What is the purpose of infant baptism?

[Truther]

Truther borrows this lie from the Seventh Day Adventists, but will deny any association with them.

Not at all, you guys teach that he that is baptized shall eventually believe and be saved.
It’s backward theology. I guess when you baptize unrepentant and untaught newborn children, that’s what you end up with.

 

[RedFan]

Your post is a false witness of the 500 true witnesses. There was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the first century.

With your addition of "Roman," of course you are correct. But take that word out, and the matter is more complicated.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Purposes of paedobaptism:

1. As a parallel with circumcision in the Old Testament, Luke 2:21.
2. Initiate the baby into the Christian community because his parent is a Christian, Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 7:14.

I baptized all my 5 kids by near submersion in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when they were 8 days old. I understand that the evidence for infant baptism in the Bible is not explicit and is debatable. So, when my kids were teenagers, I told them that if they believed that was sufficient, there would be no need to be baptized again; but if not, feel free to have an official adult believer's baptism from a reputable local church.

You baptized them because you loved them. Don't ever doubt that.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Your post is a false witness of the 500 true witnesses. There was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the first century.

CAREFUL - your ignorance is rearing its ugly head . . .

First of all - there absolutely WAS a Church of Rome in the first century - evangelized by Peter and Paul. What there wasn't was all of the Protestant or quasi-Christian sects yours.

Secondly - the Catholic Church is NOT called the "Roman" Catholi Church. It is called the Cathouc Church. Roman or Latin simply refers to the Liturgical Rite - and there are over 20 of those.

Do yout homework before responding, son . . .

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Your post is a false witness of the 500 true witnesses. There was no such thing as the Roman Catholic Church in the first century.

Q: When did the term "Roman Catholic Church" come into being?

A: It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the "Roman Catholic Church," it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those "other" Catholics and create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).

Different variants of the "Roman" insult appeared at different times.

• The earliest form of the insult was the noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525.
• The next to develop was the adjective "Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535.
• Next came the noun "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined approximately 1595-1605.
• Shortly thereafter came the verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10.
• Then between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun "Romanism" (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a late-comer term about 1815-1825-the noun "Roman Catholicism," which is a synonym for the earlier "Romanism."

A similar complex of insults arose around the term "pope."

• About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term "papist" and later its derivative "papism."
• A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective "popish."
• Next came "popery" (1525-1535), and then "papistry" (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, "papistical" and "papistic." (Source: Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)

This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all-even national or racial ones) has such a complex of insults woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say "Catholic" without qualifying it or replacing it with a Roman insult.
https://www.cin.org/users/james/reference/info_groups.htm#anti

 

[RedFan]

Q: When did the term "Roman Catholic Church" come into being?

A: It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the "Roman Catholic Church," it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those "other" Catholics and create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).

Different variants of the "Roman" insult appeared at different times.

• The earliest form of the insult was the noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525.
• The next to develop was the adjective "Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535.
• Next came the noun "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined approximately 1595-1605.
• Shortly thereafter came the verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10.
• Then between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun "Romanism" (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a late-comer term about 1815-1825-the noun "Roman Catholicism," which is a synonym for the earlier "Romanism."

A similar complex of insults arose around the term "pope."

• About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term "papist" and later its derivative "papism."
• A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective "popish."
• Next came "popery" (1525-1535), and then "papistry" (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, "papistical" and "papistic." (Source: Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)

This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all-even national or racial ones) has such a complex of insults woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say "Catholic" without qualifying it or replacing it with a Roman insult.
https://www.cin.org/users/james/reference/info_groups.htm#anti

Adding "Roman" can't be that much of an insult. Google "A Roman Catholic Community" and you'll find hundreds of Catholic churches in the U.S. which refer to themselves that way.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Adding "Roman" can't be that much of an insult. Google "A Roman Catholic Community" and you'll find hundreds of Catholic churches in the U.S. which refer to themselves that way.

Because the context in which it is used is correct. "A Roman Catholic Community" refers to the Roman or Latin rite. The error is blanketing all Catholics as "Roman". If one is to call a Melkite Catholic a Roman Catholic, they might take offense. The abbreviation "RCC" limits all Catholics to one rite, and is inaccurate. "CC" is more accurate, and is easier to type.

A rite is “The diverse liturgical traditions in which the one catholic and apostolic faith has come to be expressed and celebrated in various cultures and lands.”

As part of this one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Catholic Church there are twenty-three individual rites which are equally valid with different liturgical traditions with different forms of liturgy, often based on cultural and language differences, but all in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Those of us in the West, are mostly members of the Latin or Roman Rite, which is named the Roman Catholic Church. There are others rites with unique names within the Catholic Church: the Maronite Catholic Church , the Greek Catholic Church, the Melkite Catholic Church, etc.

Roman Catholic Church is not the name of the whole Church, only the name of the Roman rite of the Catholic Church.

So the official name of our universal Church is “Catholic Church” (CC) Roman Catholic Church is the Roman rite within the larger Catholic Church. But all the various liturgical rites are one and in union with Rome.

The Catholic Church and Her 23 Liturgical Rites – Defenders of the Catholic Faith

I was recently asked if there was a difference between the “Catholic Church” and the “Roman Catholic Church”. Are they the same thing? What is the correct name of our Church? So I provided this simple answer (PDF version here). The official name of our church is “Catholic Church”. But the Church...

catholicconvert.com

 

[Truther]

With your addition of "Roman," of course you are correct. But take that word out, and the matter is more complicated.

The Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church are the exact same entity. They are synonymous.

 

[Truther]

CAREFUL - your ignorance is rearing its ugly head . . .

First of all - there absolutely WAS a Church of Rome in the first century - evangelized by Peter and Paul. What there wasn't was all of the Protestant or quasi-Christian sects yours.

Secondly - the Catholic Church is NOT called the "Roman" Catholi Church. It is called the Cathouc Church. Roman or Latin simply refers to the Liturgical Rite - and there are over 20 of those.

Do yout homework before responding, son . . .

The church of Rome in the first century that Paul addressed was not the Roman Catholic Church. The RCCs that were the pagans that later centuries adopted some Christian ideas.
The Romans that Paul addressed the obeyed the book of Acts(2:38), which the Roman Catholic Church opposed vehemently. And still oppose it to this day.
The Roman Catholic Church was the first organization to oppose and subsequently ban Acts 2:38 and they became the mother of all Acts skippers.

 

[Truther]

Q: When did the term "Roman Catholic Church" come into being?

A: It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the "Roman Catholic Church," it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those "other" Catholics and create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).

Different variants of the "Roman" insult appeared at different times.

• The earliest form of the insult was the noun "Romanist" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525.
• The next to develop was the adjective "Romish" (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535.
• Next came the noun "Roman Catholic" (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined approximately 1595-1605.
• Shortly thereafter came the verb "to Romanize" (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10.
• Then between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun "Romanism" (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a late-comer term about 1815-1825-the noun "Roman Catholicism," which is a synonym for the earlier "Romanism."

A similar complex of insults arose around the term "pope."

• About 1515-25 the Anglicans coined the term "papist" and later its derivative "papism."
• A quick follow-up, in 1520-1530, was the adjective "popish."
• Next came "popery" (1525-1535), and then "papistry" (1540-1550), with its later derivatives, "papistical" and "papistic." (Source: Random House Webster's College Dictionary, 1995 ed.)

This complex of insults is revealing as it shows the depths of animosity English Protestants had toward the Church. No other religious body (perhaps no other group at all-even national or racial ones) has such a complex of insults woven into the English language as does the Catholic Church. Even today many Protestants who have no idea what the origin of the term is cannot bring themselves to say "Catholic" without qualifying it or replacing it with a Roman insult.
https://www.cin.org/users/james/reference/info_groups.htm#anti

The Roman Catholic church is unfounded in scripture, just like hundreds and perhaps thousands of their doctrines that are unfounded. They don’t even resemble the first century church in the book of Acts.

They are a later religion that are comprised of paganism, Judaism and Christianity. They are called the universal church, which is a combination of all three religions.

 

[RedFan]

The Roman Catholic Church and the Catholic Church are the exact same entity. They are synonymous.

I agree -- today. But they weren't synonymous in the First Century. There was nothing particularly "Roman" about the church back then.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

The Roman Catholic church is unfounded in scripture, just like hundreds and perhaps thousands of their doctrines that are unfounded. They don’t even resemble the first century church in the book of Acts.

They are a later religion that are comprised of paganism, Judaism and Christianity. They are called the universal church, which is a combination of all three religions.

 

[Truther]

I agree -- today. But they weren't synonymous in the First Century. There was nothing particularly "Roman" about the church back then.

They did not exist as an entity back then in the first century. They developed into what is known as the Catholic Church in Rome in the fourth century.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

How liars create the ‘illusion of truth’​

Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not. Understanding this effect can help you avoid falling for propaganda, says psychologist Tom Stafford.

“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”, is a law of propaganda often attributed to the Nazi Joseph Goebbels. Among psychologists something like this known as the "illusion of truth" effect. Here's how a typical experiment on the effect works: participants rate how true trivia items are, things like "A prune is a dried plum". Sometimes these items are true (like that one), but sometimes participants see a parallel version which isn't true (something like "A date is a dried plum").

After a break – of minutes or even weeks – the participants do the procedure again, but this time some of the items they rate are new, and some they saw before in the first phase. The key finding is that people tend to rate items they've seen before as more likely to be true, regardless of whether they are true or not, and seemingly for the sole reason that they are more familiar.

So, here, captured in the lab, seems to be the source for the saying that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth. And if you look around yourself, you may start to think that everyone from advertisers to politicians are taking advantage of this foible of human psychology.
But a reliable effect in the lab isn't necessarily an important effect on people's real-world beliefs. If you really could make a lie sound true by repetition, there'd be no need for all the other techniques of persuasion.

One obstacle is what you already know. Even if a lie sounds plausible, why would you set what you know aside just because you heard the lie repeatedly?

Recently, a team led by Lisa Fazio of Vanderbilt University set out to test how the illusion of truth effect interacts with our prior knowledge. Would it affect our existing knowledge? They used paired true and un-true statements, but also split their items according to how likely participants were to know the truth (so "The Pacific Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth" is an example of a "known" items, which also happens to be true, and "The Atlantic Ocean is the largest ocean on Earth" is an un-true item, for which people are likely to know the actual truth).
Their results show that the illusion of truth effect worked just as strongly for known as for unknown items, suggesting that prior knowledge won’t prevent repetition from swaying our judgements of plausibility.

To cover all bases, the researchers performed one study in which the participants were asked to rate how true each statement seemed on a six-point scale, and one where they just categorized each fact as "true" or "false". Repetition pushed the average item up the six-point scale, and increased the odds that a statement would be categorized as true. For statements that were actually fact or fiction, known or unknown, repetition made them all seem more believable.

At first this looks like bad news for human rationality, but – and I can't emphasize this strongly enough – when interpreting psychological science, you have to look at the actual numbers.

What Fazio and colleagues actually found, is that the biggest influence on whether a statement was judged to be true was... whether it actually was true. The repetition effect couldn’t mask the truth. With or without repetition, people were still more likely to believe the actual facts as opposed to the lies.

This shows something fundamental about how we update our beliefs – repetition has a power to make things sound more true, even when we know differently, but it doesn't over-ride that knowledge.

continued...

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

The next question has to be, why might that be? The answer is to do with the effort it takes to being rigidly logical about every piece of information you hear. If every time you heard something you assessed it against everything you already knew, you'd still be thinking about breakfast at supper-time.

Because we need to make quick judgements, we adopt shortcuts – heuristics which are right more often than wrong. Relying on how often you've heard something to judge how truthful something feels is just one strategy. Any universe where truth gets repeated more often than lies, even if only 51% vs 49% will be one where this is a quick and dirty rule for judging facts.

If repetition was the only thing that influenced what we believed we'd be in trouble, but it isn't. We can all bring to bear more extensive powers of reasoning, but we need to recognise they are a limited resource. Our minds are prey to the illusion of truth effect because our instinct is to use short-cuts in judging how plausible something is. Often this works. Sometimes it is misleading.

Once we know about the effect we can guard against it. Part of this is double-checking why we believe what we do – if something sounds plausible is it because it really is true, or have we just been told that repeatedly? This is why scholars are so mad about providing references - so we can track the origin on any claim, rather than having to take it on faith.

But part of guarding against the illusion is the obligation it puts on us to stop repeating falsehoods. We live in a world where the facts matter, and should matter. If you repeat things without bothering to check if they are true, you are helping to make a world where lies and truth are easier to confuse. So, please, think before you repeat.
source

Is Catholicism Pagan?

Catholic beliefs are not "borrowed" from earlier pagan cults. We clear away the confusion and give you some helpful hints on how to respond to this charge.

www.catholic.com

The BIGGEST Misconceptions Protestants Have About the Catholic Faith with Jimmy Akin

Author and Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, sets the record straight about the Catholic faith and dispels some of the false ideas that Protestants have about the Roman Catholic Church.

crossexamined.org

I prefer transcripts, videos are too slow for me

The BIGGEST Misconceptions Protestants Have About the Catholic Faith with Jimmy Akin

Author and Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, sets the record straight about the Catholic faith and dispels some of the false ideas that Protestants have about the Roman Catholic Church.

crossexamined.org

Truther, please, think before you repeat.

 

[Truther]

The next question has to be, why might that be? The answer is to do with the effort it takes to being rigidly logical about every piece of information you hear. If every time you heard something you assessed it against everything you already knew, you'd still be thinking about breakfast at supper-time.

Because we need to make quick judgements, we adopt shortcuts – heuristics which are right more often than wrong. Relying on how often you've heard something to judge how truthful something feels is just one strategy. Any universe where truth gets repeated more often than lies, even if only 51% vs 49% will be one where this is a quick and dirty rule for judging facts.

If repetition was the only thing that influenced what we believed we'd be in trouble, but it isn't. We can all bring to bear more extensive powers of reasoning, but we need to recognise they are a limited resource. Our minds are prey to the illusion of truth effect because our instinct is to use short-cuts in judging how plausible something is. Often this works. Sometimes it is misleading.

Once we know about the effect we can guard against it. Part of this is double-checking why we believe what we do – if something sounds plausible is it because it really is true, or have we just been told that repeatedly? This is why scholars are so mad about providing references - so we can track the origin on any claim, rather than having to take it on faith.

But part of guarding against the illusion is the obligation it puts on us to stop repeating falsehoods. We live in a world where the facts matter, and should matter. If you repeat things without bothering to check if they are true, you are helping to make a world where lies and truth are easier to confuse. So, please, think before you repeat.
source

Is Catholicism Pagan?

Catholic beliefs are not "borrowed" from earlier pagan cults. We clear away the confusion and give you some helpful hints on how to respond to this charge.

www.catholic.com

The BIGGEST Misconceptions Protestants Have About the Catholic Faith with Jimmy Akin

Author and Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, sets the record straight about the Catholic faith and dispels some of the false ideas that Protestants have about the Roman Catholic Church.

crossexamined.org

I prefer transcripts, videos are too slow for me

The BIGGEST Misconceptions Protestants Have About the Catholic Faith with Jimmy Akin

Author and Catholic apologist, Jimmy Akin, sets the record straight about the Catholic faith and dispels some of the false ideas that Protestants have about the Roman Catholic Church.

crossexamined.org

Truther, please, think before you repeat.

I used to be a Catholic. I know all about the Catholic Church. I know all about the history of the Catholic Church. They are the queen of all Acts skippers. They are the church that started, mixed with paganism, Judaism and Christianity and their number one main objective was to cause people to disobey Peter per Acts 2:38. The rest is history and the protestant daughters of the Roman Catholic Church are following suit. They all skip Acts 2:38.

 

[Truther]

Lesson 7- Page 7

This is how the Catholic Church was founded.

 

[RedFan]

I used to be a Catholic. I know all about the Catholic Church. I know all about the history of the Catholic Church. They are the queen of all Acts skippers. They are the church that started, mixed with paganism, Judaism and Christianity and their number one main objective was to cause people to disobey Peter per Acts 2:38. The rest is history and the protestant daughters of the Roman Catholic Church are following suit. They all skip Acts 2:38.

I used to be a Catholic as well. But I don't see what you see about the RCC "skipping" Acts 2:38. "Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" I was taught to repent of my sins. I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (along with two other names, Father and Holy Spirit). I was taught that repentance by the baptized would lead to forgiveness of sins -- just as Acts 2:38 suggests.

 

[Truther]

I used to be a Catholic as well. But I don't see what you see about the RCC "skipping" Acts 2:38. "Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ so that your sins may be forgiven; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'" I was taught to repent of my sins. I was baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (along with two other names, Father and Holy Spirit). I was taught that repentance by the baptized would lead to forgiveness of sins -- just as Acts 2:38 suggests.

The Catholics teach that the name of the son is son. They don’t say I baptize you in the name of the father and in the name of Jesus and in the name of of the Holy Ghost. They skip the name of Jesus entirely. Plus, babies cannot repent. Plus, babies cannot receive the gift of the Holy Ghost per the promise.

 

[Truther]

Acts 2:38 was commanded to be obeyed by Peter to adult sinners. AKA people that can comprehend what Peter was saying. He was not preaching to infants.