But our "profession of faith" isn't the combination to some lock that we've now been given. We profess our faith because God tells us to do so, and we're able to do this when He gives us the understanding that Christ died on our behalf. But our membership in the covenant family doesn't depend on our acknowledgment, but on God's adoption.
I know I linked you to one of Dr. MaMahon's articles from his website, A Puritan's Mind. He was raised and ordained a Baptist and then became a Presbyterian pastor. I think his explanation of his journey is really very good. Here are a few of his essays...
I'm going to spend some time reading these by McMahon and also this oldie but goodie by B.B. Warfield...
And then there's always Calvin for brevity and specificity...
"The offspring of believers are born holy, because their children while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, have been adopted into the covenant of eternal life. Nor are they brought into the church by baptism on any other ground than because they belonged to the body of the Church before they were born. He who admits aliens to baptism profanes it. . . . For how can it be lawful to confer the badge of Christ on aliens from Christ. Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.""Let Joachim say, in one word, what weight he attaches to the promise, - I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed. If God did not ingraft into the body of his people those on whom he bestows this high privilege, not only is injury done to his word, but infants ought to be denied the external sign. Let an Anabaptist come forward and maintain that the symbol of regeneration is improperly conferred on the cursed children of Adam whom the Lord has not yet called to the fellowship of his grace. Either Westphal must remain dumb, or the only defense that can avail him is, that the grace which was offered in the person of their parents is common to them. Hence it follows, that they are not absolutely regenerated by baptism, from which they ought to be debarred, did not God rank them among the members of his Son."
...[re the events of/following Acts 2:38-39] The question would have been asked in a hundred meetings; and Peter, John. Paul, and the others would have sat down and written in their Epistles to clear up the matter, just as they answered other questions that arose. The New Testament would have contained the clear answer as to why in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the infants of believers, but in the New Testament it was to be withheld from them.The only reason possible for the New Testament not dialing with this problem is that the problem did not exist. The only possible reason that there was no problem in the Jews' minds was that the believing Jews did apply the covenant sign to their children. They baptized their babies as they had circumcised them in the Old Testament dispensation.
Reformed theology holds as a central aspect of its theological system the Covenant ideas surrounding the inclusion of infants and family in the covenant of grace. If Waldron is redefining this to suit Baptistic ideas, then he has removed himself from the realm of classic Reformed Theology, though he may believe in the sovereignty of God.
He seems to make this a central issue of being a Reformer, and I have not heard that before. Warfield, OTOH, I thought was more charitable, and I really liked the way he framed the issue:
The cleavage in their ranks enters in only when we inquire how the external Church is to hold itself relatively to the recognition of the children of Christ. If we say that its attitude should be as exclusive as possible, and that it must receive as the children of Christ only those whom it is forced to recognize as such, then we shall inevitably narrow the circle of the subjects of baptism to the lowest limits. If, on the other hand, we say that its attitude should be as inclusive as possible, and that it should receive as the children of Christ all whom, in the judgment of charity, it may fairly recognize as such, then we shall naturally widen the circle of the subjects of baptism to far more ample limits. The former represents, broadly speaking, the Puritan idea of the Church, the latter the general Protestant doctrine. It is on the basis of the Puritan conception of the Church that the Baptists are led to exclude infants from baptism.
I think this is perfectly fair, and was generally how I was approaching the issue. When is it proper, etc.? He goes on to say that the decision to baptize is made on a presumption, and I nod my head in agreement. Then, he argues that a profession of faith is insufficient to be a qualifier because people can be insincere, lie, or whatever. My problem with that is that the Bible gives us plenty of examples where it IS sufficient as a qualifier.
Then he says "Assuredly a human profession is no more solid basis to build upon than a divine promise." I thought that sounded reasonable and that maybe this comes down to the interpretation of that promise. It appears that Warfield was referring to Acts 2:38-39. I must admit that I was amused as he ripped Strong for only half-quoting, when he himself only gave it a 3/4 quote, leaving out something I think is important. :) Here it is:
Acts 2:38-39 : 38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off — for all whom the Lord our God will call."
My issue with this is that we KNOW that being a lineal child of a Jew was no guarantee of salvation at all. Only believers are children of God. It seems to me that the last clause is a summary of what he was saying, that the promise is only for those whom God will call, not necessarily for my particular child. I suppose I see "your children" in the generic, and not in the specific. I read it as "children in faith" rather than all biological children. The promise is clearly not for children who turn out to be reprobate.
Later, I was pleased to see that Warfield recognized my point:
And we can believe that the Church includes the minor children of its members for whom they must as parents act, without believing that it is thereby made a hereditary body.
However, he doesn't really explain this much other than to say that since parents are responsible for their children, therefore, they can be representatives and if the parents are saved, then the children are saved. To me, that is a monster leap which I didn't comprehend him explaining, other than the relation to Acts 2.
On the flip side, I did wind up agreeing with many of Warfield's criticisms of Strong. I think Strong claimed too much, for example his claim that since infant baptism is not clearly set forth in the Bible means it couldn't have happened. I don't think that's right.
Overall, I think Warfield was very even-handed in his approach, and I learned a great deal. Now I think I have a reasonable understanding of what the ideas are. Thanks again for showing it to me. :)
Warfield seems to follow your quote from Calvin, but the very last part of the Calvin quote confused me:
Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause of half salvation merely, but gives salvation entire; and this salvation is afterwards ratified by Baptism.
That don't look right. :) ............. But then, after thinking for a minute I remembered Warfield and this may be a perfect example of the presumption that he was talking about. If so, at the very least I think I have a much better idea of how to read the views of (Reformed) paedobaptists. It appears to all go back to the promise. If that's true, then this is exactly what I wanted to know. :)