YOU are the one who is wanting to bring in this idea of "infallible salvation" or an "infallible knowledge" of salvation. I have repeatedly said that there is only One who has infallible knowledge about anything and everything; the Lord God. In the Church we possess only a fallible and finite knowledge, but nonetheless we can and do possess knowledge of the truth upon which we are to determine who belongs to Christ. Without evidence of regeneration, there is no warrant to presume another's salvation.

I don't think that I started using "infallibly saved" until you started using it. I might be mistaken though. My only point is those who perished in the wilderness are at one point referred to as the people of Yahweh. That's my only point. And my question follows that if God can refer to all of Israel as "My people" even though all of Israel is not Israel, then why can't we call our "holy" baptized babies "Christians"?

Let me answer your last question last... "NO! I am in full accord with Augustine, Calvin and the WSC on the matter of baptism" in all that they say that is in accord with Scripture

Isn't it misleading here to use the language "full accord." I know you qualify this with "all that they say that is in accord with Scripture" but you aren't really in full accord with Augustine and Calvin on the issue at hand.

Pilgrim says:
That John Calvin was a godly man who had many things write when it came to biblical doctrine, he was not infallible. He even admitted as much. And his view on baptism, specifically as to that of infants and their covenantal standing, is one of those areas where he erred. Unfortunately, he didn't totally break from the Catholic teaching on baptism...It is true that Calvin teaches, or at least strongly implies, ]that children of believers in baptism are to be deemed "true" members of Christ's church. In this I have no qualms in seeing Calvin as being wrong there.

JEdwards says:
Of course, I could further point out the fact that Augustine was not consistent in his baptismal stance as well

I agree that Augustine has some problems with baptism. But the point is he allowed for children to be called Christians, and to your admission Calvin allowed for children to be members of the true church. Now the WSC doesn't have a question, "What is baptism for unbelieving babies?" All it asks is "What is Baptism?" It seems to me that if the WSC wanted to make such an important disticntion as you have made that it would have taken the time to address the difference in baptism of believers and baptism of infants.

I knew what your response was to Romans 6:3. My point was that for the WSC to make it a scripture proof for the sacrament of baptism means that the WSC has in mind water baptism when it reads Paul in Romans 6:3.

How is this for context for the WSC?
Elect infants do ordinarily receive the Spirit in
baptism, as the first efficient principle of furture actual regenreation...It is most agreeable to the institution of Christ, that all elect infants that are baptized....do ordinarily receive, from Christ, the Spirit in baptism, for their first solemn initiation into Christ, and for their future actual renovation, in God's good time, if they live to years of discretion, and enjoy the other ordinary means of grace appointed of God to this end.

-Cornelius Burges, Westminster divine, The Baptismal Regeneration of Elect Infants, 1629

In Christ,