1) I meant to say my point was NOT that creeds are bad … (left out the negator!). That’s been corrected, and thanks to those who caught it. Guess I should write while watching football.

2) I should adopt some sort of phrase to distinguish the “circumcision-baptism” equation I’m targeting. As I note in the first post, there is *some* connection between the two. What I’m targeting is any position that makes a tight theological parallel between the two. Hence the following paragraph has been emended slightly:

“ALL denominations that practice infant baptism use a theological connection to circumcision as a fundamental argument for the practice. That is, they see tight theological parallels (or at least they explain the doctrine of baptism that way) between the two, justifying the very practice on the fact that Abraham circumcised his children as a sign of the covenant (Gen 17).”

My argument is (and is going to be) that if you’re using circumcision to justify the practice of infant baptism in a theological way, as though God intended the institution of circumcision to be a precursor to the sacrament of baptism, then you need to be consistent with the analogy. What you say about one should be said about the other. You can’t argue that there was divine intention to parallel the two and then abandon the parallel when things get dicey with respect to salvation / justification.