More on Skirts

[Aquila]

I get Pliny's point, but I think his logic is flawed. I'm going to play, Devil's Advocate....

Originally Posted by Pliny

Really?
Trinitarians never argue that Acts 2:38 means to be baptized BECAUSE of forgiveness of sins?
Trinitarians never argue that Acts 2:38 means to be baptized in the authority of rather than the literal name of Jesus?

Are you saying that Trinitarians never argue that we should take the literal words of Jesus over the words of the Apostles?

You are simply wrong. Trinitarians do NOT believe Acts 2:38 means to be baptized FOR the remission of sins and the do NOT believe that it indicate to have the name of Jesus invoked in baptism.

Actually, many do. Catholics and Orthodox believe in baptismal regeneration. In addition certain, Church's of Christ believe baptism remits sin.

To be sure some will baptize you any way you want because they do not believe baptism matters.

Or do they believe that baptism is so important it isn't worth the argument over a formula?

The point that when there is "room for debate" is fallacious because everyone believes there is room for debate when they disagree regardless of the evidence as seen by the Acts 2:38 discussion.

I will prove that there is indeed room for debate. Watch this, watch it closely...

Can ANYONE provide a Scripture wherein the actual words (or formula) spoken by an Apostle are clearly stated as they baptize a believer?

3...2...1... GO!