baptism

[buzuxi02]

Usually, it's a promise to raise your child in the faith, and seeking support from your church community in doing so.

It's not intrinsically bad to do, it's just for those of us who baptise infants, it's always going to look like the lesser option.

Is this the 40th day dedication as was practised in Judaism and in the ancient Church, or is it a tradition of man to replace baptism and parental responsibility?
The cognitive dissonance in such a ritual is mind blowing to me. On the one hand they teach only a personal act of an adult aged free will confession is required for any homosapien to be admitted to the baptismal waters, while on the other hand they have this dedication service. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Radagast]

I think the OP was looking for helpful advice, not flaming.

 

[Paidiske]

Is this the 40th day dedication as was practised in Judaism and in the ancient Church, or is it a tradition of man to replace baptism and parental responsibility?

I can't tell you the history of it. I only really encountered in churches which refuse or discourage infant baptism, and this was almost presented to parents as "what you can do instead."

We did it for my daughter because my husband belongs to a denomination which doesn't baptise infants (Church of Christ). For his church, it's a fairly recent innovation (it wasn't done when he was an infant) but it seems to meet the desire to do something. Like I said, it's not intrinsically bad or wrong.

 

[mama2one]

But why did you do even this dedication thing if you were never planning on raising the child christian?

we ARE raising our child Christian
she believes in God and knows God died for us

this is a child who came home from school this week with a school fundraiser that she asked to do to because she wants to help the children
on her own, she took all the bills ($16) out of her "tip" jar to generously give; it takes a long time for her to collect that much money

this is a child who gave her coat to another kid at recess to wear (in winter) because the kid wasn't wearing one and was cold

she believes in God AND has a good heart

 

[mama2one]

she was the only toddler at baby dedication which occurred a mos after our child came home from another country

why wouldn't we do the dedication?

 

[Radagast]

I can't tell you the history of it. I only really encountered in churches which refuse or discourage infant baptism, and this was almost presented to parents as "what you can do instead."

As far as I know, "infant dedication" arose among American Baptistic groups in the 1700s, possibly in connection with the "Great Awakening" of Wesley/Whitefield/Edwards/etc.

The Biblical justification given is usually the presentation of Jesus in the Temple and/or the dedication of Samuel, but I think the practice predates the justification, and its origins lie with an attempt to partially copy infant baptism (as practised by other Protestant groups).

 

[buzuxi02]

we ARE raising our child Christian
she believes in God and knows God died for us

this is a child who came home from school this week with a school fundraiser that she asked to do to because she wants to help the children
on her own, she took all the bills ($16) out of her "tip" jar to generously give; it takes a long time for her to collect that much money

this is a child who gave her coat to another kid at recess to wear (in winter) because the kid wasn't wearing one and was cold

she believes in God AND has a good heart

That's very sweet. I'm just at a loss as to why you would do a dedication when your beliefs disapprove of handing down the faith onto your children after you. You dedicate the child at a church members of the Body when baptism is incorporating him into the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-13). If age of reason and individual free will is required to be a christian then dedication ceremonies are a moot point and conflicting.

 

[Radagast]

That's very sweet. I'm just at a loss as to why you would do a dedication when your beliefs disapprove of handing down the faith onto your children after you.

You know that that's not true. I think an apology is in order.

 

[mama2one]

"Dedicating a child acknowledges God's sovereignty not only over the child, but also Mom and Dad. Parents present their child before God and His people asking for grace and wisdom in carrying out their responsibilities. Parents also come praying that their child might one day trust Jesus Christ as Savior for the forgiveness of sin.

Before the actual ceremony, it is crucial that pastors counsel parents about the meaning of dedication. The best passage for discussion is Deuteronomy 6:4-7. First, it commands parents to love God; if they truly wish for their child to one day love and follow God, their lives must be an example."

found above ^ on net, maybe this explains?

 

[Mountainmanbob]

She should be old enough to understand the gospel and she should be Born Again and then be baptized.

I don't think it's a good idea to baptize someone that is not Born Again?

M-Bob

 

[mama2one]

She should be old enough to understand the gospel

this morning said was proud of her for donating all her money and she said "remember the lady in the Bible who gave all her money"

with her childlike faith she understands more than many as she puts it into action

 

[Dave-W]

The Biblical justification given is usually the presentation of Jesus in the Temple

That was a circumcision.

and/or the dedication of Samuel,

which was after he was weaned. (age 2-3)

Those are very flimsy supports.

 

[Dave-W]

She should be old enough to understand the gospel and she should be Born Again and then be baptized.
I don't think it's a good idea to baptize someone that is not Born Again

Agreed.

 

[Radagast]

That was a circumcision.

I'm surprised that a Messianic Jew would make that mistake. Circumcision was on the 8th day (Leviticus 12:3, Luke 2:21). Presentation in the Temple was on the 40th day (Leviticus 12:4-8, Luke 2:22-24).

Within traditional Christian practice, circumcision was replaced by baptism; and the 40th day presentation was replaced by the rite of the "churching of women" (perhaps @Paidiske can comment on whether Anglicans still have a liturgy for that).

Those are very flimsy supports.

I was reporting the practice of "dedication," not defending it. I believe in infant baptism, myself.

 

[JoeP222w]

sorry if this is a repeat; unable to do searches for some reason today


baby dedication at age 2 when we adopted her

she is now 10 and have been thinking about baptism lately
husband and I were both baptised as infants

should we should wait until our child expresses interest in being baptised with other adults?
or look into having her baptised with infants now?

If someone is baptized without professing faith in Jesus Christ, it is nothing more than getting wet.

Baptism is for believers in Jesus Christ. Since babies cannot express belief in Jesus Christ, infant baptism is not Biblical.

If your daughter has not expressed belief in Jesus Christ, it is wrong to have her baptized and give her a false assurance of eternal life.

 

[Ken Rank]

The one Church Jesus Christ founded has baptized babies for 2,000 years. Not baptizing them is a modern tradition of men only a few hundred years old, and is found only in unauthorized manmade churches which have rejected many of the teachings and practices of original and complete Christianity. In the Bible there are repeated instances where "whole families" were baptized together. Since this was the common practice of the early Church, it goes without saying that many of these families included small children and babies. Also, Jesus taught that one cannot enter the kingdom without being reborn through water and the spirit, an obvious reference to baptism. Yet, when looking upon a group of small children and babes in arms, He said "to such as these belongs the kingdom of God". Therefore, unless He contradicted Himself, these children had been baptized - which one would expect since this was the common practice of the Christian Church from the beginning. The baptism of babies is well described in the writings of 2nd Century Fathers of the Church, who describe it as a tradition passed down from the apostles.

You've sure lumped a lot of evil intent on people whose hearts you cannot see. Are you an Aramaic and Greek expert and KNOW because of first hand knowledge how these evil men perpetrated this evil upon us all? Or, are you just repeating what you have heard others say?

 

[Radagast]

Baptism is for believers in Jesus Christ.

And their households (Acts of the Apostles 16:15, Acts of the Apostles 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16).

If your daughter has not expressed belief in Jesus Christ, it is wrong to have her baptized and give her a false assurance of eternal life.

Baptism does not give assurance of eternal life.

 

[Dave-W]

I'm surprised that a Messianic Jew would make that mistake. Circumcision was on the 8th day (Leviticus 12:3, Luke 2:21). Presentation in the Temple was on the 40th day (Leviticus 12:4-7, Luke 2:22-24).

Luke 2 lists them both together, verses 21 and 22. Since He was born just outside Jerusalem, the circ was most likely done at the temple as well. (not uncommon during late 2nd temple period)

The 40 days would have been when Mary was purified.

Within traditional Christian practice, circumcision was replaced by baptism; and the 40th day presentation was replaced by the rite of the "churching of women" (perhaps @Paidiske can comment on whether Anglicans still have a liturgy for that).

Most messianics reject those replacement practices.

I was reporting the practice of "dedication," not defending it. I believe in infant baptism, myself.

Understood.

I do NOT believe in infant baptism, btw.
Since baptism is directly linked to immersion in the Mikvah pool, and there is no 2nd temple period precedent for those under the age of what is now called Bar or Bat Mitzvah (12-13 years old) going to the Mikvah, I find no biblical support for the idea.

 

[Radagast]

Luke 2 lists them both together, verses 21 and 22.

Leviticus (which Luke specifically refers to) also lists them consecutively. There's a 33-day time gap in both cases.

Most messianics reject those replacement practices.

I'm pretty sure the OP is not a Messianic Jew; she's someone who finds herself torn between Baptist and traditional Protestant practices, and was asking for advice.

 

[mama2one]

all my siblings have had their children baptised as infants