Then, as I pointed out to Dr. E., by their own doctrine Calvinists can have no assurance that their baptized infant is saved. Their "trust" is actually only "hope".
You can hardly bash Dr. E over the head when your Church holds a more radical view.
I have not "bashed Dr. E. over the head". I have pointed out a contradiction in her theology. I have not criticized her position for being "radical", whatever exactly that is supposed to mean. Of course the Catholic position is extraordinary and mind-boggling. The very gospel is foolishness to the 'wise'. But that is no refutation of it. A contradiction on the other hand, is a serious problem.
-A8
I'm not Presbyterian. I can't argue their point. I can only say that infant baptism, IMO, isn't correct. In my view it is a flawed Catholic tradition held over into Protestantism by the former Catholic Reformers.
You did not address the flaw of infant baptism within the Catholic Church that I could see. How can the Catholic Church say that infants are saved? What assurances do they have? Isn't your "trust" actually "hope"? You say Dr. E's position is wrong, that they cannot have assurance, and then it is the position of your own Church that baptized children are assured. Isn't your "trust" actually "hope"? Don't you see a bit of a disconnect?
Of course the Catholic position is extraordinary and mind-boggling. The very gospel is foolishness to the 'wise'. But that is no refutation of it. A contradiction on the other hand, is a serious problem.
I've read this five times and still can't figure out what you're saying.