More Than Words: Galatians, circumcision and infant baptism again.

I have to admit, this kind of argument leaves me perplexed.

I judge that the whole tenor and direction of Galatians has been to make this insistence. I find it incomprehensible, from a paedobaptist assumption, that Paul could have omitted in the entire argument to explain the role that baptism allegedly has as the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision, when the whole problem in Galatia was Judaisers wrongly insisting that Christians need to be circumcised.

Now, I do think saying that baptism “is the New Covenant equivalent of circumcision” is overstated.  Circumcision was a calling to a specific subset of believers (those who were Jews) whereas just as there is now one  “catholic” visible Church so there is one entrance rite for all.  I think it is better to see circumcision as a subset of cleansings in the OT and see that the NT only has one cleansing that need never be repeated.

But even so, the fact remains that the sufficiency of baptism is part of Paul’s argument in Galatians:

Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

So we are counted as Abraham’s offspring because we put on Abraham’s offspring, Christ, in baptism.

How on earth can anti-paedobaptists act like there is no case in Galatians.  It may be interesting to act why Paul doesn’t repeat the same point in Galatians 5 or 6, but why ignore the end of Galatians 3?