What is infant dedication and what does it mean

[ImaginaryDay2]

Let's assume (for now) that infant baptism is not supported by scripture, and, therefore, cannot be correct. Yet I have been a part of many churches that go through great pains to "dedicate" a child to the Lord, with the parents (and congregation) committing to bring up and nurture the child in the admonition of the Lord.
1) Where is the scripture (New Testament, please) supporting this?
2) Why is it necessary, while Credo-baptism can be "put off" until a convenient time for everyone concerned?
3) How is the intent any different than Paedo-baptism, just without the presence of water?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Let's assume (for now) that infant baptism is not supported by scripture, and, therefore, cannot be correct. Yet I have been a part of many churches that go through great pains to "dedicate" a child to the Lord, with the parents (and congregation) committing to bring up and nurture the child in the admonition of the Lord.
1) Where is the scripture (New Testament, please) supporting this?
2) Why is it necessary, while Credo-baptism can be "put off" until a convenient time for everyone concerned?
3) How is the intent any different than Paedo-baptism, just without the presence of water?

I never figured out what theology is behind dedications but if it is seen as a kind of 'dry baptism' for folk in meetings that do not approve of baptising babies then maybe that is sufficient explanation?

 

[Ruth]

I was babtized at 15 days old. I was then raised in the Catholic Church.

 

[visionary]

Maybe nowadays we need more dedicated parents to raising their children in the way they should go. By this ceremony, maybe they take the task more seriously. Not that it has any biblical basis.

 

[seekingsolace]

There is none.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Thanks for all the responses. I guess I meant this more as a rebuttal thread to the infant baptism thread. With all the scriptural reference there, it seems that there should be some for this practice as well. What I wondered is if anyone could show proof for parents standing in to represent the infant in dedication, while rejecting this same principle for baptism.

 

[psalms 91]

There is scripture to support parents dedicating their child but not in the New Testament but I am one who does not throw out the Old Testament and I believe Jesus when He said the law would not pass away and that He only fulfilled it.

 

[Josiah]

I remember quite a discussion of this at another site....

Luke 2:22 seems to be the verse these denominations use.... It's very odd because...

1. It doesn't say to do it. Only that Jesus' parents did it.
2. They insist it refers to a TRADITION never recorded in the Bible (odd coming from folks who condemn Tradition not mentioned in the Bible)
3. It's NEVER once mentioned that ANY Apostle or Christian ever did this (accept for Mary and Joseph) - so there is not the NT "example" that these folks mandate for customs and practices.
4. The same arguments they use against infant baptism or baptism not by immersion could be used against "Baby Dedication" but they seem blind to that.



My half cent.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Tallguy88]

I never understood it. It just seemed a way to do the same thing as infant Baptism, but still be able to say "we don't believe in infant Baptism."

 

[Hammster]

Let's assume (for now) that infant baptism is not supported by scripture, and, therefore, cannot be correct. Yet I have been a part of many churches that go through great pains to "dedicate" a child to the Lord, with the parents (and congregation) committing to bring up and nurture the child in the admonition of the Lord.
1) Where is the scripture (New Testament, please) supporting this?
2) Why is it necessary, while Credo-baptism can be "put off" until a convenient time for everyone concerned?
3) How is the intent any different than Paedo-baptism, just without the presence of water?

I'll say this. While there's no command to do it, there's also no command not to. That differs from baptism because we see in scripture that believers are to be baptized. So there's no correlation.

 

[Josiah]

I'll say this. While there's no command to do it, there's also no command not to.

AT LEAST as much can be said of infant baptism.

That differs from baptism because we see in scripture that believers are to be baptized. So there's no correlation.

Friend, there is no such verse: "Thou must baptize ONLY those who first believe." Nor: "Thou art forbidden from baptizing and teaching those under the age of X." You MIGHT argue that there is no clear mandate OR prohibition - but then you'd be insisting the same applies to infant baptism as to infant dedication.




- Josiah

 

[Hammster]

AT LEAST as much can be said of infant baptism.





Friend, there is no such verse: "Thou must baptize ONLY those who first believe." Nor: "Thou art forbidden from baptizing and teaching those under the age of X." You MIGHT argue that there is no clear mandate OR prohibition - but then you'd be insisting the same applies to infant baptism as to infant dedication.




- Josiah

True. It doesn't prohibit baptism of monkeys, unbelievers, or statues, either.

 

[Tigger]

True. It doesn't prohibit baptism of monkeys, unbelievers, or statues, either.

Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."

So are you saying that this verses is referring to monkeys, unbelievers, or states?

 

[Hammster]

Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you and your household."

So are you saying that this verses is referring to monkeys, unbelievers, or states?

No.

 

[Tigger]

No.

That's the opposite side of the same coin/question you asked so what's the difference?

 

[Hammster]

That's the opposite side of the same coin/question you asked so what's the difference?

I didn't ask a question.

 

[Tigger]

I didn't ask a question.

I know you replied to the question and I'm referring to your answer.

 

[Josiah]

AT LEAST as much can be said of infant baptism.



Friend, there is no such verse: "Thou must baptize ONLY those who first believe." Nor: "Thou art forbidden from baptizing and teaching those under the age of X." You MIGHT argue that there is no clear mandate OR prohibition - but then you'd be insisting the same applies to infant baptism as to infant dedication.




- Josiah


.

True. It doesn't prohibit baptism of monkeys, unbelievers, or statues, either.

Correct. There goes your "silence" argument FOR and AGAINST. IMO, you can't reject infant baptism BECAUSE Scripture doesn't mandate or prohibit such then turn around and defend infant dedication BECAUSE Scripture doesn't mandate or prohibit such.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

 

[Hammster]

Correct. There goes your "silence" argument FOR and AGAINST. IMO, you can't reject infant baptism BECAUSE Scripture doesn't mandate or prohibit such then turn around and defend infant dedication BECAUSE Scripture doesn't mandate or prohibit such.



Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

You are defensive about baptizing babies. I understand you, Catholics, and Presbyterians need to be. So be it. That's not what the thread is about (I don't think). So I addressed the OP.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

You are defensive about baptizing babies. I understand you, Catholics, and Presbyterians need to be. So be it. That's not what the thread is about (I don't think). So I addressed the OP.

It's not so much about being defensive (perhaps for some it is...), but more-so examining scriptural evidence. It seemed to me that baby dedication had all the same ritual about it that baptism did, except for the presence of water. Why not opt for the "full experience" (i.e. regeneration), and get the child baptised? If I had understood that my baptism as a child was sufficient, I never would have been baptised as an adult.