John, the Baptist, was regenerated before he was born.I can see a reason to baptize infants. But in Acts Christ sent the Spirit who baptized the church. The believers promptly received water baptism.I believe the saved parents receive their children under the banner of the covenant. Am not fond of the Reformed Baptist describing the children as little devils. Not every person must have a "dramatic public repentance."And in historical fact the normal means of eternal salvation is through preaching. A child can never remember a time, the glorious gospel, a direct message intentionally introducing them to Christ. It was being passively regenerated under the preaching. It was a private transaction in the standard order of life.

I respectfully disagree if a child intentionally fails to receive the visible sign of baptism he is cursed. That is a doctrine from hell. It is teaching a bodily act produces a spiritual transformation. But the curse establishes the circumstances for a transformation. We know both the official ceremonies of baptism are alike if the responsible adult sincerely repents. Both the baptist and Presbyterian post salvation ceremonies. It would be hypocritical to be dogmatic as a post sign or prior sign. Gods sovereignty is the exercises of the law, covenants, curses, decrees and statutes in faithfully recreating the necessary conditions. The authoritative pronouncements overcome all institutions. I was baptized at 7 years old in a baptist tank over the pulpit. I do not need any other certification. I genuinely believe it is a covenant sign. But the sign is created by the axioms.