[FactQuest]

Then why do some Protestants, basing their belief on the Bible alone, accept infant baptism, and other Protestants, basing their belief on the Bible alone, reject it?

Obviously, at least one of them is wrong. I lean toward not baptizing infants. But, I'm willing to concede that I may be wrong about that. Underlying this whole difference is an underlying faith that baptism is not what effects salvation, and on that almost all Protestants agree. I would aruge that the Protestants that baptize infants do so more out of a tradition that is rooted in their Roman past, combined with, as you noted, no verses that prohibit it.

[dangus]

>>I lean toward not baptizing infants<<

A couple of times, there is reference to an entire wealthy household being baptised. In the biblical days, a household referred to a man, his wife, their kids, their servants, their servants' kids. A wealthy household with no kids at all was unheard of. Absolutely unheard of.

Also, please note that the NT is filled of phrases like, "we have been baptised in Christ." In such places, the authors probably would have said, "we have repented in Christ," if repentance brough salvation but baptism did not. The physical manifestation of a sacrament cannot be seperated from the spiritual occurrence, just as you cannot make conjugal love to your wife over the telephone.

[Campion]

baptism is not what effects salvation, and on that almost all Protestants agree

But Church of Christ members and some Anglicans emphatically do not. If it "works out nicely" to figure this stuff out from your Bible alone, why do some people keep getting it wrong?

1 Peter 3:21 and Gal 3:27 and Acts 2:38 seem pretty straightforward to me.