[Dr. Eckleburg]

No Protestant believes the Roman error of baptismal regeneration. Baptists and Presbyterians can differ on the timing of baptism and still believe each other is a redeemed Christian.

As I said, our differences are small compared to the enormous, anti-Scriptural errors of the papacy.

[Cronos]

No Protestant believes in baptismal regeneration
Really? Then why do orthodox Lutherans believe that original sin is handled in baptism. Hence, as a gospel-word and promise, "baptism doth save." They are very objective and literalistic here.

And, how can you have infant baptism? Baptists are against that

[Mr Rogers]

“Baptists and Presbyterians can differ on the timing of baptism and still believe each other is a redeemed Christian.”

Correct. Most (but not all) Baptist Churches I’ve been in will not allow you to become a voting member of the church unless you have been baptized on your confession of faith. Most (but not all everywhere) will accept that one can be a Christian without any baptism, provided you don’t plan on staying that way, and will allow that many Christians consider their baptism as an infant to be fulfilled by their faith later.

I think Acts shows that God will bring it all about to conclusion, although not always in the order we expect of Him. And as Dr E points out, my disagreements with her are minor compared to my disagreements with the Catholic Church - where, FWIW, I believe God has saved believers residing as well, although many Catholics are NOT saved, and Catholic theology is badly wrong in many areas.

However, I suspect the thief on the cross didn’t have a fully formed theology, either!

[Petronski]

...the enormous, anti-Scriptural errors of the papacy.

Nonesuch.