Baby Dedications?

[mellestad]

@OP: As a former Protestant: As far as I’m aware, baby dedications are a purely social thing. I never heard anyone say they were mandated by scripture, or compared to baptism. or anything like that.

I was under the impression there were understood to be a gesture, nothing more, or at most a ritualized prayer/blessing.

I have not read the rest of the thread though. There might be Protestant traditions that consider them some sort of mandated action that results in some supernatural result.

 

[frnate]

I have come to think of baby dedications as dry baptisms.
(I do this somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)

They don’t think baptism actually has any spiritual affect so the only way for it to mean anything for them is to wait to do it until the person being baptized is mature enough to understand what it is and what it means.

Pax,
++N

 

[crazzeto]

Hi all, I was wondering if someone could help (Protestants a plus)!

My girlfriend’s church (Pentecostal Charismatic-Kenneth Hagin types), do baby dedications and I was wondering where that is in Scripture? She couldn’t answer me when I asked her and it seems that they also pick godparents!!!

She was comparing it to Baptism (even though they do Baptisms later on for adults and teens). I told her it absolutely cannot be compared with Baptism, but I found it interesting that they do this. What is it, why do they do it, and where is it found in Scripture?

Thanks!

They get it from the Old Testament, when male children were presented in the Temple and circomcised (making them a part of the covenenant). I would suggest that modern Christian dedications are misguided, the point of the presentation in the temple, and especially circomcision was to make the child a part of the covenant. This is what baptism does, dedications do nothing, besides I suppose being a nice gesture.

So while it’s all very nice I suppose, it’s really not doing anything.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

I have come to think of baby dedications as dry baptisms.
(I do this somewhat tongue-in-cheek.)

LOL. And I would say that an infant baptism is nothing more than a wet baby dedication since it is faith in Christ, not the actual ritual of baptism itself that saves. IOW, I believe that once the church began to baptize unbelievers, that generation in turn begat another generation of unbelievers, baptized them, and so on and so on until we have come to the point that the number of baptized unbelievers in any given church may very well outnumber the number of baptized believers. I guess that’s the trade-off one has to tolerate once one goes down the road of baptizing infants.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

They get it from the Old Testament, when male children were presented in the Temple and circomcised (making them a part of the covenenant). I would suggest that modern Christian dedications are misguided, the point of the presentation in the temple, and especially circomcision was to make the child a part of the covenant. This is what baptism does, dedications do nothing, besides I suppose being a nice gesture.

So while it’s all very nice I suppose, it’s really not doing anything.

I think the OT would give a precedent for presenting one’s baby at to the congregation at church. But no one, as far as I know, argues that it is the baby dedication that makes one part of the New Covenant, so in that sense it’s not based on the OT. In most baby dedications I’ve seen the pastor take the baby and blesses it in imitation of Jesus who did the same. So that gives you a NT precedent. Be that as it may, it’s still a pious tradition and not something that has to be done. What’s also made perfectly clear in baby dedications is that the parents and congregation accept the responsibility to evangelize the child so that one day he/she may choose baptism for him/herself. I’ve never been to a baby dedication where the claim is made that the child becomes a Christian once he/she is dedicated.

 

[crazzeto]

LOL. And I would say that an infant baptism is nothing more than a wet baby dedication since it is faith in Christ, not the actual ritual of baptism itself that saves. IOW, I believe that once the church began to baptize unbelievers, that generation in turn begat another generation of unbelievers, baptized them, and so on and so on until we have come to the point that the number of baptized unbelievers in any given church may very well outnumber the number of baptized believers. I guess that’s the trade-off one has to tolerate once one goes down the road of baptizing infants.

drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=67&ch=3&l=21&f=s#x

Whereunto baptism being of the like form, now saveth you also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the examination of a good conscience towards God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=52&ch=6&l=4&f=s#x

For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.

drbo.org/x/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=5&l=19&f=s#x

[18] And behold, men brought in a bed a man, who had the palsy: and they sought means to bring him in, and to lay him before him. [19] And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in, because of the multitude, they went up upon the roof, and let him down through the tiles with his bed into the midst before Jesus. [20] Whose faith when he saw, he said: Man, thy sins are forgiven thee.

Peter, Paul and the Gospels all agree. Baptism now saves, because when we are baptised we are baptised into the death of Christ, so that we may surely rise with him. Moreover, we can be baptised when we are personally unable to make an assent to faith, when others faith is placed in Christ for us.

Though, as we grow and reach the age of reason we must make a personal assent of faith. Regardless, you can not divorous baptism from salvation. If you claim to make an personal assent to Christ, but yet you refuse baptism… Well that doesn’t sound like the obedience of faith Paul spent an entire letter to Rome on to me.

 

[ChristMySavior]

@OP: As a former Protestant: As far as I’m aware, baby dedications are a purely social thing. I never heard anyone say they were mandated by scripture, or compared to baptism. or anything like that.

I was under the impression there were understood to be a gesture, nothing more, or at most a ritualized prayer/blessing.

I have not read the rest of the thread though. There might be Protestant traditions that consider them some sort of mandated action that results in some supernatural result.

It probably is a social thing, but my argument is that Protestants love to point out all the Catholic traditions and say how they are unbiblical and stress the importance of their doctrine of sola scriptura. Therefore, they would have to prove that baby dedications are in the bible somewhere, which still has not been accurately portrayed by anyone besides presenting first-born males ONLY. My point is that even evangelicals follow tradition even though they love to attack it.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

It probably is a social thing, but my argument is that Protestants love to point out all the Catholic traditions and say how they are unbiblical and stress the importance of their doctrine of sola scriptura.

So your argument is basically, “our traditions are fine because you have them too?” Is that your view?

In any event, I’d take issue with the word “unbiblical.” What does that mean, exactly? Baby dedications aren’t “unbiblical” if all that is required is that we have a precedent for them. And we do: Not only are there the first-born presentations, but there is also Jesus’ blessing of the children. Both of those are “biblical” because we read about them in the Bible. What we don’t read in the Bible is anyone baptizing and infant. As I’ve said before, the Mormons actually have more support for baptisms for the dead than you have for infant baptism for at least their practice is explicitly mentioned in the Bible, although without approval (1 Cor. 15:29). But where are the baptisms for infants?

But if “unbiblical” really means “against the Bible,” then I think you could make the case that neither baby dedications nor infant baptisms are, strictly speaking, unbiblical because no where does the Bible forbid either practice.

Therefore, they would have to prove that baby dedications are in the bible somewhere, which still has not been accurately portrayed by anyone besides presenting first-born males ONLY. My point is that even evangelicals follow tradition even though they love to attack it.

All you’re doing is here is holding Protestants to a standard we don’t actually subscribe to. You might as well forbid the use of microphones and electric guitars because those aren’t mentioned in the Bible either. What you’re doing is arguing against a caricature of sola scriptura. You’re not advancing the discussion one bit. Strawmen arguments such as yours are simply divisive and uncharitable.

 

[ChristMySavior]

Miguel,

We can argue 'til the cows come home and go round and round 'til we’re blue in the face when it comes to infant baptism. You constantly are trying to prove that it wasn’t a practice among the Apostles (which you cannot). The early Church however, did practice infant baptism as we have the clear and substantial evidence from the early Church Fathers (and yes, you don’t need to reiterate the fact that they don’t specify the WHOLE Church, yet unfortunately, their writings are all we have). You create an unnecessary and unrealistic “hole” between the teaching of the Apostles and the early Church. I’m sure that you would and do deny the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist - body, blood, soul, and divinity - even though all the early Church fathers were unanimous on this subject. I’m almost positive that you would say that there is no proof that the Apostles taught this. We can say that about anything. The fact is, did the early Church magically come up with all these things on their own or abide to the oral tradition passed on by the Apostles?

Another clear division among Protestants (which you have just pointed out) is regarding Sola Scriptura. I have come across plenty of Protestants who do not have the same understanding of Sola Scriptura that you do. There are many that I’ve met that say unless it is in the bible explicitly, it doesn’t exist. So please don’t say that ALL Protestants have the same understanding you do. You tell me I’m divisive and uncharitable in my comments?? That’s funny. I have been quite charitable and absolutely non-divisive. Your arguments, while seemingly convincing, do not prove that infant baptism was not practiced by the Apostles. At the very least, I’m happy to say that the early Church Fathers have given us sufficient evidence whether you would like to accept it or not.

I wish you well, but considering that this conversation is not really getting anywhere, I feel that we have to agree to disagree. Hope your vacation went well, guess you came home early!

Blessings!

 

[mellestad]

It probably is a social thing, but my argument is that Protestants love to point out all the Catholic traditions and say how they are unbiblical and stress the importance of their doctrine of sola scriptura. Therefore, they would have to prove that baby dedications are in the bible somewhere, which still has not been accurately portrayed by anyone besides presenting first-born males ONLY. My point is that even evangelicals follow tradition even though they love to attack it.

Oh, I’m sure some of them do. Just not the one’s I am familiar with.

Cheers!

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristMySavior
It probably is a social thing, but my argument is that Protestants love to point out all the Catholic traditions and say how they are unbiblical and stress the importance of their doctrine of sola scriptura. Therefore, they would have to prove that baby dedications are in the bible somewhere, which still has not been accurately portrayed by anyone besides presenting first-born males ONLY. My point is that even evangelicals follow tradition even though they love to attack it.

Oh, I’m sure some of them do. Just not the one’s I am familiar with.

Cheers!

So we can say that the ones you are familiar with then follow the tradition of not following a tradition.

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

You constantly are trying to prove that it wasn’t a practice among the Apostles (which you cannot).

Either you’re not reading very carefully or I’m not being very clear. I’m not saying the practice isn’t apostolic. There isn’t enough evidence to go that far. I’m saying there’s not enough evidence to say it was. So now we turn to probabilities based on the evidence. I’m saying when you add it all up, most likely the practice of infant baptism is a post-apostolic practice. What I find both annoying and frankly dishonest is when people make categorical statements such as “the early church practiced infant baptism” without any qualifications whatsoever. It’s the apologetical equivalent of false advertising for one’s theological confession. If we, who profess Christ, don’t like this kind of tactic in the secular world, how much more should we despise it in the world of religious discourse. And yet it’s on almost every page on these forums.

 

[mellestad]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristMySavior
It probably is a social thing, but my argument is that Protestants love to point out all the Catholic traditions and say how they are unbiblical and stress the importance of their doctrine of sola scriptura. Therefore, they would have to prove that baby dedications are in the bible somewhere, which still has not been accurately portrayed by anyone besides presenting first-born males ONLY. My point is that even evangelicals follow tradition even though they love to attack it.

So we can say that the ones you are familiar with then follow the tradition of not following a tradition.

I wouldn’t put it that way. They still focus on tradition when they want to, they simply wouldn’t say everything that happens in a church must be based on tradition.

 

[ChristMySavior]

Either you’re not reading very carefully or I’m not being very clear. I’m not saying the practice isn’t apostolic. There isn’t enough evidence to go that far. I’m saying there’s not enough evidence to say it was. So now we turn to probabilities based on the evidence. I’m saying when you add it all up, most likely the practice of infant baptism is a post-apostolic practice. What I find both annoying and frankly dishonest is when people make categorical statements such as “the early church practiced infant baptism” without any qualifications whatsoever. It’s the apologetical equivalent of false advertising for one’s theological confession. If we, who profess Christ, don’t like this kind of tactic in the secular world, how much more should we despise it in the world of religious discourse. And yet it’s on almost every page on these forums.

Likewise there isn’t enough evidence to say it wasn’t. Your point however, is like an Atheist’s when wanting to disprove the existence of God. You CANNOT scientifically disprove God’s existence just like you, Miguel, cannot prove that infant baptism was not passed down, taught, and practiced by the Apostles.

 

[inkaneer]

Either you’re not reading very carefully or I’m not being very clear. I’m not saying the practice isn’t apostolic. There isn’t enough evidence to go that far. I’m saying there’s not enough evidence to say it was. So now we turn to probabilities based on the evidence. I’m saying when you add it all up, most likely the practice of infant baptism is a post-apostolic practice. What I find both annoying and frankly dishonest is when people make categorical statements such as “the early church practiced infant baptism” without any qualifications whatsoever. It’s the apologetical equivalent of false advertising for one’s theological confession. If we, who profess Christ, don’t like this kind of tactic in the secular world, how much more should we despise it in the world of religious discourse. And yet it’s on almost every page on these forums.

The evidence is there. Infant baptism was practiced in the early church and the testimony of early church writers is that the practice was apostolic in origin. It would be very difficult for any rational person to believe that the Apostles would not allow infants to be baptized after they were rebuked rather strongly by Jesus for preventing the children from being brought to him.

"15 Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them to him, saying, “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God.”
[Luke 18:15-16]

 

[Miguel_Sastre]

The evidence is there.

No, it’s not. Again, you have nothing before Tertullian that can tie the practice directly to the apostles and the earliest evidence you do have (in Tertullian) is tantamount to a denial of its validity. How you can be certain that the existence of a practice in North Africa circa 200 AD is therefore proof positive of a practice in Jerusalem at the time of the apostles? (Obviously you can’t be.) Therefore, in all probability, your confidence is probably based on your belief that Rome doesn’t err in matters of doctrine rather than the historical evidence, or else you’d be a little more cautious about what can be safely concluded.

It would be very difficult for any rational person to believe that the Apostles would not allow infants to be baptized after they were rebuked rather strongly by Jesus for preventing the children from being brought to him.

How can a passage in which there is no baptism at all, but rather a blessing (such as we see in a typical baby dedication) be the basis for an argument for infant baptism??? Besides, doesn’t the passage exhort us to let the children come to him? You’ve changed a text which talks about not hindering children from freely coming to Jesus to a rebuke of those who would actually allow their children to come to him on their own rather than baptizing without their consent. If anyone is obeying the letter and spirit of this passage it’s the credo-baptist, not the paedo-baptist. If you think it’s “rational” (your word above) to change the text from “don’t hinder children from coming to Jesus” to “don’t fail to bring your infant to the baptismal font,” then you have an entirely different concept of rationality than I do to say the least.