I recently taught on the various views of baptism. I contrasted believer's baptism with infant baptism.
I explained that, even when separated from the doctrine of baptismal regeneration (as in the case of Presbyterian and Reformed believers), the practice of infant baptism is unbiblical (for reasons that I will not get into here as they are outside the scope of this post) and ought to be rejected.
The objection was raised that, since infant baptism (particularly when practiced by those who reject the doctrine of baptismal regeneration) is nothing more than a baby dedication accompanied by the sprinkling of water, we Bapists ought not to object to it. After all, when we dedicate a baby, it is nothing more than a dry baptism.
This line of thinking is backwards.
If one believes that the Evangelical practice of baby dedication is nothing but a dry baptism, then the conclusion that one ought to draw is that the practice of baby dedication, like infant baptism, is obviously unbiblical and ought to be abandoned.
For the record, I do believe that a baby dedication is essentially a dry baptism, and that's why I don't support the practice.