I think the Reformed Baptist view would be to agree with you that of course God does all the saving, and that the ultimate truth from God's POV is that it takes place via predestination from before the foundations AND that it happened on the cross. In addition, it is also possible to speak of salvation in human terms, and that takes place at the moment of true faith. Hence, we see this expressed in passages such as one of your favorites and mine, Eph. 2:8-9. Grace through faith equals salvation. Believer's baptism is a public recognition of salvation and what God has done for us in these terms. I say "believer's baptism" instead of "adult baptism" because we frequently baptize young children, who have reasonably demonstrated true faith.
FK: "I fully agree with you that the people of God are the people of God from before the beginning. But if part of Baptism is recognizing and celebrating that fact about any individual, I don't see how it can be done without at least an honest profession of faith."
Well, which is it? Are God's people named from the beginning or is it "done with at least an honest profession of faith?" See the problem?
It is both, and as I alluded to above, there are at least three honest ways of looking at the timing of salvation (baptism not being one of them :). Before the foundations, on the cross, or at the point of belief. I believe all are perfectly correct because all work perfectly together. All are required to happen for one to go to Heaven, and all DO happen for the elect. Since the time of Christ, the believer's baptism recognizes that all three are complete.
Baptism is not regeneration. Baptism is a confirmation of God's sign and seal made with His children from before the foundation of the world. Regeneration is God breaking into time and making us aware of that fact.
Yes to all! So, why do you baptize infants? :) I'm just kidding, but I honestly do not understand how baptism can be a confirmation of anything (from our POV) if the faith element of salvation is still missing. Of course, as parents, and as a church body, we WANT the infant to grow into faith and we pledge our Godly efforts to encourage that. It seems to me, though, that to confirm it in a person's infancy is a bit premature. As I'm sure you know, and for the benefit of anyone who doesn't, instead of infant baptism we do a "baby dedication" ceremony. It is really for the adults, especially the parents, and in it we all as a body pledge to be helpful in raising the child as a Christian-to-be. In our church, the "success rate" is quite high, but I wouldn't call it high enough to be able to "confirm" anything at the infant stage.
Plus, and this is no small argument, to require a spoken oath of an individual in order to be made a part of a community, smacks of certain secret societies which is not really a good thing. We can announce our membership and be welcomed into a particular congregation, but this is an act of fraternity. Our adoption into God's family occurred from before time and is an act of paternity.
Paul tells us in Rom 10:9 : "That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." So, I'm not really sure what you mean about secret societies. I have always thought that public professions were to be encouraged. When we require a public profession in order to join our church, from the person it is a sign of obedience to God, in our eyes.
And, what you say about adoption is absolutely true. Therefore, I suppose the question becomes "when is it proper to recognize what God Himself has done"? I think the Baptist approach is just to have a little more surety about what it IS that God actually HAS done. :)
Therefore the purpose of baptism is not our declaration to God of faith. Baptism is God's declaration to us of His abiding love.
Yes! For while a declaration of faith is made at the believer's baptism, it is not the first. A prior one must have been made for it to be proper to proceed with the baptism, in our view.
I just ordered what looks to be a great book edited by Gregg Strawbridge, "The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism," although two "g's" in "Gregg" is a little unsettling. 8~)
I'm a big fan of TMQ, a football column on espn.com. The author is Gregg Easterbrook, so two "g's" is OK with me. :) The book you ordered sounds great. Please share when you've had a chance to go through it. The snippet was interesting because at a recent baptism, our pastor, for the first time I can think of, made a special point of noting that children who have not been baptized as believers are technically not members of the church, even if their parents are baptized as believers. Of course, there is zero difference as to their participation in any church activities, even the Supper. I actually didn't know what our church's official position on that was. I will be interested to hear what your book says.