Protestants: Sinner's Prayer-What must it say and does it assure Salvation?

[crazzeto]

You intimate here that Christ provokes men to do evil. You take this scripture too literally. When Christ spoke of the division within families, it is to be taken in the ‘spiritual’ sense. When one becomes disciple of Christ, our loyalty is to Him, … not our family. But, in the ‘literal’ sense, we are to be our ‘brother’s keeper’… and to ‘honor our father & mother’. These are Big 10 laws … and Christ cannot speak against His own Laws, and was the fulfillment of all OT scriptures.

Recall also when one of Apostles drew his sword and cut off the ear of soldier, Christ told them to ‘put away’ the sword. The Beatitudes are the antithesis of Christ bringing division to this world.

Now, regarding ‘remaining divided until the end’ … the Early Church was of ONE ACCORD, all sharing equally, all unified by H.S. If it happened once before, it can happen again. Nevertheless, its at the ‘end time’ that great trials will come upon all, and many will fall away.

No actually I do no such thing, but I do add reality into the situation which is what Christ did. Christ knew that God is devisive, it’s not God’s fault, rather it is the fault of our failings. This is something that God made quite clear, in the passages both Fr John and I provided.

 

[brb3]

Christ knew that God is devisive, it’s not God’s fault, rather it is the fault of our failings.

Make up your mind ! Is God divisive or a harmonizer / unifier ?

Lets look to Paul’s apologetics.

2 Cor. 5:17-20 “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ RECONCILED US TO HIMSELF and gave us the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION; that is, God was in Christ RECONCILING THE WORLD TO HIMSELF, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the MESSAGE OF RECONCILIATION. So we are ambassodors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, BE RECONCILED TO GOD.”

 

[guanophore]

You are quite frankly the first Roman Catholic to put it this way. The command to "feed my sheep" was by the restoration of Peter as he had denied the Christ and needed restoration.

I have a decidedly non-Roman perspective.

Yes, the command to feed and care for the sheep was made in the context of restoring Peter. However, Jesus’ intention for Peter existed from the beginning, long before Peter denied Him. In fact, when Jesus told the Aposltes that they would forsake Him, He told Peter “I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail”. Now, this is in the singular- that means, if the rest of the Apostles wanted their faith to hold, they needed to get in on the prayer for Peter. Scripture is clear that Peter stands at the head of the Apostles. He has a unifying leadership role. The others did not do anything without him.

 Once again you are the first Catholic I have ever heard put it this way. So you then would agree then with other Protestants that James was the first head, I take from your comment, because the first council was at Jerusalem where James was head, NOT Peter.

James was the head of the local Church. Peter, like Paul, was an itinerant Apostle. As such, they both had jurisdiction over the whole Church. James remained in Jerusalem to stabilize and teach the community. He was their local pastor. Peter had no need to displace a local authority. All the Apostles exercised authority collegially and cooperatively. This same procedure is followed today, when the Pope has instruction for the faithful, he communicates it to the local bishop, who then communicates it to the flock.

 I would be interested to hear you take on the Jerusalem council argument that most other Catholics brush off.

I see Peter expressing great humility in his letters, and in his conduct. I do not see a striving for authority among the Apostles. I see reverence and courtesy, just as Christ commanded. All knew of Peter’s special role in the Church, but Peter did not “Lord it over” the others. He gave them all the Word of God as it was revealed to them, and they responded accordingly. My favorite part of this account is the line “it seemed right to the HS and to us”. This is how the magesterium has functioned ever since.

 

[guanophore]

So if, by your interpretation of scripture, feeding the flock was ONLY given to Peter, why were the other apostles sitting around to hear this same command? Why were the apostles also given the same command in other places in the gospels? It is because this was Peter’s restoration.

Both things are true. Peter is given singular instruction and authority that is not given to the others. But all the Apostles worked together to feed and care for the flock. There was not strife or discord. When they had conflicts, like Paul had with Peter, they worked them out.

 

[guanophore]

If the Early church had NO division please explain the disputes over circumcision and eating food with the gentile converts. Why do you think the Jerusalem council was held if there was NO division, to have a wine and cheese party? Come one be real, they were not all unified on EVERYTHING. Why would Paul say in 1 Corinthians 3 “Why are the DIVISIONS amongst you” if all were unified in the Early Church. The epistle to the Romans, Jude, and James all speak to those who cause DIVISION, so how can you claim the Early Church was all in one accord?

I saw quite frankly no taking of the scripture where you think intimates Christ provokes men to evil, and I do not believe ANYONE could think that. From what I have seen of Crazzeto’s posts I do not believe he thinks that way and in this case is spot on with historical Biblical interpretation.

Unity is the fruit of adherance to right doctrine. Unity exists to the extent that everyone embraces the Truth. To the extent that some do not have the fullness of Truth, division exists.

 

[brb3]

all the Apostles worked together to feed and care for the flock. There was not strife or discord. When they had conflicts, like Paul had with Peter, they worked them out.

G-4 votes for Unity among the 12. Good Teamwork and well laid plans always wins the battle.

 

[brb3]

Unity is the fruit of adherance to right doctrine. Unity exists to the extent that everyone embraces the Truth. To the extent that some do not have the fullness of Truth, division exists.

G-4 … shares the best in Catholic apologetics.

 

[Padrej]

The Ecumenical councils were need to remove/correct the teachings of the goats, not the sheep. They were purgative and unifying. How can the Church be the SHINING CITY ON THE HILL, THE LIGHT TO THE WORLD … if it is not UNIFIED, AND SPEAKING WITH ONE ACCORD ?

Your married couple analogy is not appropriate to the question at hand. Paul even intimated as much, when he taught it was better to remain single. Apparently he was or had been married [Pharisees were require to] … and learned the single life was better suited to his ministry. He taught the married would expience more ‘worldly’ grief … and he was right.

But, to answer more exactly … yes, two Christians can come very close to realizing Unity. You have to turn the other cheek, and to follow the Lord’s Prayer. There are many Protestant preacher/wife combos that are w/o strife.

Did you forget that Peter WAS married as Jesus healed his MOTHER IN LAW??? And Yet the Roman Catholic church uses Paul as the one to emulate celibacy in the priesthood when Peter was married. The section you cite where Paul is speaking of remaining single he is speaking about lust and sin.

The marriage analogy is VERY appropriate as other places in the Bible the image of marriage is used to describe Christ’s relationship to the Church. So you are then saying that Christ is divorced from the Church (by your comments on worldly griefs) and has little to no control over it until He comes again in final victory? I do not think it happens that way. This is Sunday school theology 101 here. Study your church history, Roman Catholic priests used to be married until one point in history.

 

[FrJohnB]

Did you forget that Peter WAS married as Jesus healed his MOTHER IN LAW??? And Yet the Roman Catholic church uses Paul as the one to emulate celibacy in the priesthood when Peter was married. The section you cite where Paul is speaking of remaining single he is speaking about lust and sin.

The marriage analogy is VERY appropriate as other places in the Bible the image of marriage is used to describe Christ’s relationship to the Church. So you are then saying that Christ is divorced from the Church (by your comments on worldly griefs) and has little to no control over it until He comes again in final victory? I do not think it happens that way. This is Sunday school theology 101 here. Study your church history, Roman Catholic priests used to be married until one point in history.

Thank you padrej for bringing out the fact that Peter was married ( as he had a mother in law) and yet we turn to Paul for the “burn with lust … and ought to be celibate” when it comes to the priesthood. the truth is there is no provision in scripture for a non married clergy. The point I was making is the one you made on the oneness of marriage and Christ is one with the church. The Bible does use the marriage model to show the relationship between Christ and the church. With all due respect to brb3 I cannot see how that cannot be fathomed. You are also correct that at one time Roman Catholic clergy were married, the Orthodox clergy still marry, only their bishops remain celibate.

 

[FrJohnB]

Every prayer that every human has ever uttered has been a sinner’s prayer!

Wow, never looked at it from that standpoint. Thank you.

 

[FrJohnB]

Excuse me, did I say the Bible teaches there would never be divisions ? :nope:

 

[crazzeto]

Make up your mind ! Is God divisive or a harmonizer / unifier ?

Lets look to Paul’s apologetics.

2 Cor. 5:17-20 “Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come. All this is from God, who through Christ RECONCILED US TO HIMSELF and gave us the MINISTRY OF RECONCILIATION; that is, God was in Christ RECONCILING THE WORLD TO HIMSELF, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the MESSAGE OF RECONCILIATION. So we are ambassodors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, BE RECONCILED TO GOD.”

For a Catholic, you seem to be exceptionally good at forgetting we have free will. If we didn’t, Jesus’s prayer on holy Thursday makes no sense what so ever. Why bother praying that we might be one, if God is not only unifying, but we have no free will to rebel there for all Christians will automatically be united? Com’on now…

We have free will, Jesus knew that there would always be strife. This doesn’t mean Jesus is causing the strife, we cause strife. But the point remains, the strife is there.

Edit
Your opinion also ignores all recorded Christian history. There was heresy and apostisy from the beginning. And guess what, all parties involved (orthodox or not) more often than not were true believers in Jesus Christ who had an honest opinion based upon scriptures. Why do you think Christ founded the Church with St. Peter as the earthly visible head?

 

[Anna_Scott]

Absolutely. I always tread lightly on this topic (which is why I’ve just been reading this thread rather than jumping in with guns blazing ). Honestly, so much has been said already, that I don’t think I can add much to it. All I can say is this: I believe that both faith and repentance are gifts from the Holy Spirit rather than choices we make. He uses whatever means He will to bring sinners to faith in Christ. Therefore, even if we are to pray a “sinner’s prayer” of sorts, I would never say that praying it “makes one saved” or is the moment one “got saved” or any other common American churchspeak lingo. The Lord is the Shepherd who pursues His lost sheep; the sheep don’t have to pray a prayer to “get” Him to pursue and save them!

And as for the more recent discussions, I definitely like the prayers that are found in our liturgy . The attitude of “Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner” is one that is always appropriate - especially before Communion. And I’m with you on the John 20 Forgiveness of Sins passage (granting authority to the Apostles). But I guess that’s no surprise since I’m Anglican too

blazerdave,

Appreciate your comments. I agree, our “Lord is the Shepherd who pursues His lost sheep.”

The extent of “free will” involved in faith and repentance is a complicated topic. In Sept. 2009, I started a thread entitled, “Protestants: Do You Believe in Free Will or the Monergism of Sola Gratia (by grace alone)?” (Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=376475) There were about 300 posts, with many different opinions.

I’ve been attending the Episcopal Church since the last week in January. So very new to the Anglican faith. I have noticed some Anglican forum members lean more towards Catholicism and others lean more towards Protestantism. Interesting.

I do love the Anglican liturgy. SteveVH started a Thread entitled, “Non-Catholics - What does the word “Sacrament” mean to you?”
(Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=433344&page=6)
This was a very interesting thread. The topic led to a comparison of the liturgy in different churches. It was surprising to find how similar they are.

Every prayer that every human has ever uttered has been a sinner’s prayer!

TriuneUnity,

No one can argue against this statement, as all of us uttering prayers are, indeed, sinners.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

For a Catholic, you seem to be exceptionally good at forgetting we have free will. If we didn’t, Jesus’s prayer on holy Thursday makes no sense what so ever. Why bother praying that we might be one, if God is not only unifying, but we have no free will to rebel there for all Christians will automatically be united? Com’on now…

We have free will, Jesus knew that there would always be strife. This doesn’t mean Jesus is causing the strife, we cause strife. But the point remains, the strife is there.

Edit
Your opinion also ignores all recorded Christian history. There was heresy and apostisy from the beginning. And guess what, all parties involved (orthodox or not) more often than not were true believers in Jesus Christ who had an honest opinion based upon scriptures. Why do you think Christ founded the Church with St. Peter as the earthly visible head?

crazzeto,

I find myself agreeing with you far more often, now. Does this mean I am becoming more “Catholic”?

Anna

 

[crazzeto]

crazzeto,

I find myself agreeing with you far more often, now. Does this mean I am becoming more “Catholic”?

Anna

Better watch out, pretty soon you’ll find your self stopping by the adoration chapple between home and the library

 

[Anna_Scott]

Better watch out, pretty soon you’ll find your self stopping by the adoration chapple between home and the library

I just caused a minor disturbance in the library, because you made me literally laugh out loud. Need that.

Anna

 

[blazerdave]

I’m definitely in the Anglo-Catholic camp big-time. When it comes to the will, I’m basically an Augustinian. I think we all must recognize that we are naturally selfish and content to sin. I certainly was happy with sinning (or thought I was, even if i didn’t believe it deep down). That’s why Augustine’s conversion story hits home with me, and that’s why I can’t point to the “sinner’s prayer” (which my mom made me pray) as a moment of salvation. Did I pray it because I wanted God sincerely or truly understood what I was doing? Not at all. Had God been at work in my life even before that moment to bring me to repentance and faith? Absolutely. So from my own experience, I can look back in my life and see God at work before I prayed that prayer and even before I was baptized. Thus, while it would nice to believe in a perfectly free, unbound, totally capable will and choice to come to God at any time, my own past and my own many, many sins teach me otherwise. God graciously brought me to himself, and it would be arrogant to claim any part of that salvation process. It would be like claiming his power and glory for myself.

 

[blazerdave]

However, I understand that the Catholic view of the will may differ somewhat, and I have no desire to debate it here and derail the thread. I just wanted Anna to know where I was coming from, as it relates to the Sinner’s Prayer.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m definitely in the Anglo-Catholic camp big-time. When it comes to the will, I’m basically an Augustinian. I think we all must recognize that we are naturally selfish and content to sin. I certainly was happy with sinning (or thought I was, even if i didn’t believe it deep down). That’s why Augustine’s conversion story hits home with me, and that’s why I can’t point to the “sinner’s prayer” (which my mom made me pray) as a moment of salvation. Did I pray it because I wanted God sincerely or truly understood what I was doing? Not at all. Had God been at work in my life even before that moment to bring me to repentance and faith? Absolutely. So from my own experience, I can look back in my life and see God at work before I prayed that prayer and even before I was baptized. Thus, while it would nice to believe in a perfectly free, unbound, totally capable will and choice to come to God at any time, my own past and my own many, many sins teach me otherwise. God graciously brought me to himself, and it would be arrogant to claim any part of that salvation process. It would be like claiming his power and glory for myself.

However, I understand that the Catholic view of the will may differ somewhat, and I have no desire to debate it here and derail the thread. I just wanted Anna to know where I was coming from, as it relates to the Sinner’s Prayer.

Thank you, blazerdave.

Anna

 

[brb3]

Did you forget that Peter WAS married as Jesus healed his MOTHER IN LAW??? And Yet the Roman Catholic church uses Paul as the one to emulate celibacy in the priesthood when Peter was married.

Study your church history, Roman Catholic priests used to be married until one point in history.

Not at all. But, what do we know about Peter and Paul’s marriages ? Zippo. For all we know their wives may of left them, died, etc. We do know most, if not all of their ministry was spent apart from the wives.

I’m aware that for many years marriage was allowed for the clergy of RCC. But, why do you think it was rejected much later ? There had from the beginning been a large contingent of celibate priests in the Church. Perhaps the Church learned they performed better in their work than those who were married ?