The belief behind Christening is that the child is early dedicated to Christ, and is after wards educated in Christian belief. This is done so that the child is equipped to later choose to freely follow Christ.
Childhood baptism is Biblically based upon Acts 2:37-40.
Baptize means to apply to an object. Baptize can mean immersing, dipping, washing, or cleaning.
In the Bible, the baptism of the Spirit is described as a pouring out.
Hebrews 9:13,19 teaches that washing was by sprinkling.
The Spirit is poured out (Titus 3:5-6)
Washing by sprinkling (Ezek. 36:25-27)
Romans 6 says baptism is not burial with Christ, but union through cleaning.
The "sprinkle" was initiated in 325 A.D. at the council of Nicea. It was the canonizing of what we now call the Bible and the fundamental founding of the Roman Catholic church which had departed from "The Way" as taught in early church history in the book of Acts.
The Presbyterians are a spin off and direct result of the roman church, even though there were several so called "reformations" of the church over the years, none have returned to the initial teaching of the early church.
Baptize: The original definition of baptism is to immerse or submerge, it is symbolic of being buried in Christ and coming out of the water is symbolic of the Resurrection of Christ. The old man dying and the "New" man being raised. It had it's roots in being identified as the servant of the one baptized in, this is why Paul said "I thank my God that I baptized none of you", and "Have any been baptized in the name of Paul?".
It was an act of servitude. It was corrupted at the council of Nicea and left the whole reason for baptism destroyed by mans opinion over Gods. And the Presbyterians still follow the teachings of a corrupted church that was changed by government instead of Men of God!
And Sprinkiling had no foundation in the 2ND book of Acts, but Baptism in Acts 2:38 was a baptism by immersion, as stated above. You can validate this throughout the book of Acts, the Ethiopians asked what was to forbid them (from being baptized) since there was "Much Water".
They then went into the water and were baptized. You would not need "Much Water" to sprinkle, would you?
There are several other places in the Bible to validate this also.
Presbyterians sprinkle or pour based upon freedom of administration of the rite, as well as for the reason that it solves several conundrums resulting from immersion-only baptisms as being the only scriptural method identified.
If throngs of people visited John, for instance, what better way to apply baptism than standing in the water and spraying people on the shoreline gathered to see him? Why was there no mention whatsoever of any "deputizing"? If the Pharisees who saw this scatologicalALign asked who he was, then this could only have been a direct reference to Ezekiel's eschatological sign of sprinkling. In other words, the people asking were smart people that knew their scriptures well enough to make this reference.
When Philip and the eunich went "down to the water" for baptism, this is not a definitive immersion, since the reference could have been to a descent TO the water, i.e. the shoreline, rather than a descent INTO the water. Indeed, the passage says BOTH of them went. If we're going to say immersion is the only valid method, then we're doing it wrong today. Both the baptizer and the baptizee must be dunked.
I'm not saying that John could not have baptized by immersion, or that the eunuch was not baptized by going under the water. What I am saying is that it can be reasonably concluded that this was not necessarily the case. And since pouring and sprinkling can also represent a washing away as opposed to a cutting away of sins through circumcision, we can reasonably extract the message rather than the method as holding the importance here.