We would say yes to being rebaptized because of our belief in believer’s baptism by immersion as a symbolic act to publicly confess our faith in Jesus. In an infant sprinkling, none of the criteria of that definition are met. It would be outside the scope of this Q @ A to consider all the arguments related to this, but the most basic argument is usually that baptism is a sign of the covenant made by believing parents for their children with baptism replacing circumcision as the sign of the covenant. This baptism has to be confirmed by faith when the child is old enough. However, Romans 2:28-9 says, “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; 29 but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.” We do not believe baptism equates to or replaces circumcision in the new covenant. A big part of the message of the New Testament is to stop trusting outward rituals. Furthermore, the book of Galatians is crystal clear that salvation is in Christ alone and not Christ plus circumcision. Baptism is a symbol of saving faith. Any other view has to be read into Scripture instead of being read out of it.