Padeobaptism - need some help

[AndOne]

Hey ya'll

I am in an intensive study into Padeobaptism right now (did I mention that I have a new baby girl! ) and if you all who support padeobaptism out there and are knowledgeable on the subject would be willing to answer a question or point me in the right direction I would greatly appreciate it.

Being Reformed Baptist I put a lot of weight on the teachings of Calvin and I have been reading his teachings on baptism. In essence he has said (and is echoed by all of the reformed denoms that teach Padeobaptism) that there is a very "complete resemblance between baptism and circumcission, as seen in the internal office, the promise, the use, and the effect."

My main hang-up with this issue comes from Galations chapter 5:1-6 which follows: "It was for freedom that Christ set us free, therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery. Behold I, Paul say to you that if you receive circumcission, Christ will be of no benefit to you. And I testify again to every man who receives circumcission, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. You have have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by the law; you have fallen by grace. For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcission nor uncircumcission means anything, but faith working through love." (NASB)

Okay - I think the implications are obvious - when you consider the above statement by Calvin in light of what Galations says here. Now - I am not trying to debate here - but I would like to know what the padeobaptist's response is to this particular concern. So far I have not found one article from the padeobaptist point of view that addresses this concern. Can somebody out there help me out with this? Do you know of a specific article or teacher that has responded to this specific concern? Does anybody know if Luther or Calvin specifically responded to this concern - and what they said?

I would really like some help with this - as it is the only thing at this point that is holding me back from accepting this as a viable administration of the sacrament of baptism. It is the only teaching of the Reformers that I haven't been able to grasp. Perhaps someone could bring this concern to their preacher within the Presbyterian church, Reformed Episcopal church, etc. and have them email me on the topic. I would have no problem with that!

Thanks to anyone who can help me out on this! My email is: DaveC925@yahoo.com

 

[CoffeeSwirls]

Cajun Huguenot has put together a great defense of padeobaptism and shared it with me here. There's a lot on info on just this topic and he really presents it well. I'm still in the undeclared camp on this matter, but that is only because I haven't fully studied the thread and info that refutes it. I want to base my stance on balanced knowledge, rather than tradition or other subjective reason.

 

[Cajun Huguenot]

Hello Behe’s boy,



If you take the quote from Galatians as you seem to be taking it, then you should apply it not only toward paedo-baptism, but to all baptisms. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians is dealing with the Judizers who wanted the Gentile Christians of Galatia to keep the Law’s of the Old Covenant that had been fulfilled in Christ. These were done away with. Circumcision (a blood rite) was fulfilled in Christ and replaced by baptism (a non-blood covenant rite).



(NOTE: Paul did circumcise Timothy, who was a Jew on his mothers side, but he did not circumcise Titus who was a gentile.)


I hope you will look at the arguments that Coffeeswirl mentions.


In Christ,
Kenith

 

[Beoga]

Hello Behe’s boy,



If you take the quote from Galatians as you seem to be taking it, then you should apply it not only toward paedo-baptism, but to all baptisms. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians is dealing with the Judizers who wanted the Gentile Christians of Galatia to keep the Law’s of the Old Covenant that had been fulfilled in Christ. These were done away with. Circumcision (a blood rite) was fulfilled in Christ and replaced by baptism (a non-blood covenant rite).



(NOTE: Paul did circumcise Timothy, who was a Jew on his mothers side, but he did not circumcise Titus who was a gentile.)


I hope you will look at the arguments that Coffeeswirl mentions.


In Christ,
Kenith

i actually read your earlier posts/arguements and read them again and they have made more sense now. they have helped alot in understanding the whole issue.

 

[Reformationist]

Sent you an email bro.

God bless,
Don