Entering and staying in the covenant of grace

I had a cordial conversation with a PCA pastor about Federal Vision theology recently.  Those are quite rare, so I enjoyed it.  We disagreed and didn't have much time, so came away with our same views, but one piece of the discussion was really enlightening for me.

My new friend asked a really helpful question:

Does entry into covenant with God, and continuance in that same covenant, have the same basis, the same requirements?

1.      The typical Baptist says yes, by the individual's profession of faith for both.  This seemed appalling to him, that a believer could be baptized and take communion for the first time on the same day.

2.      The typical Reformed (PCA, OPC, etc.) says no (profession of faith is needed to commune, but not to be baptized.  More accurately, a profession of faith of the parent(s) is needed to be baptized, while a profession of faith of the individual is needed to commune).

3.      I've come to believe as our denomination, the CREC, would answer this question: yes, entry into the covenant, and continuing in the covenant, have the same basis, the same requirements, AT FIRST, by membership in a believing household for both.  BUT, continuance in the covenant assumes their faith will become their own, and if it doesn’t, it will show in lack of interest in the things of the Lord, church attendance, lifestyle, etc. which must be disciplined by church leaders to avoid nominalism running rampant in the church.

      In other words, the practice of profession of faith as a requirement for coming to the Lord's Table, is not required to properly administer discipline in the local church.  It is not appalling, but glorious, to welcome a child to baptism, and then to communion on the same Sunday.  Because baptism is the biblical sign of entrance into Christ, while the practice of professing faith functionally makes that profession the REAL entrance instead of baptism.  The real crux for option #2 is your decision, your profession.  In this way, the typical Reformed is more baptistic (putting all the weight on our choice) than they care to admit.

      That's as far as our discussion went.  Here are two more thoughts.

      I'll fully admit that when a very young infant is brought for baptism, it's a bad idea medically to give them the same piece of bread an adult would take.  But this does not confirm position #2!  It only shows that growth is needed within the covenant, while we are in Christ.

      It's ironic to me that the 2nd option often accuses the 3rd of asserting that we stay in the covenant by our works, not by God's grace.  This is a false slander, for one thing.  For another, it could as legitimately be said that option 2 makes it a matter of works to come to the table: to be able to articulate adequately in words their profession before enjoying the full benefits of the covenant in communion.  Note I say "as legitimately."  I don't wish to slander option 2 - I think their position is that we profess our faith only by God's grace.  But why can't they see that we emphasize our faithfulness to remain in the covenant also as occurring only by God's grace?