Quote
J EdwardsOur faith does not stand in the works of man (i.e. water baptism), but in the power of God. Your doctrine is more akin to RCC than anything—salvation through the administration of the priests.

This accusation has already been sufficiently refuted.

Quote
J EdwardsLastly, baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant to a child. This does not mean they have faith, nor does it mean they are elect. The Scripture declares that both elect and the non-elect may be part and parcel of God’s covenant to fulfill God’s purpose in all the earth.

Christ places His mark on all baptized babies, whether they are ever regenerate or not. Do non-elect babies obtain any benefit from baptism when they reject the grace of God truly offered and promised to them through the sacrament? No. Baptism, for the person baptized, is not a matter of keeping the law. It is through faith alone, given where and when it pleases God, that the grace of God is received. Should we question the good and sovereign command of God to baptize non-elect babies who pertain to the promise? No.

Quote
J EdwardsPlease see the account of Crib Calvinist for more.:
Quote
Crib CalvinistI could look back at my baptism and see where God had put me in covenant with Him early on. This meant that God had a responsibility to me and I to Him. Though this did not guarantee my salvation, it still put certain obligations upon both of us (me and God that is). God and His people were faithful to train me up and love me though I did not deserve it. See I learned that God was faithful to His covenant, though I was not.

The Crib Calvinist turns the grace of God freely offered in baptism into a synergistic work, "Though this did not guarantee my salvation, it {baptism} still put certain obligations upon both of us (me and God that is)." Baptism is not a covenant between God and man but a testament of God's grace toward fallen man who can do nothing to save himself.