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.
IOW, the entire church was in grievous error for 16 centuries, until the Anabaptists came along. This Deus abscondicus tendency may explain why Baptistic churches are so prone to splitting, hiving off new denominations, plus a few new cults. After all, every generation needs to rediscover fire and reinvent the wheel. (hmmm ... is that why Baptist culture is an oxymoron?)
What flaw would that be?
How can the Catholic Church say that infants are saved?
We know that baptized infants who die are saved, because we know that baptism "confers the grace of justification", and "effects the remission of all punishments of sin", and is "valid and licit" for young children. (Those three are all infallible Catholic dogmas.)
What assurances do they have? Isn't your "trust" actually "hope"?
No, because we have an authoritative and infallible Magisterium. Calvinists have no authoritative or infallible magisterium (well actually, they have one [ours] but they do not recognize or acknowlege it).
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. ... Don't you see a bit of a disconnect?
The Calvinistic conception of assurance requires knowing one's election [to glory] status in order to have assurance. The Catholic conception of assurance is not the same as the Calvinistic conception of assurance. The Catholic conception of assurance does not require knowing one's election [to glory] status. Therefore there is no hypocrisy (on my part) pointing out a contradiction with Dr. E.'s position regarding assurance with respect to baptized infants while at the same time holding that we [Catholics] can have assurance that baptized infants are saved.
-A8