First, I would like to comment on the last part.
Any thoughts on that situation? Am I correct that among pedobaptists, there would be no re-baptisms such as that?
You are definitely correct that Paedo-Baptists would not do re-baptisms in such cases.
I of course am a Credo-Baptist and although I definitely can’t speak for all Credo-Baptists. However, based on what you told me about your sister getting “rebaptized”, although I certainly understand why she wanted to get re-baptized. I never the less, do not believe it is biblical.
Does she somehow believe that she lost her salvation and got saved again; and now needs to be re-baptized?
Although I believe baptism is a “secondary issue”, never the less it is still an important issue and therefore, although I do not believe we should separate from other believers over the issue. Never the less, I don’t want to make light of it either.
RC Sproul was my favorite theologian and he was a Paedo-Baptist. So that should tell you a little about me.
However, there are sure a lot of people on both sides who really take the matter seriously (too seriously).
For example, one Paedo-Baptist I know told me in no uncertain terms that all Credo-Baptists are sinning because they will not get their own children baptized.
I thought I would ask the person, if it would be a sin for someone who believed in Credo-Baptism to get their baby baptized?
No, because Paedo-Baptism is biblical and God would understand where they are coming from.
This person of course forgets some very important things from Scripture. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)
Any Credo-Baptist that got their baby baptized while still believing it is wrong, is doing it to appease someone else, rather than doing it because they genuinely believe the Bible teaches it.
In my desire to go no further than explicit statements of the Scriptures my view on baptism is rather simple. It was a command of Christ, so I consider it an "ordinance" just as I do the Lord's Supper that Jesus commanded.
Simply stated, what you are saying here; is more in line with the Credo-Baptism I held to as a Dispensationalists, rather than either 1689 Federalism, or the WCF.
Understand here, that in CT (both in the 1689 LBCF and the WCF), they have no problem calling baptism and the Lord Supper “sacraments” or “means of grace”; provided that it is not associated with Roman Catholicism. That can be explained further, but at the moment I don’t want this to get longer.
As for saying: “covenant baptism”, or “sign of baptism”, there is nothing wrong with them as long as one understands what they mean. There are of course differences between WCF CT and 1689 CT, but if one understands the CT of the positions, they are ok. One must remember that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, yet the doctrine of the Trinity is very biblical.