For the infant, no real presumption can be made, and no fault can be laid for "cheating".
You've just articulated why adult baptism doesn't really jive with reformed theology and why Calvin and most Reformers rejected it.
Do our works save us? Does our proclamation of faith save us? Does our lack of "cheating" save us? No. God's adoption of us from before the foundation of the world saves us by Christ's atonement alone. And this is true from the moment of our birth, not from the point we make a public pledge. Our understanding of our salvation may occur when we formally announce it in church one Sunday morning, but God determined the names of His elect before anyone was born. Infant baptism affirms this fact.
Infant baptism goes along so well with Reformed theology because it declares that God alone chooses His covenant family and does so irrevocably.
If we believe God ordained His covenant family, just as He ordains our own families, our spouses and our children, then that family is covered by the covenant. And baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant.
"She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet." -- Proverbs 31:21
There are many times in a parent's life he is fearful for his children. Verses like this one from Proverbs confirm that God holds His covenant family is His embrace, each of them. And at a time of His choosing, they will know it.
I know Baptists are very possessive of their adult baptism. If someone hasn't been baptized, certainly being baptized as an adult is a good and Godly thing to do as we are instructed to be baptized in His name. But to baptize your children before the congregation in the sight of God is a lovely, generous act of God's grace to His family, declaring the lives of our children are in His hands from the moment they take their first breath, forever clothed with the blood of Jesus Christ.
Here's a short Q & A on Infant Baptism from the OPC...
What did change is this:
These were all changed by Jesus. Yet, Jesus nowhere said, "Exclude the infants, for of such is not the kingdom of God. You must become as adults before I will give the Holy Spirit or repentance for sins, or saving faith." In fact Luke 18:15-17 says just the opposite. Baptism is not man's testimony or sign of what he the man has done. Baptism is God's testimony to man of what God does, when and where he pleases, to wash sinners from the filth and guilt of their sins. Baptism is God pointing down to man and declaring the gospel. Baptism is not man pointing up to God with a message, nor man pointing to himself and giving out a message... The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 gave the following answer to your question... Q. 74. Are infants also to be baptized? A. 74. Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents,[3] they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,[4] as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,[5] in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.[6] "...The New Testament does not know anything about infants not being accountable, or having to grow up a decade or more before they reach a supposed 'age of accountability.' In order to preach Jesus, the New Testament speakers all appeal to the Old Testament to adequately set forth the identity of Jesus and what the church should do. The three major changes in the New Testament church from the Old Testament Church (Acts 7:38; the Greek reads ekklesia—church—not congregation) do not change the doctrine, the form of church government, or the synagogue worship as brought into the New Testament Church.
•the Passover into the Lord's Supper
•circumcision into baptism
•remembering of the 7th day into the 1st day of the week
I think you don't understand how we view the act of Believer's Baptism. The baptism does not impart grace. It is done because the believer wants to make a public demonstration of what has already been accomplished and their realization of it. None of these things occur with infants.
That's interesting, I didn't know that was part of the meaning. I like that very much. While both of my children were baptized first as infants, neither was in a Reformed church. Perhaps the ceremonies are very different because this idea wasn't conveyed as I remember.
But to baptize your children before the congregation in the sight of God is a lovely, generous act of God's grace to His family, declaring the lives of our children are in His hands from the moment they take their first breath, forever clothed with the blood of Jesus Christ. (emphasis added)
This is the part my thick head still can't get. :) Although we cannot "KNOW" if anyone is saved, except ourselves, I might bet my house that you are saved. However, if tomorrow you had an infant child, and then had him baptized, I would not make such a bet because I would have no idea whether he would come to faith or not. Are you saying that we should be able to make this type of prediction?
[From The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563:] Q. 74. Are infants also to be baptized?
A. 74. Yes, for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,[1] and through the blood of Christ [2] both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are promised to them no less than to their parents,[3] they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,[4] as was done in the Old Testament by circumcision,[5] in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.[6] (emphasis added)
To me, "People of God" means believers, or the saved. The reference given is Gen. 17:7. But that refers to the spiritual descendants of Abraham only, not the physical, as Paul tells us. On the one hand it sounds like this is saying that the children of believers have an automatic "in". Yet, we know for sure that it doesn't work out like that. That's why I'm confused. :) I fully agree with you that the people of God are the people of God from before the beginning. But if part of Baptism is recognizing and celebrating that fact about any individual, I don't see how it can be done without at least an honest profession of faith.
Perhaps if there was a such thing as a "hyper-Reformed Baptist" :) he might also want to see further proof of someone being among God's people, i.e. some evidence of a changed life, including works, etc., before baptism. Logically, I can see something in that argument, but of course the Bible doesn't teach that at all. Among the believers baptisms we know of in scripture, it is clear that the person should very soon be baptized after a profession of faith. So, from scripture, we are told, in effect, that a profession of faith is "good enough" to rejoice in another's baptism.
I do so hope you don't mind me continuing on this subject. :) Since I'm a Reformer, I just want to understand what most Reformers think about this. :)