What is infant dedication and what does it mean

[Hammster]

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.

It wasn't sufficient. But again, I didn't know you wanted to have a thread about infant baptism. If so, I will leave you to it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

It wasn't sufficient. But again, I didn't know you wanted to have a thread about infant baptism. If so, I will leave you to it.

If it is baptism in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit then it is sufficient.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

It wasn't sufficient.

But in all other things (for the Christian) God's grace is? Otherwise, God failed somewhere along the line for the child who was dedicated.

 

[tango]

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've always seen infant dedication as merely acknowledging that the child is a gift from God and promising to treat them as such. The church promises to support the parents in praying for the child and raising them to fear God.

I don't see Scripture that specifically says we must do this, but neither do I see Scripture that says we must not. Since Scripture is silent I don't see any particular compunction to act one way or the other, so would argue that it's for parents to decide whether to dedicate their child and for individuals to decide whether to take part in the assorted promises made by the congregation. (I think that answers both 1 and 2)

As for the intent, my understanding is that some denominations teach that a child is saved purely by the act of having water sprinkled on them. That's the bit I struggle with - if someone can be saved by something that is done to them without their consent it seems to bypass the whole "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord" concept because the child sprinkled with water would not need to do any such thing if the mere act of sprinkling saved them. On that basis the intent is potentially very different - the acknowledgement that God has provided the gift of a child and promising to nurture and protect that gift is very different to the desire to somehow tie the child to a God they may grow up to reject. That said it's an interesting question, and I imagine the intent will vary from one set of parents to another.

 

[Josiah]

I've always seen infant dedication as merely acknowledging that the child is a gift from God and promising to treat them as such. The church promises to support the parents in praying for the child and raising them to fear God.

I don't see Scripture that specifically says we must do this, but neither do I see Scripture that says we must not. Since Scripture is silent I don't see any particular compunction to act one way or the other, so would argue that it's for parents to decide whether to dedicate their child and for individuals to decide whether to take part in the assorted promises made by the congregation. (I think that answers both 1 and 2)

Understood..... IF "Evangelical" and "Anabaptist" Christians agreed with you, they would have a NEUTRAL position on Infant Baptism, stressing that since Scripture is silent - neither commanding or forbidding this PRACTICE - it is permitted. But they don't. Paedo-baptism "Evangelicals" and "Anabaptists" REJECT and repudiate the practice (indeed, THAT insistence was the foundation of the Anabaptist and modern Baptist movements), that we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of "X" (that age never revealed).

As for the intent, my understanding is that some denominations teach that a child is saved purely by the act of having water sprinkled on them.

I know of no such denominations. Lutheranism specifically rejects that.

What IS the view of probably 80% of Christians (it was 100% before the Anabaptist movement in the late 16th Century) is that Baptism is a "means of grace". In itself, completely benign (just water) BUT that it is a "tool" of the Holy Spirit (or as Lutherans at times say, "a tool in the hands of the Carpenter") which God may use to extend His grace and the gift of faith. This of course is contraversal now - in these past 500 years or so - and I have no intent to enter into that debate. BUT the point is NOT that Baptism does anything per se (except get someone wet) but rather that God works through such..... similarly, a Billy Graham evangelism sermon is just words, waves created in the air which our sense of hearing translates into electronic impulses. BUT God can use those waves and impulses to do HIS will. God CAN create faith "immediately" (without means) with NO words, NO pictures, NO NOTHING - just put faith into a heart (God can do WHATEVER He wants!!!!) but as far as anyone knows, He never does - He always works via MEANS - the means itself being entirely powerless and benigh BUT in the hands of God - powerful and able to do what God intends. Again, whether BAPTISM is such a tool became a point of debate 500 years ago as the Anabaptists challenged that view.... it is beyond the scope of this tread to discuss whether such is the case.



Thank you!!


Pax


- Josiah

 

[seekingsolace]

But in all other things (for the Christian) God's grace is? Otherwise, God failed somewhere along the line for the child who was dedicated.

I am not understanding your thought process. If Gods grace is sufficient for all, dedication is not necessary. No requirement leaves no failure on Gods part, only human error.

 

[seekingsolace]

Understood..... IF "Evangelical" and "Anabaptist" Christians agreed with you, they would have a NEUTRAL position on Infant Baptism, stressing that since Scripture is silent - neither commanding or forbidding this PRACTICE - it is permitted. But they don't. Paedo-baptism "Evangelicals" and "Anabaptists" REJECT and repudiate the practice (indeed, THAT insistence was the foundation of the Anabaptist and modern Baptist movements), that we are forbidden to baptize those under the age of "X" (that age never revealed).

That's a generalization. Where the Scriptures are silent comes individual discernment. As we know, doctrines have arisen precisely because the Scriptures are silent on certain matters. When certain man-made traditions and philosophy are used after the rudiments of the world, and not Christ, then heated disputes will arise. if they had not arisen, yes people would likely have the suggested neutral stance.

At times we need to make a stand for or against, rather than be lukewarm in our faith.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

That's a generalization. Where the Scriptures are silent comes individual discernment. As we know, doctrines have arisen precisely because the Scriptures are silent on certain matters. When certain man-made traditions and philosophy are used after the rudiments of the world, and not Christ, then heated disputes will arise. if they had not arisen, yes people would likely have the suggested neutral stance.

At times we need to make a stand for or against, rather than be lukewarm in our faith.

The problem here is that you make a stand for "individual discernment" then against "man-made traditions and philosophy...after the rudiments of the world, and not Christ". Taking a stand "for or against" requires abandoning "individual discernment" in matters of faith, or any other matter.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

I am not understanding your thought process. If Gods grace is sufficient for all, dedication is not necessary. No requirement leaves no failure on Gods part, only human error.

My quote was in response to a suggestion that my baptism as an infant wasn't sufficient as an act of God's grace (which is nonsense), requiring me to be re-baptized as an adult. My point was that, if this is true, then neither is God acting in any manner in infant dedication.

 

[seekingsolace]

My quote was in response to a suggestion that my baptism as an infant wasn't sufficient as an act of God's grace (which is nonsense), requiring me to be re-baptized as an adult. My point was that, if this is true, then neither is God acting in any manner in infant dedication.

God's grace is a separate issue. As we know, God (in His grace) can work in all areas of life, yet we also have a responsibility to follow His word. The logic you are using isn't without error. A child may not make it to adulthood, so of course they cannot participate in an act of confirmation (at an age of reason) - which does not exclude Gods grace. When a child does reach adulthood, is it unfair to say they need to make a decision (of their own accord) in obedience to the Gospel? Which, to me has been the Biblical example set; one of personal intent.

 

[seekingsolace]

The problem here is that you make a stand for "individual discernment" then against "man-made traditions and philosophy...after the rudiments of the world, and not Christ". Taking a stand "for or against" requires abandoning "individual discernment" in matters of faith, or any other matter.

Will you reword that please. I don't understand the post.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Will you reword that please. I don't understand the post.

You can't have "individual discernment" and take a stand "for or against" something at the same time. That requires being informed about something by someone else. It's not individual discernment anymore, and you can't throw around the "man-made traditions..." line when you do take a stand.

 

[seekingsolace]

You can't have "individual discernment" and take a stand "for or against" something at the same time. That requires being informed about something by someone else. It's not individual discernment anymore, and you can't throw around the "man-made traditions..." line when you do take a stand.

Edit: I wrote out a response. But honestly, I can't be bothered to argue.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Edit: I wrote out a response. But honestly, I can't be bothered to argue.

Okay. No hard feelings!

 

[seekingsolace]

Okay. No hard feelings!

Is nothing against you. Thank you for the understanding.

 

[Josiah]

Side comment.....

I have been a part of inter-denominational discussion forums since I was 10 years old. I have WAY, WAY too many posts at at least 20 different websites (primarily 5), tens of thousands. I've been on staff (including training and supervising mods). And yes - there are JERKS at nearly all of them and SADLY rules and actions are NEEDED for them. But they are few..... usually very few. MOST posters are good people.... Christians. A bit too passionate at times, a bit too quick to hit the "post" icon, maybe conveying things online they would not in person. We ALL (me above all) need a bit of loving, Christian admonition and reminders. HOW this is done is often more inportant than IF it's done; a spirit of humility and love and helpfulness are KEY (things I always tried to remember when on staff, and always stressed when training staff).... often HOW admonition is given is more important than IF it is given..... the spirit of such matters more than the wording of rules. MOST of the time, properly approached, Christians admit their error and TRY to do better..... often they will edit what they posted voluntarily.... often they will apologize.

And - while not NEARLY as important as attitude/spirit - process matters. Matthew 18:15ff should be memorized by all before allowed to post, lol. ALL this can be done PRIVATELY, with PM's, without involving the staff or the community, and I think it better when so done. MOST of the time, this works. Nearly always when JERKS are not involved. I TRIED (with all my heart and energy) to convey this at CF when I was there but the power-politics, the WAR, the obsession with power and control and lordship there, made this concept not only impossible but passionately objectable.

"It is good when brothers dwell in unity." "Do not let the sun go down on your anger." "Be ministers of reconciliation." I've actually found this HAPPENS, this WORKS.... even amongst spirited, passionate posters. And I always rejoice in it. And when I witness it, I'm powerfully reminded that this must be MY vocation, too..... when emotions overwhelm me, when I'm offended and when I offend. Lessons taught.... and hopefully learned.


Sorry....


Pax


- Josiah

 

[J. M. Spader]

It sounds much like infant baptism.

Personally I don't really see the need for it and like another member pointed out, despite no explicit or implicit commandment to NOT baptise infants, I don't see that as free reign to carry on, obscurely I may add, old covenant traditions.

Again, as the same member pointed out; we are to baptise believers. Babies cannot be believers.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Side comment.....

I have been a part of inter-denominational discussion forums since I was 10 years old. I have WAY, WAY too many posts at at least 20 different websites (primarily 5), tens of thousands. I've been on staff (including training and supervising mods). And yes - there are JERKS at nearly all of them and SADLY rules and actions are NEEDED for them. But they are few..... usually very few. MOST posters are good people.... Christians. A bit too passionate at times, a bit too quick to hit the "post" icon, maybe conveying things online they would not in person. We ALL (me above all) need a bit of loving, Christian admonition and reminders. HOW this is done is often more inportant than IF it's done; a spirit of humility and love and helpfulness are KEY (things I always tried to remember when on staff, and always stressed when training staff).... often HOW admonition is given is more important than IF it is given..... the spirit of such matters more than the wording of rules. MOST of the time, properly approached, Christians admit their error and TRY to do better..... often they will edit what they posted voluntarily.... often they will apologize.

And - while not NEARLY as important as attitude/spirit - process matters. Matthew 18:15ff should be memorized by all before allowed to post, lol. ALL this can be done PRIVATELY, with PM's, without involving the staff or the community, and I think it better when so done. MOST of the time, this works. Nearly always when JERKS are not involved. I TRIED (with all my heart and energy) to convey this at CF when I was there but the power-politics, the WAR, the obsession with power and control and lordship there, made this concept not only impossible but passionately objectable.

"It is good when brothers dwell in unity." "Do not let the sun go down on your anger." "Be ministers of reconciliation." I've actually found this HAPPENS, this WORKS.... even amongst spirited, passionate posters. And I always rejoice in it. And when I witness it, I'm powerfully reminded that this must be MY vocation, too..... when emotions overwhelm me, when I'm offended and when I offend. Lessons taught.... and hopefully learned.

Sorry....
Pax
- Josiah

Loving is not always easy to receive or to give and language can be very sharp (or blunt but in a different sense) inflicting wounds even when not intended and the pointy end of words have barbs in them so their wounds are not easily cleaned and healed so choosing words matters. I was going to say something about past experiences and how they may colour one's vocabulary and diction but I am sure we both know it already. I'd like to be friends with you or at least have friendly relations with you but so far I have failed in that endeavour. Perhaps we can try again?

 

[Lamb]

It sounds much like infant baptism.

Personally I don't really see the need for it and like another member pointed out, despite no explicit or implicit commandment to NOT baptise infants, I don't see that as free reign to carry on, obscurely I may add, old covenant traditions.

Again, as the same member pointed out; we are to baptise believers. Babies cannot be believers.

John the Baptist leaped in his mother's womb when the Savior was near. Prime example of a baby having faith. It is God's Word that brings us to faith and how much easier for an infant to believe over an adult who is so caught up in sin?