Evangelical Child Dedication Ceremony

[Jon_S_1]

I get what you’re saying. Simply put, evangelicals don’t believe that infant baptism is biblically sanctioned or justifiable. We get that from reading the Bible. It doesn’t matter how old the tradition is. We believe it is contrary to the true purpose and nature of baptism. Therefore, we will not practice it.

It doesn’t matter how young the tradition of infant dedication is. It is not a baptism, and therefore, it avoids the Scriptural contradictions that baptizing an infant creates. It proclaims Scriptural truths in the format of a church service or segment of a church service. It reminds the church of these Scriptural truths. It gives the church an opportunity to thank God. It gives the church an opportunity to pray for the child. This is what it does, and this is why evangelicals find nothing wrong with it.

I know your heart is for Christ, but do you not see the arrogance in this.

You are saying that you…you personally…have the divine inspiration and revelation to throw away 2000 year old tradition and create your own practices.

Thomas Aquinas…fool

Augustine…ignorant

Ignatius…piker

Really?!!

 

[ltwin]

I do not understand how you can hold this position and then claim that Catholic Traditions are not biblical (confession to a priest, baptism, and Eucharist) would be great examples. Catholics tirelessly show how these conform to the Word of God, and yet they are rejected by Protestants as “unbiblical”.

They may be an ancient “tradition”. But as long as it is a biblical ancient tradition it’s ok. We’re not Protestants. We don’t get hung up on tradition.

You can confess to a priest. The Bible says confess your sins one to another. Where Catholics err is when they make this into a sacrament that is required for someone to attain forgiveness for sins.

Baptism, as I’ve said, Catholics err because they go beyond what the Bible says about baptism. And the Eucharist is the same.

The problem is not having traditions. The problem is having traditions that go beyond biblical boundaries.

Once again, its not confession, baptism, or the Eucharist itself that are wrong. It’s what Catholics believe (from their tradition or their interpretation of the Bible) that is in error from the perspective of evangelicals. So, simply put, evangelicals read the Bible and do not see biblical justification for believing what Catholics believe about these practices.

Catholics disagree, of course. They insist that they are entirely biblical and its us who have departed from the Scriptures. And the controversy continues again and again. . . .

 

[Jon_S_1]

You can confess to a priest. The Bible says confess your sins one to another. Where Catholics err is when they make this into a sacrament that is required for someone to attain forgiveness for sins.

Baptism, as I’ve said, Catholics err because they go beyond what the Bible says about baptism. And the Eucharist is the same.

The problem is not having traditions. The problem is having traditions that go beyond biblical boundaries.

Once again, its not confession, baptism, or the Eucharist itself that are wrong. It’s what Catholics believe (from their tradition or their interpretation of the Bible) that is in error from the perspective of evangelicals. So, simply put, evangelicals read the Bible and do not see biblical justification for believing what Catholics believe about these practices.

Catholics disagree, of course. They insist that they are entirely biblical and its us who have departed from the Scriptures. And the controversy continues again and again. . . .

I wonder how much of Christian doctrine departed from the Bible in the 50 years or more while it was being written??

 

[ltwin]

I know your heart is for Christ, but do you not see the arrogance in this.

You are saying that you…you personally…have the divine inspiration and revelation to throw away 2000 year old tradition and create your own practices.

Thomas Aquinas…fool

Augustine…ignorant

Ignatius…piker

Really?!!

Nope, didn’t say anything like that. I did not single handedly think up infant dedication. And I’m sure Aquinas, Augustine, and Ignatius were much smarter than me. But intelligence is not infallibility.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Nope, didn’t say anything like that. I did not single handedly think up infant dedication. And I’m sure Aquinas, Augustine, and Ignatius were much smarter than me. But intelligence is not infallibility.

Yet someone, we don’t know who, but someone you follow at least. Did exactly that.

 

[ltwin]

Yet someone, we don’t know who, but someone you follow at least. Did exactly that.

Did what? The men you mentioned had not greater insight into God’s will than we do today. Their teachings are not above question. That doesn’t mean that they were stupid. It just means they are not above question.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Did what? The men you mentioned had not greater insight into God’s will than we do today. Their teachings are not above question. That doesn’t mean that they were stupid. It just means they are not above question.

What I am trying to show you is some unknown person said we should do child dedications and not baptisms. We don’t know who and we don’t know why, but it “seems” biblical so why not.

Them we know of people who wrote volumes on child baptism and the Bible who appealed to scripture tirelessly and we so easily dismiss them for some new teaching that is perhaps. “Easier” or “less miraculous” or “more rational”

It corresponds to my Evangelical teaching that God no longer performs miracles. It’s too irrational after all to believe in modem day miracles.

 

[Novocastrian]

I know that this is allowed in the Church of England, I think as a “Thanksgiving for the birth of a child”. Now, the Church of England does teach that *infants *should be baptised, but she also thinks it prudent to allow for a lesser thanksgiving and blessing for a child if

(1) the parents do not believe in infant baptism, and it seems like they have a choice between infant baptism and not bringing the child up in the church at all, and/or;

(2) one or both of the parents is not Christian.

In the modern world, mixed marriages do exist. Say an Anglican is married to a fundamentalist Baptist/ Jew/ Muslim; the Church teaches that baptism would be the right thing for their child, but that if they really can’t agree to that, it would still be good and proper to come to Church and thank God for the gift of a child.

The closest analogy of which I can think is the Orthodox Churches approach to divorce and remarriage. They say that divorce is a sin, but that it sometimes happens. They have lesser, penitential marriage services for those who have committed the sin of divorce, while recognising that imperfect laypeople (as opposed to those who have an higher responsibility, e.g. the clergy) should be treated gently if the alternative is turning away from Christ and his Church altogether. The maintain principle (so they would argue), but compromise with regard to practice.

 

[Country_Gal]

I know that this is allowed in the Church of England, I think as a “Thanksgiving for the birth of a child”. Now, the Church of England does teach that *infants *should be baptised, but she also thinks it prudent to allow for a lesser thanksgiving and blessing for a child if

(1) the parents do not believe in infant baptism, and it seems like they have a choice between infant baptism and not bringing the child up in the church at all, and/or;

(2) one or both of the parents is not Christian.

In the modern world, mixed marriages do exist. Say an Anglican is married to a fundamentalist Baptist/ Jew/ Muslim; the Church teaches that baptism would be the right thing for their child, but that if they really can’t agree to that, it would still be good and proper to come to Church and thank God for the gift of a child.

The closest analogy of which I can think is the Orthodox Churches approach to divorce and remarriage. They say that divorce is a sin, but that it sometimes happens. They have lesser, penitential marriage services for those who have committed the sin of divorce, while recognising that imperfect laypeople (as opposed to those who have an higher responsibility, e.g. the clergy) should be treated gently if the alternative is turning away from Christ and his Church altogether. The maintain principle (so they would argue), but compromise with regard to practice.

Very well said.

 

[ltwin]

What I am trying to show you is some unknown person said we should do child dedications and not baptisms. We don’t know who and we don’t know why, but it “seems” biblical so why not.

Them we know of people who wrote volumes on child baptism and the Bible who appealed to scripture tirelessly and we so easily dismiss them for some new teaching that is perhaps. “Easier” or “less miraculous” or “more rational”

It corresponds to my Evangelical teaching that God no longer performs miracles. It’s too irrational after all to believe in modem day miracles.

I’m Pentecostal, I’m irrational and I believe in the miraculous. It has nothing to do with denying the miraculous.

For example, during my baby dedication, my grandpa spontaneously prophesied over me and my twin brother.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

I. John the Baptist, was sent to prepare the way (Mark 1: -2-3)

How did the people co-operate with John in preparing the way for Jesus.

They confessed their sins and were baptised as a sign that they have turned
from there sins.

Matthew 3: (13-17) Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptised by him. John tried to prevent him, saying "I need to be baptised by you, and yet you are coming to me. Jesus said to him in reply "Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he allowed him. After Jesus was baptised he came up from the water and behold the heavens were opened for him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens saying. "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.

If you have a personal relationship as you claim you will do “As He did” be baptised.

 

[ltwin]

I. John the Baptist, was sent to prepare the way (Mark 1: -2-3)

How did the people co-operate with John in preparing the way for Jesus.

They confessed their sins and were baptised as a sign that they have turned
from there sins.

Matthew 3: (13-17) Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptised by him. John tried to prevent him, saying "I need to be baptised by you, and yet you are coming to me. Jesus said to him in reply "Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he allowed him. After Jesus was baptised he came up from the water and behold the heavens were opened for him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens saying. "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.

If you have a personal relationship as you claim you will do “As He did” be baptised.

OK . . . evangelicals do baptize believers who testify to faith in Christ. We just don’t baptize the infant children of believing parents.

We don’t disagree over whether there should be baptism. We disagree over what baptism means and who should be baptized.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I’m Pentecostal, I’m irrational and I believe in the miraculous. It has nothing to do with denying the miraculous.

For example, during my baby dedication, my grandpa spontaneously prophesied over me and my twin brother.

Then I hope you can at least admit that God is capable of:

Transubstantiation
Removing original sin at baptism
Having saints pray for us

Etc…

I also want to make it clear I think the child dedication is great, I hope it leads to a return to infant baptism.

I just see it as as much a tradition as anything catholic, albeit it with very scarce biblical evidence.

 

[ltwin]

Then I hope you can at least admit that God is capable of:

Transubstantiation
Removing original sin at baptism
Having saints pray for us

Etc…

Well, God can do anything. God’s capabilities are not the issue.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I am not sure if anyone watched the video link I put it. It is a service at saddleback. Rick Warrens church.

It appears actually more sacramental than my church used to do it.

We would introduce the child and then both the parents and congregation take vows.

I guess at this saddleback service they almost do a confirmation on the baby by anointing with oil using the Trinitarian formula.

I pray that we will as Christians of every denomination return to the sacramental nature of the early church more and more.

 

[Filioque]

You can confess to a priest. The Bible says confess your sins one to another. Where Catholics err is when they make this into a sacrament that is required for someone to attain forgiveness for sins.

Baptism, as I’ve said, Catholics err because they go beyond what the Bible says about baptism. And the Eucharist is the same.

The problem is not having traditions. The problem is having traditions that go beyond biblical boundaries.

Once again, its not confession, baptism, or the Eucharist itself that are wrong. It’s what Catholics believe (from their tradition or their interpretation of the Bible) that is in error from the perspective of evangelicals. So, simply put, evangelicals read the Bible and do not see biblical justification for believing what Catholics believe about these practices.

Catholics disagree, of course. They insist that they are entirely biblical and its us who have departed from the Scriptures. And the controversy continues again and again. . . .

Well sadly for your position the charges that the Catholic Church goes beyond the bible are just not true. What Pentecostalism and the other sects who rejected the full teaching of Christ and His Apostles what Protestants do is pick “Proof Texts” that seem to support the stance they have invented, and ignore any other text of the Bible that expands Christ’s teaching to it’s fullness. As to confessing our sins, The Bible is clear, only God has the authority to forgive sins. And what does God do? Well the second person of the trinity, Jesus tells the apostles after he lays hands and breathes on them, that those sins they forgive are forgiven and those they retain are retained. Either Jesus gave the Apostles that authority, using the same signs, (laying on of hands and breathing on the apostles) which God gave the Jews to transmit authority from one person to the next in contradiction to the Bible, or He shows us that the Authority He alone as God can give to individual men is His will. To save some typing read over these answers to the statements you have charged I’ve included the links below. (Don’t forget it is breaking a commandment to bare false witness. And to claim that the Catholic Church does something that it does not do is a blatant disregard of the Bible.) While the writings of the Early Fathers are themselves not infallible they do rely on two major supporting sources, first the Bible and secondly those things which have been passed down as oral tradition. (Oral tradition being very biblical as St. Paul teaches, that we hold to those traditions he has given either in letter or by word of mouth.) If you asked me, that makes the Catholic position quite biblical.

catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

catholic.com/tracts/confession

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

I know that this is allowed in the Church of England, I think as a “Thanksgiving for the birth of a child”. Now, the Church of England does teach that *infants *should be baptised, but she also thinks it prudent to allow for a lesser thanksgiving and blessing for a child if

(1) the parents do not believe in infant baptism, and it seems like they have a choice between infant baptism and not bringing the child up in the church at all, and/or;

(2) one or both of the parents is not Christian.

In the modern world, mixed marriages do exist. Say an Anglican is married to a fundamentalist Baptist/ Jew/ Muslim; the Church teaches that baptism would be the right thing for their child, but that if they really can’t agree to that, it would still be good and proper to come to Church and thank God for the gift of a child.

The closest analogy of which I can think is the Orthodox Churches approach to divorce and remarriage. They say that divorce is a sin, but that it sometimes happens. They have lesser, penitential marriage services for those who have committed the sin of divorce, while recognising that imperfect laypeople (as opposed to those who have an higher responsibility, e.g. the clergy) should be treated gently if the alternative is turning away from Christ and his Church altogether. The maintain principle (so they would argue), but compromise with regard to practice.

You sign yourself Catholic and Reformed, no such thing, your an Anglican (Church of England) the Catholic Church has never been reformed, its pre denominational , we are the originals. If you want to sign yourself Catholic become one.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the Pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry

Say what you mean, and mean what you say - I went to a Church of England school, brought up Jewish, and by the grace of God a Catholic. What joy being a Catholic has brought me, founded by Christ ( not Henry V111) and who died of syphillis because of his lust and immoral ways, six wives, mistresse, and the morals of an alley cat,

 

[Filioque]

You sign yourself Catholic and Reformed, no such thing, your an Anglican (Church of England) the Catholic Church has never been reformed, its pre denominational , we are the originals. If you want to sign yourself Catholic become one.

Say what you mean, and mean what you say - I went to a Church of England school, brought up Jewish, and by the grace of God a Catholic. What joy being a Catholic has brought me, founded by Christ

Well I sort of agree with you. The Dogmatic and Moral teachings of the Catholic Church are not and have never been in issues that needed reform. They have needed to be clarified when those who rejected or questioned them spread error.

With regard to reformation, the Catholic Church has as a corporate body and we as individuals do go through authentic reformation, which is abandoning sin and selishness and (re)forming ourselves unto Christ Jesus. As the Scriptures tell us, we are obedient to God and to those He has given us as leaders who hold the authority which Jesus gave the Apostles and their successors.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I went to one service once, and they were Presenting the staff kids to the lord, but the really think that is take my attention was when the 'pastor" states to the people: why don’t baptize kids, why? because we are not see that anywhere in the Bible, that was the Pastor reason for not Baptize a infant, i was like what? a least you explain that a little bit better, but i guess he is such a nice guy, funny and charismatic that people don’t even realize the poor argument.

One needs to watch out for pastors who are “nice, funny and charismatic” since they can use these things to sneak heresy without anyone noticing.