Paedobaptism

The following passage is oft used to defend the doctrine of infant baptism. Colossians 2:11-12 reads:

In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

The argument proceeds thus: the old covenant was sealed by circumcision as the induction into the faith of Judaism; similarly, baptism is the inductive rite into the new covenant. Baptism, then, replaces circumcision for the people of God. Circumcision was administered on the 8th day after one's birth -- ergo, baptism should be administered to infants. Many who adhere to paedobaptism also hold baptismal regeneration, concluding that the infant baptism is the beginning of saving faith for the individual.

In my regular reading yesterday, a passage sprang out to me that I had not previously noticed except in passing. Romans 4:8-11 reads as follows:

Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:

The point being that Abraham was not yet circumcised when his faith was counted to him for righteousness. This is the specific point of this passage -- Paul is using it as a logical argument against the idea that the gentiles are not party to God's redemptive plan.

Furthermore, if this dissertation of Paul's is to be used in concert with our passage in Colossians, then it shows that baptism is only a ritual seal of the covenant. It has no salvific power any more than Abraham's circumcision saved him.

Even more, it occurred to me that the circumcision of the numerous seed of Abraham was a sign and seal of the abrahamic covenant. Each Israelite's circumcision was a reference to Abraham's, like a little footnote saying, "See God's promise to Abraham." It was a symbol of Abraham's faith. Likewise, our baptism is a symbol that refers to the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, by which we are saved. It's not the actual thing, it refers to the actual thing.

Looking at these passages together, it is exciting to me to see the "scripture defines scripture" principle tying these ideas up very nicely. Thoughts?