Acts 8:37

[Ransom]

Not only that, it took you two weeks 

Two weeks before reviewing the logical mess of the OP point by point. True. 

It is the KJV cult that claims someone could appeal to the omission of Acts 8:37 as justification for infant baptism.

I made no illogical statements; I merely asked who those people were.

Therefore, the illogic is your KJV cult's.  Thank you for tacitly admitting it.

 

[Steven Avery]

It is the KJV cult that claims someone could appeal to the omission of Acts 8:37 as justification for infant baptism.

It is rather obvious that those opposed to infant baptism, who have Acts 8:37 in their Bible, use the verse to show that infant baptism is not Biblical.  It is hard for anybody to appeal to a verse that is not there.

 

[Ransom]

You appear to have a severe problem either with following the conversation, or with reading. Either way, you are irrelevant. Thanks for your useless non-contribution to this thread. Bye-bye, Stevie.

 

[Steven Avery]

Bye Scott. Thanks for starting a thread that highlights the doctrinal significance of the faith confession and testimony in baptism, as seen in Acts 8:37.