First of all, I appreciate your ability to distinguish the point from that which is not the point. I am glad that this discussion has moved from "presumptive regeneration" to "presumptive election."
You must admit that when the pastor addresses the congregation he treats it according to 1 Corinthians 15; in other words he will say to the visible church that Christ died for their sins – without knowing for sure. I don’t like the pejorative sound of “presumes” though, simply because it sounds as if there is no warrant for the treatment. I’d rather say that the pastor is treating the congregants according to biblical precept that they are among those for whom Christ died. Nonetheless, to use your terminology he does so "without knowing they are indeed converted." Moreover, when the supper is served to individuals, those serving the elements are no less than treating the recipients as if they were in Christ – though “God hasn't given us that information,” to again borrow your terminology. My point is that you yourself cannot get around these strictures. We all treat as believers for whom Christ died those who may not be and probably aren’t. Accordingly, you are “presuming” (again using your terminology not mine) certain people to be converted “without knowing” for sure because “God hasn’t given us that information.” So, it is not a matter of God imparting to us some special knowledge of who is converted or elect, but a matter of following the biblical paradigm set forth in Scripture. Even Judas, whom Christ knew, was treated by the Lord according to his profession and not possession.
Concerning infants, I would never say to an infant born of pagan parents that Jesus died for him, simply because there’s no biblical precedence for this. However, I do see the prophets and apostles addressing the visible community of believers (those marked out by the sign of entrance into the church) as the children of God. So to treat baptized infants in this way is to me very consistent. Again, had an infant of believing parents not been circumcised he would have broken covenant. Accordingly, infants are to be treated as being in covenant apart from our having knowledge of whether they are truly elect or not.
Susan, in short we both treat people according to precept and evidence. You simply require more evidence like a credible profession; whereas I believe that the Bible requires of us less evidence than that. The evidence I believe the Bible requires for us to treat an infant as one of Christ’s sheep for whom he died is birth into a believing household. Certainly we would agree that those born of believing parents have a greater chance of conversion than others. Accordingly, there is evidence. The only question is whether there is biblical precept or not.
