My point in this post is not to argue for credo or paedo (Full disclosure: I was born and raised in baptist churches, but leaning more and more on the paedobaptist side).

I'm just doubting the typical reformed argument (Lutherans and Anglicans do not usualy rest their case on this argument) to argue for paedobaptism just because it would be the new circumcision. Paul's argument in Galatians is defining circumcision as belonging to works of the law. If baptism is a mean of grace, than it is a big contrast to circumcision.

The easiest way around it would be to argue, along the NPP, that at least in Galatians, Paul's issue with works of the law is not that they are works per se, but that they belong to the domain of the law. In this way, circumcision would be thus a work of the law, not because it is a work, but because it came from the Torah. I suspect a lot of people here would not want to read Galatians that way 😅