Re: False hope of salvation by infant baptism. was [ "Ecclesial Communion, Conciliarity and Authority"]

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC wrote:

"David Aldred" <nr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9rjs55x3qb.ln2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gareth McCaughan wrote:

David Aldred wrote:

[Jeff Hickling:]
And language skills, along with other skills of communication, if one
is
blind or deaf are required today for people to understand Christ's
message for them to be saved.

[David:]
So you believe that God will always reject someone (of whatever age - I
wasn't specifying babies in the conditions) who cannot manage language.
Finally you are clear on this.

I think (see other things he's posted in this thread) he's
actually saying something a little different: that in such
cases there's no "someone" really there. So he agrees with
famous atheist Daniel Dennett about that :-).

And other well know atheists, like Barbara Smoker (who used this as her
basis for arguing for 'abortion' up to 2 years of age).

Perhaps Jeff would like to comment on that: if an infant isn't
sufficiently
human to be a child of God,

It's a matter of being of an age to be responsible for your own decisions
when baptism into Christ is concerned.
Babies being a few weeks old will never come into that category.

OK, Jeff, there's no need to go on proving how unpleasant your twisted
theology is.

and is equivalent to a beast (as you seem to be
saying, Jeff),

Only in the sense as such are not responsible for any sins committed, so
they die like the guiltless beasts and are no more.

Only? So how, spiritually, do they differ from the beasts, then, if they
cannot be children of God?

do you support infanticide?  And if not, why not?

All aiding and abetting of killing or taking of human life is wrong,

So what do you mean by 'human life'? You seem to be denying babies a
fundamental part of humanity - the ability to become children of God - so
how can you also claim their lives as human?

so
how the RCC can justify welcoming the late prime minister into their
fellowship, just shows yet again, the utter contempt they have for Christ
and his express commands.

Perhaps you could let us all into the knowledge you have of the discussions
which took place between Blair and his confessor - you must have such
knowledge to ne so sure that he did not repent of his actions (as he would
have to) before becoming a member of the RCC.

Alternatively we could ask Mark to consider whether this constitutes
personal abuse, since you are implying incompetence on the part of that
confessor and deliberate dishonesty on the part of Blair.

--
David Aldred
.

Relevant Pages
Loading