Are you now suggesting that ALL of Israel; every man, woman and child who passed through the Red Sea and drank of the water that flowed from the rock were saved? More so, are also suggesting that Judas Iscariot was saved because he partook of the Lord's Supper?

I am not in anyway suggesting that these folks were infallibly saved because it is obvious from myriads of scriptures that they are not. What I am suggesting is that there are throughout scriptures the participation and partaking (JEdwards categories) of spiritual things by non-infallibly saved persons because of the covenant membership.

I am also fully aware that not all Israel is Israel, but those who are "not Israel" are still referred to as God's people in some sense.

Exodus 10:3
So Moses and Aaron went in to Pharaoh and said to him, "Thus says the LORD, the God of the Hebrews, 'How long will you refuse to humble yourself before me? Let My people go, that they may serve me.

Some of these folks would die at the manufacturing of the golden calf, would they not?

Does God say leave behind those who are not infallibly saved? Could there have been infants among "my people" who were not infallibly saved? Absolutely. It seems under your definitions that we must presume none of the infants who came out of Egypt to be infallibly saved and at the same time they are referred to by God as "My people." I understand that there is some cognative tension here, but if the Bible speaks this way, why can't we speak this way?

In reference to another of my questions:
I perceive this as an attempt to obfuscate the issue by introducing "infallible knowledge" as a substitute for "assurance of salvation". To possess the former would be to claim deity for only God knows anything infallibly. One could rightly ask, "Do you know infallibly that you exist and you are not simply the figment of another's imagination?" The Scriptures teach us that one who truly believes is given the Holy Spirit who testifies to their spirit that they are the child of God.

My point in asking if you knew you were infallibly saved was not to prove that we can never know if we are saved, but that we never know of our election outside of Christ. In practice, when we are faced with temptation we don't say, "Oh, I'm decreetally elect therefore it doesn't matter" that would be trampl'n the grace of God. But we do keep looking to Christ, we abide in His love (John 15). Disclaimer: our abiding and perseverance is completely by the grace of God.

Only those who have been regenerated and exhibit the marks of that regeneration are entitled to be called "Christian" and thus are entitled to partake of the Lord's Table. Baptism is a sign of entrance where the Lord's Table is that which is restricted to those who are actually ingrafted in Christ.

I would love to know what is going on in the WSC question 94
What is baptism? A: Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord's

Not only that. The scripture reference given for this question is none other than our beloved Romans 6:3.

Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death.

Please clarify for my sake. Are you going up against Augustine, Calvin, and the WSC on baptism?

I'd like to know what you think of Rich Lusk's thoughts:
This is not to say that there is no actual difference between the grace that the "truly regenerate" (e.g. elected to persevere) receive and the grace that future apostates receive. No doubt, there is a difference, since God has decreed and made provision for the perseverance of the one and not for the other (Eph 1:11). Systematic theologians certainly have a stake in making such distinctions a part of their theology, so the TULIP must stand unchallenged. Whatever grace reprobate covenant members receive is qualified by their lack of perseverance. Augustine rightly distinguished "predestination unto grace," which was only temporary, and did not lead to final salvation, from "predestination unto perseverance," which did issue forth eternal life. Perseverance is not merely the caboose on the end of the salvation train rather, its presence or absence qualifies one's whole participation in the ordo salutis.
The point here, however, is that this qualitative difference is not in view in warning passages such as Hebrews 6, and it is an illegitimate move to make it a part of one's exegesis. These passages simply speak of the undifferentiated grace of God. Morever, such a distinction is of no pastoral significance since it is one of the Lord's secrets (cf. Deut 29:29). It is simply impossible to determine who has persevering grace apart from the unfolding of time.

Would you take his last sentence to mean that we cannot know that we are saved? I think you and I both know that we are saved because we are in Christ. I'd still like to know your interpretation of John 15 though.

In Christ,