
I don't think the issue of whether infants have faith is relevant or not.
Certainly they *can*, as the example of John in utero proves. I find the
translation of Col 2 above odd in terms of the circumcision of christ,
which the KJV and RSV put in terms of Christ's cricumcision which we, in
union with him *participate* in putting off the body of sins of the flesh.

Also, perhaps cor 2:12 is dividing the act of burial with him in baptism,
which can be independant of faith, from the experience of rising with
Christ by faith. Who says both are by faith? This interpretation has the
advantage of explaining those who are faithlessly baptized, for whom their
baptisim is not benefit, but serves to put them into the kingdom nonetheless.

Like the israelites (all of them, children included) who were baptized in
the cloud and in the sea, it was of no advantage because they did not add
to their baptism faith and obedience.

Baptism does not impart faith, nor is it done strictly speaking on the
basis of the faith of the parent, but because of the covcenant promise of
God. It imparts grace, the grace of the kingdom, which can be a
punishement in disguise if there is later apostacy.



Do you teach a child to pray the Lord's prayer? Do you expect them to not
steal? They *can* have faith appropriate to their condition. And in the
new covenant, we shall no longer say: know the lord, for they shall all
know him from the least unto the greatest Heb 8:11.


But also according to Ezekiel 18, God will not hold innocent anyone on the
basis of anyone elses innocense. Thus Jesus could not be our federal head
any more than adam, *IF* that's what ezekiel is talking about. Shall you
make ezekiel 18 contradict the second commandemnt as well?


  >

Ezekiel 36:25-26 indicates that this new heart will be given by God,
in the context of the sprinkling of water in baptism. It is the action of
God puting them into his new order, and not a question of"personal"
faith as such.


But the death that came to all because of sin is not just their personal
death, but the dead state (originbal sin). We are in a covenant of death,
because adam, our federal head gave over his dominion to the devil and death.



While this psalm is figurative in it's language, it is not hyperbolic, and
the one does not necessarily imply the other. There is not other
hyperbolic language in this psalm. What v 5 is likely refering to is 
what is symbolized by the OT cleanliness laws (which make intercourse and
childbrith both acts which caus uncleannes and seperation from God). The
whole psalm is in the language of OT ritual (hyssop, cleansing, burnt
offering, etc) David's sin with bathsheba included this element, as he
did not ritually cleanse himself when he should have. 

But what was symbolized by the OT ritual was the truth that sin was 
passed generationally. That's why the organ of generation had to be
cut. That's why brith was unclean. Uncleanness was death, and all babies
were born dead, and needed to be washed to newness of life, which we have in
baptism today.