Not my problem. I posted them because of what they do say, not because of what they don't say.
No. When you go into court, you don't get to insist that the other side show only the evidence you approve of.
Neither do you get to tell me what evidence I can show.
Except the ones I cited.
Yes, what you posted is a problem for the assertions you've been making. It is another self-refuting post.
The first, that of Clement of Rome, is irrelevant because it says nothing about baptism and says nothing which excludes baptism. A person may try and introduce irrelevant evidence in court but an objection would get it tossed if the judge didn't previously exclude it forthwith.
The second reference, that of Victorinus is fatal to two of your assertions and supports ours regarding baptism. Victorinus was faith alone guy who think the epistle of Jacob (Which is commonly mistranslated as James in English.) was apostolic or Scripture.
The points for this thread are that he affirms what Paul wrote about baptism in Galatians 3, affirms that Ephesians 5:26 refers to baptism, and by his assertions demonstrates that the reasoning some people are trying to use regarding faith alone to exclude baptism as a work is invalid and leads to a false conclusion.
A person can read his commentaries on Galatians and Ephesians here:
https://www.documentacatholicaomnia...s__In_Epistola_Pauli_ad_Galatas__MLT.pdf.html
There was an English translation published about fifteen years ago so if desired or needed a person can look that up.
