Baptist on identifying as Reformed. Does it depend on Baptism?

There is an unfair method of historical and theological systematization used by Baptist, to devalue Reformed sacaramentology; For the purpose of identifying as Reformed. There is simply no reason for any Baptist to want to be considered 'reformed'. Baptist were historical enemies of the Reformed (as seen explicitly in the literature), and the theological and ethical differences are not small. Typically, an easier way to demonstrate difference between the 2 schools was an appeal to infant baptism; due it's federal principals and relation to other theological loci and ecclesial points (the systematic method of grouping and handling doctrine like this is commented on by Shedd, a presbyterian, and seen in the temporal context of the reformation by Gerhard; particularly on the outset of commenting on new theological loci). The typical Baptist rebuttal is not to attempt to address the blatant denouncement, but to reduce the Reformed argument to mean that Infant Baptism is the sole principal of Reformed thought. J.White responding to Clark said: "A few days ago Micah Burke commented on R. Scott Clark’s regular practice of defining “Reformed” on the sole basis of the objects of baptism. That is, Dr. Clark, a professor at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California, does not believe a Credobaptist can ever be called “Reformed,” effectively transferring the primary weight of “Reformed” from the great central doctrines of the gospel, the sovereign power of God, the perfection of the work of Christ, the resulting emphasis upon worship, Scriptural authority and sufficiency, etc., to the single issue of covenantal signs upon infants." Clark, a professor at Westminster Seminary, is clearly not intellectually destitute enough to reduce Reformed Theology to Infant baptism. If anything, he is aware of the Baptist tendency to reduce reformed thought to something it isn't, as he says: "White’s critique assumes the very question that is in debate, i.e. whether Reformed theology is reducible to the five heads of doctrine of the Synod of Dort (1619). Confessional Reformed folk, who actually know the history and theology of the Reformed churches, understand, as Richard Muller (among others) has pointed out, that Reformed theology is not reducible to the five heads of doctrine promulgated by the Synod of Dort." But in saying that, you cannot remove Infant Baptism from Reformed thought in the same way you cant remove the hypostatic union from Christianity general. Clark says: "The same is true of our Christology. If, e.g. one affirms the ubiquity of Christ’s humanity one may be a Protestant (e.g. a confessional Lutheran) but one is not Reformed. The same is true of paedobaptism. One must affirm paedobaptism to be Reformed but that affirmation alone is insufficient for being Reformed since many traditions, which are not Reformed, have affirmed paedobaptism. Again, there is a difference between a necessary and a sufficient condition." The difference between the protestant groups; 'are' Ecclesial. This is something that Baptist refuse to understand either because its lack of education or their part of a tradition that devalues Ecclesiology. Infant Baptism is important to reformed ecclesiology, because the Reformers said so. How does the Baptist deal with their "so called brothers and sisters" who were only baptised as infants, and uphold their 'method of baptism'. They cant. How do they view infant inclusion, the efficacy of the sacraments, the politico-federal understanding of the covenant during reformation times as different to the Presbyterians and still attempt to be considered Reformed? Its simply not possible, hence, why no other group, Lutherans or Anglicans, attempt to cling on the title. "Though it is not possible to reduce the Reformed faith to its view of baptism it is not possible to eliminate the Reformed view of baptism from our faith and remain Reformed. If we ask the question, “Did the original Reformed churches accept as Reformed, in their day, those who denied infant baptism?” the answer is clear and unequivocal" (Clark) Any Baptist reading the primary literature, whilst still trying to be considered Reformed, is either ignorant of what their reading, or simply trying to "fit in" with a community. "Evidently the earliest Baptists did not think it necessary to call themselves “Reformed.” They called themselves “General” or “Particular” Baptists. In the Reformation, the Reformed Churches confessed infant baptism as essential to the Reformed faith. In 1530 Huldrych Zwingli did so to the Diet of Augsburg as did the Tetrapolitan Confession (ch. 18; 1530). The First Confession of Basel (Art. 12; 1534), First Helvetic Confession (Art. 22; 1536), Calvin’s catechisms (1537, 1538, 1545), The Geneva Confession (Art. 15; 1536/1537), and the French Confession (Art. 35; 1559), all confessed the moral necessity of infant baptism. In the Belgic Confession (Art. 34; 1561) the Dutch Reformed Churches confess, “We detest the error of the Anabaptists” specifically the practice of re-baptizing believers and denying infant baptism. The Second Helvetic Confession (1561/1566; ch. 20) specifically condemned the denial of paedobaptism. The Heidelberg Catechism (Q. 74; 1563) insisted on infant baptism. The Westminster Confession 28.5 (1647) arguably calls the “neglect” or condemnation of infant baptism “a great sin.” In the light of this evidence it is hard to see how insisting on it is anything but consistent with confession of the Reformed Churches in which one finds not only a soteriology but also an ecclesiology and doctrine of the sacraments" (Clark)