Yes, I do take issue with how we are to "treat" covenant children prior to their making a credible profession of faith. To "treat" them as having been atoned for before they actually profess faith, is to me no different than pronouncing them saved.
Pilgrim,
First of all, no problem mixing me up with others.
“Saved” is not the happiest of terms. As I have pointed out on this site, “saved” has three tenses. In the past, believers are saved from guilt and condemnation -- (according to his mercy he saved us). In biblical language this occurs upon conversion and not upon the atonement. In the present Christians are being saved from the power of sin -- (to us who are being saved the cross is the power of God). Whereas in the future the Christian will be fully saved not only from the penalty and power of sin (in justification and sanctification respectively), but from the very presence of sin through glorification. We are now being "Kept by the power of God through faith for the salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
Accordingly, an infant who is treated as one for whom Christ died falls into none of the three categories listed above so I think we should stay away from an unbiblical use of the word “saved.” It is true that all who have received the application of the atonement do indeed live in the first two orbits of salvation. Nonetheless, it has yet to be shown that to treat an infant born of faithful parents as being one of Christ’s sheep for whom he died is to treat someone as “saved" (i.e. already converted and being progressively sanctified, or glorified for that matter). If we employ one of the three biblical uses of the word “saved,” we avoid this confusion. At best, it may only be said that I believe that we should treat infants of believing parents as those for whom Christ died. It is confusing if not misleading to speak of salvation apart from conversion. Redemption must be applied, which you and I believe.
The Heart of the Matter:
In a word, I would treat such little children as ones for whom the atonement has been accomplished but possibly not applied. The evidence for this is the fact that such are born to faithful parents. When there becomes evidence to the contrary then I’ll act upon that evidence. Moreover, I do not base my theology on the “promise of God." I base my theological-treatment of the child solely upon the precedence of God’s word. For example, if an infant of a believing parent was not circumcised – God said the infant would have broken covenant. Consequently, the infant was to be considered in covenant with God, otherwise it could not have been considered a covenant breaker upon the parent’s disobedience or neglect. The covenant in view was none other than the unconditional Abrahamic-covenant, which was made with the Seed and all who would be in union with Christ. As with Scripture, I affirm (with you) that all Israel was not Israel and all the church is not the church. Nonetheless, if an infant was not circumcised he was to be considered a covenant breaker. Accordingly, if he were circumcised was he not then to have been considered a covenant keeper? And if a covenant keeper, one for whom Christ died yet still needed to be converted… If nothing else, please appreciate that my treatment of a believer's offspring is not based upon the promise of God but upon the precedence I find in Scripture.
