In reply to:What is a "baptist child dedication " ? I've never seen it happen . Is it an arminian thing ?
Howard,
What is infant baptism? I've seen it done myriad times. Is it a Roman Catholic thing?
Honestly, doesn't that sound rather uncharitable to your ears? Actually, there is more credence to one assuming there is a direct relationship between infant baptism and Roman Catholicism than there is to "baptist child dedication" and Arminianism. Oh... btw, Baptists are but one of many denominations that do "child dedications".
It is a parent dedication at our church. Thus, it is understood that the parent is going to make all efforts as a Christian to raise their child in godliness and hold themselves accountable to the church for that purpose. Whether or not is an Arminian thing is hard to tell. I would imagine that it has its roots in covenantalism, something that is primarily Calvinistic.<br><br>Fred
"Ah, sitting - the great leveler of men. From the mightest of pharaohs to the lowest of peasants, who doesn't enjoy a good sit?" M. Burns
As a mother of 6 "child dedications", it stands on the premise of Hannah taking Samuel to the Temple to Eli to dedicate him to the Lord. I have also been blessed to see 6 children baptized in what I truly believe to be sincere conversions, but in no way did I believe that my children received salvation, or even the promise of salvation at their dedications.
I do feel strongly in covenant theology, but not as a means of conversion. Surely all of David's sons were circumcized, but we know not all of them received the inheritance of salvation.
Fred, Linda, Thanks for that.<br><br>I REALLY did have no idea whatsoever about it. I thought it might be a sort of baptism without water.<br><br>howard<br><br>
In reply to:Why don't you explain it to me instead of being sarcastic.
Howard,
Here we go again, eh? There wasn't any "sarcasm" whatsoever in my reply. What I wrote was an attempt, a futile one it seems, to get you to once again examine yourself and how you perceive Baptists, in this case, as being horrid heretics, etc. By associating the practice of Baptists of dedicating their children with Arminianism, you both erred in doing so from a theological perspective and you failed to show charity to those for whom the Lord shed His blood for their redemption. In my experience Reformed/Calvinistic Baptists have a far more biblical and covenantal view of children of believers than do many paedobaptists. The fact that some fail to be consistent in their views in this one area surely does not demand that one judge them to be "Arminian". Would it only be true that more Presbyterians and Reformed believers viewed their children as those in dire need of salvation instead of presuming their inclusion in Christ, the Church would not be filled with so many deceived individuals who are yet unconverted but are deemed children of God.
In short, just because someone or a group, denomination, etc., doesn't embrace paedobaptism doesn't make them Arminian, Roman Catholic or damnable heretics. The Church today could sorely use more preachers like Charles Haddon Spurgeon. Show me a Presbyterian pastor that is half the man that Spurgeon was and I'll show you a saint the likeness of which few of us have ever seen.
Well I must agree with Pilgrim. As I said, I was definitely not Arminian when I had my children dedicated to the Lord(well in all truth, the first 2 were when we were Independent Dispensationsal Premillenial.........so I guess that probably classified me as Arminian, do you think?!!), and I think I took it much more seriously than some paedobaptists do their own children.<br><br>I also agree, if we had even 1 man who was near the likeness of that dear departed saint, Spurgeon, there would seem to be one spark in this dim light we call the churches.<br><br>
In reply to:[color:"blue"] As a mother of 6 "child dedications", it stands on the premise of Hannah taking Samuel to the Temple to Eli to dedicate him to the Lord.
You mean the OT helps interpret the NT?
In reply to:[color:"blue"] Surely all of David's sons were circumcized, but we know not all of them received the inheritance of salvation.
And therein lies the crux.......why doesn't the new covenant follow the same pattern for Baptists?
In reply to:[color:"blue"] I have also been blessed to see 6 children baptized in what I truly believe to be sincere conversions, but in no way did I believe that my children received salvation, or even the promise of salvation at their dedications.
I have seen my children baptised, but feel the exact same concerning salvation. Why do we differ?
Next question.......where, in the NT, or new covenant, or the practice of the early church, do we find simple dedications over baptism?
Maybe I should have been a little clearer. While the Baptist do dedicate their children to the Lord based on that passage, actually Hannah had promised the Lord if He gave her a child she would dedicate him to the service of God. I don't think that passage is interpreting covenant theology, do you?
I must also be confused about your question as to the New Testament following the same pattern for Baptist?
And how do we differ on salvation? Are you saying that you believe that your children were saved because of baptism?
And your last question....Were in the NT do we find dedications over baptism? I am not sure I remember where I said that is the case. I said I did that as a reformed Baptist, and now I hold to covenant theology. I was also just answering a question as to where child dedications came from, not defending the validity of it.
There is now no great joy to my heart to see a covenant child baptized, but I still feel very strongly that baptism in any way guarentees the salvation of an infant any more than it does a 50 year old. Does that make sense. I feel as though you were wanting me to defend a position I held to in the past, which, my friend, doesn't make any sense, since the words, IN THE PAST should explain themselves.
I have never seen a child dedication service Pilgrim .
As a former baptist I attended a Strict and Particular Baptist Chapel (so-called Calvinistic).
No such dedication ever took place and was never even mentioned . Not having been to an Arminian baptist chapel , I thought this dedication thing was practised among arminians- thats all .
I could have asked -"is that an American thing ?" as well .
Kindly stop worrying yourself about how I feel about baptists. I was one a couple of years ago so I probably know more than you think I do.
For the record - I'm the" heretic" in Bournemouth as most friends are baptists.
You really should not take everything I say as dogma Pilgrim , especially when I ask a question .
I will comment and please do not bark at me anyone. But Howard I am sorry to say I get the same impress as Pilgram, so much so that I do have a tendency to not reply to your post because I too get the idea that you have very negative feelings toward Baptist. If you have some experience with them you know they are a very diverse group.
I have seen Baby dedications in Fundamentalist, What I would want to call Modern, and even a Hardshell Baptist church.
I have always viewed it as a Dry Baptism, that is in my limited understanding of other demoninations performing infant Baptism. The view is actually one I picked up from one who was not a Baptist but part of an PCA church years ago. I have not personally performed this dedication but ignored it. And yes, this has caused trouble or grumbling in a church I pastored.
Agreed. Almost typed that without the "A". Yikes. I used to be of the baptist persuaion on this issue as well. I was simply using some of your statements to point out the dilemmas created by baptist theology concerning baptism. My apologies if I offended.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william
Robert, I may bark from time to time , but I aint gonna bite cha !<br>(I am more angry with myself for believing Baptist pastors and "theologians" for so long).<br><br>I look upon baptists as brothers/sisters in Christ . Little brothers and sisters . <br><br>howard
In reply to - "Show me a presbyterian pastor that is half the man Spurgeon was......"<br><br>Presbyterian pastors have the spiritual well-being of their entire flock (however small) as their chief concern .<br><br>Baptists pastors tend only to adult sheep and leave the lambs to fend for themselves . In fact they dont recognise lambs as sheep at all .<br><br>There are many presbyterian pastors who are not even house-hold names like Spurgeon but are far better shepherds IMHO.<br><br>"Prince of Preachers " Hmmm...maybe , but Prince of Pastors ? No chance.<br><br>howard
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Hum.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
There wasn't any "sarcasm" whatsoever in my reply. What I wrote was an 
