions of faith baptisms, not *believers* baptisms.

All needless semantic games... no where is the cliche "infant baptism," "profession of faith baptism," or "believer's baptism" found in the Bible... so it's all very trivial...

 

[BobVigneault]

All smugness aside, I understand your paedo arguments but I keep getting caught up on the close association of repentance and baptism in the NT.

I believe there is a covenant relationship between the visible church and it's children but that the sign of the covenant is the invisible Holy Spirit.

I was baptized as a baby by paedo-baptists into the church and kissed the bishops ring when I was 12 to confirm my place in the church. At 15 I renounced the RCC and was immersed in a tank in the Baptist church after giving a public profession of my faith. I guess I'm IN no matter what.

My two grown daughters were dedicated but never baptized and are now living in utter rebellion. Lord willing I will be having young children soon and this will be an issue I need to come to a conviction on. So far all I can see is that 'good and necessary consequence' does not guarantee 'orthodox consequence'.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Protestant paedo baptism is very different from RCC infant baptisms...the reason being that the Protestant don't view it as part of salvation, the RCC does. Protestant paedo/covenant/household baptisms are to show the children are part of the covenant community. The baptists don't believe you can be part of that community till you profess faith. However, if Israel was our example, then there were both believers and unbelievers in the community and you raised the child AS THOUGH they would have faith IN HOPES THAT they will have faith (did I state that right?). Just as ALL children were circumcised in the OT...that did not make them all spiritually Jewish.

 

[fredtgreco]

Moving to Baptism Forum

 

[BobVigneault]

In the dedications at our church the congregation would stand and recite the church convenant which committed us all to a covenantal non-saving relationship to the child.
It seemed sufficient and intrinsic arguements can be made from the scriptures. I'll see if I can find the text of the covenant.

 

[BobVigneault]

Found it:

Our Covenant
Having received salvation by the grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, we covenant:
* to keep the commandments of God, sustained in the faith of Jesus Christ.
* to meet for worship on the Sabbath and to support the program of the church.
* to give in service to God a fair proportion of our time, abilities, and material possessions in the belief that these are given to us as a trust from God.
* to watch over each other for good and to pray for each other to the intent that we may grow in wisdom and spiritual understanding.

 

[heartoflesh]

Let's leave the baptism debate for the baptism forum, shall we? (oops, Fred beat me!!)

What about child dedication? How does this conflict with RPW?

Consider my previous quote:

....I can see where things like dramas, CCM worship, Powerpoints and the ilk are a brazen violation of RPW, but I'm having a hard time seeing how having a congregation hold a family accountable to Ephesians 6:4 with some prayer involved is.

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by Rick Larson]

 

[kevin.carroll]

Originally posted by Puritanhead

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
...Study the covenants. I don't think you will long remain a Baptist, if you do.

I forget that circumcision somehow proves the vitality of infant baptism.

I know you thought you just scored a point, but in your levity you accurately stated my position (although I probably would NOT have used the word "vitality.")

Consider the following:

1. Baptism is the sign and seal of the New Covenant, of which children are a part. Consider the teaching of Paul in Romans 4 and 6 and Galatians 3. The Bible clearly teaches continuity and correspondence between the Old and New Covenants and their signs.

2. Notice that children were included in the covenant with their parents under the Old Covenant in Genesis 17. Ishmael received the sign of the covenant along with Abraham and his whole household.

3. Have you ever read Col. 2:11-12? This is perhaps the most explicit statement in all of Scripture that is not only the New Covenant sign and seal but a direct correspondent to circumcision.

4. Consider the milieu of Acts 2. Who were all the converts that day? Jews. Jews expected their children to receive the sign and seal of the covenant. IPeter clearly makes reference to Joel 2, casting the events of Pentecost as the inaugural event of the New Covenant. If Peter had forbad the converts from giving the sign of the New Covenant to their children ( and they would have expected it!), one is forced to wonder why no explanation was offered as to why they could not. One is forced to conclude that no such restriction was laid down.

To bring this reply back on thread, I would say Baptists want so badly to have some outward symbol of their faith in God's grace towards their children, that they have manufactured "dedications" out of thin air. It is, as Schaeffer says, a waterless baptism.

 

[BobVigneault]

The RWP is a shovel that can be used to cultivate a fertile soil where true worship can grow and thrive, it can also be used to cut, separate and tyrannize fellow workmen. I am a supporter of the RWP as a tool for worship but it didn't come with very precise instructions on how to use it.

I firmly believe a dedication service may be performed in a manner that glorifies God and does not rob the service of true worship. In the strictest sense, it's not biblical but neither is the pew I sat in, the number of hymns selected, the order of events in the service, the color of the carpet in the sanctuary but it was vacuumed which I believe was more God honoring than had it been dirty.

 

[heartoflesh]

Originally posted by kevin.carroll
....I would say Baptists want so badly to have some outward symbol of their faith in God's grace towards their children, that they have manufactured "dedications" out of thin air. It is, as Schaeffer says, a waterless baptism.

This is merely an accusation of motives, and ultimately not helpful. I can see where this is a meaningless question for Paedos. To steal an analogy from Fred--- it's like asking Phil Jackson what he thinks his chances are of his team getting to the Super Bowl.

So, what do you Credos out there think?

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Originally posted by maxdetail
All smugness aside, I understand your paedo arguments but I keep getting caught up on the close association of repentance and baptism in the NT.

There is a close associate of repentance and circumcision in the OT, dear one!

Repentance and Forgiveness
Deut 30:1 "œAnd when all these things come upon you, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before you, and you call them to mind among all the nations where the Lord your God has driven you, 2 and return to the Lord your God, you and your children, and obey his voice in all that I command you today, with all your heart and with all your soul, 3 then the Lord your God will restore your fortunes and have compassion on you, and he will gather you again from all the peoples where the Lord your God has scattered you. 4 If your outcasts are in the uttermost parts of heaven, from there the Lord your God will gather you, and from there he will take you. 5 And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, that you may possess it. And he will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 6 And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live.

I believe there is a covenant relationship between the visible church and it's children but that the sign of the covenant is the invisible Holy Spirit.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants.

Isaiah 59:21 "œAnd as for me, this is my covenant with them," says the Lord: "œMy Spirit that is upon you, and my words that I have put in your mouth, shall not depart out of your mouth, or out of the mouth of your offspring, or out of the mouth of your children's offspring," says the Lord, "œfrom this time forth and forevermore."

Even the Holy Spirit is covenantally promised to offspring. So, to recap, we have your ideas, in opposition to paedobaptism, of:

1. Baptism ties-in closely with repentance
- Circumcision ties-in closely with repentance

2. Holy Spirit is the sign of the covenant
- The Holy Spirit is promised to the offspring of the covenantally faithful

Looks like everything lines up to me. Just thought I'd give you something to think about, unless you have already, then I apologize. Grace and peace!

[Edited on 4-28-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]