Dedication of Babies

[Raj]

In our set up, what I have seen and practiced is call the parents in the front, along with their new born. The pastor takes the child in his arms (congregation joins in prayer), thanks God for the life of the child, ask God to keep him safe and healthy as he/she grows. He then goes on to Ask God to bless the parents lives, and child's godly family atmosphere. No promises and vows made.

 

[bug]

I have never 'dedicated' a baby, I will however hold a thanksgiving service for a newborn child, and I will call upon the parents and church, reminding them of their duty to bring that child up in the admonition and fear of the Lord.

 

[JML]

I will however hold a thanksgiving service for a newborn child

What do you mean by "thanksgiving service"? A separate service from the usual or a part of the regular Lord's Day service?

 

[jwithnell]

if Samuel is the reason that you dedicate your infants, then you had better leave them at church

You have the voluntary OT thank offerings and the WCF recognition of particular times set apart for thanksgiving, so I'd have a hard time arguing against a thanksgiving service. As for dedication ceremonies, I love the above statement attributed to JI Packer: "dry baptism." It has seemed to me that parents understand that their children should be recognized as part of covenant community and had to invent a way to formalize it.

 

[Peairtach]

The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.

 

[bug]

I will however hold a thanksgiving service for a newborn child

What do you mean by "thanksgiving service"? A separate service from the usual or a part of the regular Lord's Day service?

My preference is seperate

---------- Post added at 07:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:41 PM ----------

The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.

How so? Before you answer though friend, one thing I have learnt is that within "the baptists" there are many different practices and beliefs in regards to almost anything - any blanket statement is always an over simplification. We are not a denomination, some of us associate with other like minded baptist congregation some are entirely independent.

 

[DMcFadden]

The reference to Baptists becoming Presbyterian is quite true for many groups.

In my former denomination (1.4 million), we had a standing judicatory committee on which I served for 31 years (17 or so as chair). We examined the written materials, psychological evals, and conducted oral ordination exams on each and every candidate prior to recommending that the church proceed with ordination. Over the years, this added up to around 500 candidates in our Pacific Southwest judicatory. If that isn't "presbyterian" (small p), I don't know what is.

In independent churches an ad hoc ordination council of local pastors is often called to examine a candidate. My eldest son pastors a large independent church where his ordination council included Baptists, Methodists, independents, and Pentecostals. They even invited me to come out from CA to take part in the IL examination.

 

[PaulMc]

Most reformed baptist churches in England that I have had connections with practice 'infant dedication' - the most well known would be Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.

 

[JM]

I'm not in favor of baby dedications but I personally find it more preferential than anything. When I think of baby dedications it is as extensive as parents with newborns being brought up front and being prayed for, that the parents would raise the child well and that the child would be converted. Is this the practice in question here as well, or is my understanding of "baby dedications" different?

That's the way I've seen it practiced. No vows.

 

[JP Wallace]

A comment about how this all somehow shows that Baptists have some kind of innate desire to recognise the covenant status of their children- could the baptist not argue in a similar way that presbyterians who require a credible profession for communicant membership are innately displaying their desire for regenerate membership?

In my opinion both arguments are weak and unprovable and therefore useless.

 

[Jack K]

It has seemed to me that parents understand that their children should be recognized as part of covenant community and had to invent a way to formalize it.

Exactly my thoughts. Of course, when I point this out to my Baptist pastor he'll say Presbyterians understand that kids should have to show faith and so we paedobaptists invented "professional of faith" or "confirmation" ceremonies to formalize it.

---------- Post added at 03:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------

A comment about how this all somehow shows that Baptists have some kind of innate desire to recognise the covenant status of their children- could the baptist not argue in a similar way that presbyterians who require a credible profession for communicant membership are innately displaying their desire for regenerate membership?

In my opinion both arguments are weak and unprovable and therefore useless.

Ah, I see you think like my pastor.

 

[JP Wallace]

Ah, I see you think like my pastor.

No I don't Jack, I think both arguments are petty and fallacious.

 

[Jack K]

Ah, I see you think like my pastor.

No I don't Jack, I think both arguments are petty and fallacious.

In the sense that when you hear the one argument, you think of the other... and recognize both to be the same sort of cheap shot.

Take the arguments as being made lightheartedly. The point of my post was that although I'd like to be able to discount Baptist practices this way, I actually understand the argument to be weak, miss the heart of the issue and fail to show the "other side" that you actually understand them. The easy Baptist comeback shows just how weak it is. And I suspect my Baptist pastor (who does baby dedications) would agree that the discussion needs to be much more substantive than these arguments.

 

[JP Wallace]

In the sense that when you hear the one argument, you think of the other... and recognize both to be the same sort of cheap shot.

Correct, both are playground arguments.

Some of us understand and respect covenant theology and paedobaptist theology, and indeed feel a tension that we do not conform to our historic roots. In addition we do believe our children are different in some sense. None of this draws us to dedications.

Dedications however are very widely practiced it seems by those who have little or no interest in any of these things. Is it likely that this is because of some latent guilt or something like that? I think not. Dedications it seems to me are practiced with virtually no theological or exegetical foundation. They show no connection at all to covenant theology.

In addition a common baptist argument against covenant baptism is that it is based on superstition. That to my mind is unfair at the best of times. In the context of the apparent widespread practice of infant dedications, it is a bad joke and hypocrisy of the highest order.

 

[Rom]

I've known YRR style Calvinistic Baptistic churches do them, but not sure I know of any Confessional ones that practice it. When our youngest daughter was born, we were new in the faith and had her dedicated. I really cannot see much of a difference between what we did in that Evangelical Church from an infant baptism - except for the Trinitarian formula and water being absent!

 

[DMcFadden]

Maybe I read the arguments differently . . .

Neither "argument" is a slam dunk. However, insofar as they paint with a broad brush, making observations in the general they seem true enough to me in that . . .

* Trying to come to terms with the covenant nature of children will either lead you to baptism or a substitute ceremony (i.e., infant dedication).

* Trying to come to terms with the biblical data on the importance of a credible confession of faith will lead you to either credo baptism or to confirmation.

As long as we still see through a glass darkly, we will find ourselves disagreeing on some of the details and implications of Biblical teaching. But, the psychological need for Biblically observant Christians to accommodate all of Scripture, even those verses that don't fit as obviously in our interpretative schema will continue to give rise to these kinds of "balancing" efforts.

Using these as na-na-na-na-na arguing points might be childish. Trying to understand why people who take the Bible seriously come up with some of their odd (in the minds of others) practices is pretty sensible . . . to me.

I take this kind of broad stroke taxonomy observation in the same category as the one that observes that when the empire was around, committed Christians often found episcopal government self-evident; when parliamentary democracy was on the rise, committed Christians sometimes gravitated to presbyterian government; and when society was promoting "democracy," we see a rise in congregational church polity. Another example of pedagogically helpful simplification is the Calvinist principle that "what is not commanded is prohibited" vs. the Lutheran principle that "what is not forbidden, is permitted." Maybe it is just my innate simplemindedness. But, I like these kinds of shorthand ways of comparing different systems of thought.

Certainly truth is much more complex, but that is the point. My pea brain needs handy ways to make complicated ideas more accessible and memorable. And, even a certified "smart guy" like J.I. Packer was known to quip that "infant dedication" is basically a "dry baptism." In my mind that is the same kind of harmless observation that carries a lot of truth.

 

[NHK1618]

a. I have never seen a baby dedication in a church of the Southern Baptist Convention. In my current church (and its wider denomination) that is charismatic, credobaptist, and somewhat Reformed; the Elders hold baby dedications regularly (a few times per year).
b. I cannot and will not make a case for baby dedication since I believe that those infants, being born of believing parents, are part of the Covenant and hence to be baptized instead of simply dedicated. Other infants, not born of believing parents, are not of the Covenant and are to be baptized only upon a credible profession of faith.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.

Interestingly enough, I have found that the practice of ordination is in serious decline. Many pastors today have never been ordained. Honestly it is just a piece of paper that you can buy at Lifeway.

 

[DMcFadden]

The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.

Interestingly enough, I have found that the practice of ordination is in serious decline. Many pastors today have never been ordained. Honestly it is just a piece of paper that you can buy at Lifeway.

One more example of the general baptistification of American religion. If we become any more egalitarian, maybe we can ape some of the sects and promote 4 and 5 year old kid "preachers." Dropping ordination is part of the the post-denominational landscape.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

The baptists also become Presbyterian in polity when they have an ordination.

Interestingly enough, I have found that the practice of ordination is in serious decline. Many pastors today have never been ordained. Honestly it is just a piece of paper that you can buy at Lifeway.

One more example of the general baptistification of American religion. If we become any more egalitarian, maybe we can ape some of the sects and promote 4 and 5 year old kid "preachers." Dropping ordination is part of the the post-denominational landscape.

Ordination was important back in the days when many pastors never attended seminary. This was a way of ensuring that this particular man was indeed called by God and had been tested and there were actual people who would testify to that fact. Now that churches expect their pastors to have at least a Masters degree from a seminary, this just seems less neccesary. Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing, but seems to be the way it is moving.

 

[cajunhillbilly53]

I attend a Baptist Church for now and it angers me when I see a baby dedication. I think to myself, though do not say it out loud, why are you refusing the sign and seal of God's covenant if you are dedicating your children to God? make no sense to me.

 

[FenderPriest]

For what it's worth, and it seems that I'm the only person to say this thus far in this thread, we dedicated our son. He wasn't baptized, nor was it a mock baptism, because the dedication was our recognition of the gift he was from the Lord and our solemn oath before the congregation to raise him in the fear and admonition of the Lord, in a home loving King Jesus, as well as an oath from the congregation to hold us accountable to this end. I haven't spoken up before now because the waters weren't too welcoming on the subject. I only comment here in light of McFadden's post. We are seeking to live under the rule of the Bible and be overtly grateful for the gifts of life our little ones are to us (especially in light of the culture of death we live in).

 

[KMK]

Over the years, this added up to around 500 candidates in our Pacific Southwest judicatory. If that isn't "presbyterian" (small p), I don't know what is.

Thanks in large part to your efforts, Dennis, Transformation Ministries has emerged from the dust a much more 'Baptist' association. My church is considering membership this summer.

----------------

Paul, I am surprised at your surprise. Baby dedications only scratch the surface of the a myriad of 'alien' practices in Baptist churches in America. How about altar calls, Super Bowl parties, divorce ceremonies, and prayer 'labyrinths'?

 

[JonathanHunt]

Most reformed baptist churches in England that I have had connections with practice 'infant dedication' - the most well known would be Metropolitan Tabernacle in London.

This is true.

 

[DMcFadden]

For what it's worth, and it seems that I'm the only person to say this thus far in this thread, we dedicated our son. He wasn't baptized, nor was it a mock baptism, because the dedication was our recognition of the gift he was from the Lord and our solemn oath before the congregation to raise him in the fear and admonition of the Lord, in a home loving King Jesus, as well as an oath from the congregation to hold us accountable to this end. I haven't spoken up before now because the waters weren't too welcoming on the subject. I only comment here in light of McFadden's post. We are seeking to live under the rule of the Bible and be overtly grateful for the gifts of life our little ones are to us (especially in light of the culture of death we live in).

Sorry I didn't make it explict. We dedicated all 5 of our children when I was a Baptist pastor. At this point of my theological pilgrimage, I would have them baptized if it were possible to get a "do over."

 

[glazer1972]

My daughter was dedicated as an infant. She was baptized later when she believed.

 

[lynnie]

We are in our third Calvinist baptist church in 33 years of marriage. They all do it.

I see it like Jesus being dedicated in the ceremony of the firstborn at the temple. Now, we who are in Christ are part of the church of the firstborn. ( Hebrews 12:23). So, the dedication is like saying your child is part of the church of the first born. It does seem more logical to just baptize them instead if you see it that way.