If you are the Horne that wrote a rebuttal to Welty, You are wrong in your understanding of scripture. Once you place “conditions” on grace it becomes works. The westminster is in error in its ch. on baptism along with the Heidelburg. you should read Jewett’s Infant baptism and the covenant of grace along with covenant children today by Conner – really study the issue – at the end of Conners book he refutes paedobaptism with 2 scripture text- I encourage you to read and be objective and open minded!

OK, thanks for reminding me about comments on my about page.  I have now fixed it.

I’ll let you have the last word on most of the above, except to tell you that making “conditions” equivalent to the “works” spoken against by Paul is both unjustifed and unworkable and in neither case do I take any pleasure in my puns.

I think you should read the Baptist Theologian John Piper’s Future Grace on the difference between unmerited unconditional grace (like the gift of saving faith) and unmerited conditional grace (like resurrection to glory).  When James promises that God gives grace to the humble, he is not guilty of preaching works righteousness even though he is exhorting his readers to be humble in order to receive grace.

Announcing conditionless grace can be done, but only in the abstract or by supernatural revelation.  “God has unconditionally chosen people in history to be saved from sin and brought to eternal glory,” is a perfectly true statement.  But if anyone wants to know if they are included they will ask, as we hear in response to the first sermon of the Church (Acts 2), “What must we do?”  It is a perfectly valid question, and there is nothing remotely legalistic about it.