I have a question related to the WCF 28 on Baptism.

In all my years discussing baptism with anyone who held to the WCF, I have never heard anyone claim that the WCF teaches “Baptismal Regeneration”. Yes, many believe it teaches “Presumptive Regeneration”. But as far as I can tell, that is an inside debate.
That is until today, when someone said the following:
(Note: I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I must admit this claim surprised me. I thought I needed people more knowledgeable than I was that knows the WCF and history.
Your thoughts are appreciated.)

——————

Quote
The issue is that the WCF itself teaches something beyond "presumptive regeneration" and teaches that even infants are sealed by their baptism into the covenant of grace, ingrafting into Christ, regeneration, and remission of sins. It also teaches that those graces are not only offered to those who are baptized, but really conferred by the Holy Spirit in baptism. It wasn't until all the Princetonian business with Warfield and others that the evangelical distaste for baptismal regeneration caused the doctrine to be almost eradicated from evangelical Presbyterian thought.
They are denying WCF 28.

Quote
I was Presbyterian for a long time, so I know that most do not hold the baptismal regeneration view. That is why I mentioned everything I have so far. The WCF holds to a baptismal regeneration view and modern evangelical presbyterians do not. That is a problem.
————————

The problem I see with this claim, is that Baptismal Regeneration contradicts what I understand about the Protestant Reformation.

Thoughts?