Puritan Board Sophomore
As Lane already said, not necessarily, although baptismal regeneration of some kind or other has been present in Protestantism in general (Lutherans and some Anglicans) and also even in Reformed circles (certain views on presumptive regeneration, et al.), although it isn't the majority view.That is a temptation. If the Church believed it for many long centuries, then it must not be dismissed lightly. But the Catholic system since the early centuries had infant baptist tied to salvation and believed in some form of baptismal regeneration. Should I join that consensus, too?
What's really impressive to me about the early life of the Church is how prevalent infant baptism already was and none objected to the practice. As Baptists sometimes mention, there were some in the early Church that argued for the superiority of credo-baptism only, but that was mostly based on prudential grounds. Some waited till their death to receive the full remission of sins (Constantine), others thought it was wiser to allow the child to grow up and make the choice themselves. Nevertheless, none of these,, however, denied the validity of an infant baptism.
Baptists today, on the other hand, will claim that many Christians have never had a baptism and by consequence not admit them to the table of the Lord.