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

[FrJohnB]

Because Christ desired to start the Church in a special way. We must do things Christ’s way … if we are to be his disciples.

 

[FrJohnB]

I think they must of. David, and all the prophets were inspired /& spoke by H.S.

.

The question directed to you on this was regarding justification. Do you remember the book of Hebrews speaks to those being justified by FAITH. Just thought I would help you on that one as you seem to be struggling.

 

[FrJohnB]

You’re kidding right?
I used to teach this stuff!!
It doesn’t work!!!

Why?
Because the ‘heathen’ (many of whom were lapsed Catholics) would ‘pray the prayer’, and then were promptly told they had their ticket to Heaven and nothing, repeat nothing, could stop them from going to Heaven when they died.
What happened to them? Oh, because of this ‘assurance’ many went right back to the lifestyle they had before. I could bore you for hours giving example after example of people who continued in thier sin because some preacher told them ‘you’re as sure for Heaven as Jesus’.
If you read anything written by PROTESTANT scholars on this subject you would know thier biggest concern was FALSE ASSURANCE.

:clapping::tiphat: THANK YOU Well said!!!

 

[Padrej]

It wasn’t their confimation. Confirmation preceeds ordination … temporally.

If it was not their confirmation why do we use that Acts scripture at confirmation? Why is the symbols used in the Anglican church and those I have seen in the Roman Catholic church one of the Holy Spirit descending with tongues of fire? So how is it that the church now is getting it backwards then by your words even temporally as you are implying that Confirmation and ordination are the same event when one is the conferring of Holy Orders and the other is conferring the Holy Spirit for the work of a Christian.

 

[brb3]

FrJohnB:
Ok … score one for FrJohn Book of Acts does show Matthias was chosen after the Assumption of Christ.

But, FrJohn … how many years of Seminary did our first Pope have…? Christ doesn’t always value book learning… to the degree you do. I agree Paul was chosen for his unique abilities and knowledge of scripture.

Peter and the other fishermen, had their schooling at feet of the Master. The school of life experience.

 

[brb3]

You’re kidding right?
I used to teach this stuff!!
It doesn’t work!!!

I could bore you for hours giving example after example of people who continued in thier sin because some preacher told them ‘you’re as sure for Heaven as Jesus’.

U didn’t explain it right ! The Pentecostal brethren explain it with power and might … I never even considered forgiveness for all my FUTURE sins from their evangelistic biblical proofs. I was too convicted of my past and current sins… to even contemplate my future ones.

 

[brb3]

If it was not their confirmation why do we use that Acts scripture at confirmation? Why is the symbols used in the Anglican church and those I have seen in the Roman Catholic church one of the Holy Spirit descending with tongues of fire? So how is it that the church now is getting it backwards then by your words even temporally as you are implying that Confirmation and ordination are the same event when one is the conferring of Holy Orders and the other is conferring the Holy Spirit for the work of a Christian.

The account in Acts refers to all the disciples … not just the Apostles. I contend that the Apostles had received the H.S. earlier from Christ Himself … excepting perhaps Thomas and the yet selected Matthias [as FrJohn points out].

Catholics believe in repeated Infusions of Grace … I’m consistent here with Catholic teaching on Grace receipt. Perhaps we can find an ECF … who gave an exposition on this matter. That would settle it for me.

 

[crazzeto]

I have no problem with the 12 judging, what I have a problem with is that it was implied and not directly answered. the original comment in question by Brb3

Padrej was attempting to point out a place of contention that Brb3 failed to mention Judas in the comments. This comment is going totally ignored. The comment leaves the reader to conclude that Judas would have had the assurance of the resurrection/salvation etc. when he was not there any longer.

Yeah, additionally BB apparently didn’t read Paul’s comments which has been reposted many times to this thread. If he lived in ‘blessed assuratued’, he sure didn’t feel like it.

 

[brb3]

apparently didn’t read Paul’s comments which has been reposted many times to this thread. If he lived in ‘blessed assuratued’, he sure didn’t feel like it.

You overlooked 2 Timothy 4:17-18 “But the Lord stood by me and gave me strength to proclaim the word fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth. THE LORD WILL RESCUE ME FROM EVERY EVIL AND SAVE ME FOR HIS HEAVENLY KINGDOM. To him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

This puts a benediction on your errant opinion. :tsktsk: Paul was Exhibit A … for expressing S.A. to the Catholic brethren of his day.

 

[crazzeto]

You overlooked 2 Timothy 4:17-18 “But the Lord stood by me and gave me strength to proclaim the word fully, that all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth. THE LORD WILL RESCUE ME FROM EVERY EVIL AND SAVE ME FOR HIS HEAVENLY KINGDOM. To him be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”

This puts a benediction on your errant opinion. :tsktsk: Paul was Exhibit A … for expressing S.A. to the Catholic brethren of his day.

Not really, Paul was plain in his meaning and it’s one which should apply to each of us… Don’t judge your self saved… Certainly God knew Paul (this is why he choose him), certainly God knew Paul wouldn’t fail. But Paul knew that we are men of free will, and he knew him self, and he knows that for each of us failure is a possibility.

Looks like I missed quite a bit of this thread since friday or so, but I agree with a previous poster. You’re trying to keep your feet on both sides of the tiber, and it’s not going to work out. There really isn’t a middle ground between Saved by faith alone, apart from all works of all laws and by extension once saved always saved, and the actual way we go about receiving God’s saving grace.

Below are Haydock’s notes on your cited verses:

2Ti 4:17 The Lord stood, &c. All agree that Nero is here meant by the lion. St. John Chrysostom thinks that St. Paul was set at liberty after this first justification of his conduct, but that having afterwards converted the cupbearer of Nero, he was by him beheaded. (St. John Chrysostom, hom. x. p. 611.) — But the Lord assisted and fortified me on this occasion by a vision, in which he assured me that he would prolong my life for the more perfect preaching of the gospel. (Bible de Vence) — The times predicted by the apostle in this epistle, (ver. 3. and 4.) are now arrived; and the warnings he gives to Timothy and to all preachers of the word, should be sedulously attended to: preach the word: be instant in season and out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and doctrine. There will arrive a time when men will not bear sound doctrine; eager in the extreme to hear what flatters, they will have recourse to a variety of teachers not lawfully sent or ordained, calculated to tickle their ears: Assentatores populi, multitudinis levitatem voluptate quasi titillantes. (Cicero) In the same sense Plutarch says: Greek: ta ota apoknaiousin. It is yours, adds St. Paul, Greek: os kalos stratiotes Christou Iesou, [2 Timothy ii. 3.] as a valiant soldier of Jesus Christ, to oppose yourself as a wall to all these evils, to attend every branch of your ministerial duty, not to yield to either opponents or dangers, and to see that the gospel is both preached and practised in all its purity. Thus may the Church find in you, and in her other ministers, what she is soon to lose in me, knowing as I do that my course is nearly run. — That by me the preaching may be accomplished, (or fulfilled) and that all the Gentiles may hear it. This is an argument that he wrote this letter in his first imprisonment. — And I was delivered from the mouth of the lion; that is, according to the common exposition, from Nero. (Witham)

 

[FrJohnB]

Ok … score one for FrJohn Book of Acts does show Matthias was chosen after the Assumption of Christ.

But, FrJohn … how many years of Seminary did our first Pope have…? Christ doesn’t always value book learning… to the degree you do. I agree Paul was chosen for his unique abilities and knowledge of scripture.

Peter and the other fishermen, had their schooling at feet of the Master. The school of life experience.

OK as to seminary and the first Pope are you speaking of Peter I assume or the first officially recorded one Linus (he was the first to carry the title “Pope”). But lets assume for the sake of arguing that you are speaking of Peter he may not have had formal seminary in the strictest sense of the word (this is the classic the apostles did not have seminary so today’s pastors shouldn’t either argument) but what is not taken into consideration is that they has 3 years of one on one training with Christ. Remember the Bible does tell us “study to show yourself approved” so it does value education in the God area. You would not expect a new convert to preach a sermon the next week would you? If Peter was not educated his epistles are written in excellent Greek with better punctuation than those of Paul who was the higher educated of the two. So as you might call it “the school of life experience” was in fact intense training for ministry; remember they were called (chosen) by Christ for reasons to be made into fishers of men. So to Follow Christ in that sense was to have a very valuable learning one on one.

 

[FrJohnB]

Yeah, additionally BB apparently didn’t read Paul’s comments which has been reposted many times to this thread. If he lived in ‘blessed assuratued’, he sure didn’t feel like it.

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

Could it be this is going ignored as it does not fit into the the mold of Brb3’s salvation view?:sad_yes:

 

[FrJohnB]

Ok … score one for FrJohn Book of Acts does show Matthias was chosen after the Assumption of Christ.

.

Curious question: why is it that it is score one for me when Padrej pointed the same out it was no score for him? Do you have something against against Protestants pointing out an error?

 

[brb3]

Not really, Paul was plain in his meaning and it’s one which should apply to each of us… Don’t judge your self saved… Certainly God knew Paul (this is why he choose him), certainly God knew Paul wouldn’t fail.

The Lion could of been Nero, yes. But, Paul goes on to say the Lord will rescue him from EVERY evil … and SAVE HIM for the KINGDOM.

You say ‘certainly God knew Paul wouldn’t fail’. Thats obvious, … for an Omniscient Creator, nothing is beyond reality. Yet, Paul also knew his future was secure in the Kingdom. How did Paul know this ?

Special revelation is the only way. The Church ACCEPTS special revelation as valid … for its saints. Now, doesn’t scripture teach we are ALL SAINTS ? We even have an All Saints Day to mark in time …

 

[brb3]

Curious question: why is it that it is score one for me when Padrej pointed the same out it was no score for him? Do you have something against against Protestants pointing out an error?

Not a question, a conclusion reached in error.

Hey Padre … your buddy John wants you to get the credit. Corrected Scoreboard tally: Padre 1 / FrJohn 0 :knight2:

 

[Izdaari]

I am Protestant (by definition and by default, not being Catholic or Orthodox), but I am not a Sinner’s Prayer person. The closest I come to it is that I believe Romans 10:9-10.

[bibledrb]Romans 10:9-10[/bibledrb]

 

[Padrej]

The Lion could of been Nero, yes. But, Paul goes on to say the Lord will rescue him from EVERY evil … and SAVE HIM for the KINGDOM.

You say ‘certainly God knew Paul wouldn’t fail’. Thats obvious, … for an Omniscient Creator, nothing is beyond reality. Yet, Paul also knew his future was secure in the Kingdom. How did Paul know this ?

Special revelation is the only way. The Church ACCEPTS special revelation as valid … for its saints. Now, doesn’t scripture teach we are ALL SAINTS ? We even have an All Saints Day to mark in time …

According to the Catholic catechism on Revelation:
*67 **Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfilment, as is the case in certain nonChristian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.**
*
So the church does NOT accept special revelation for its saints, but rather puts them under a heavy microscope of scrutiny. You are correct that the Bible calls us “Saints”, but Sainthood in the Roman Catholic church is a different process. This is where quite frankly you are mixing Evangelicalism with Roman Catholicism and the two do not mix.

Again from the Catechism:
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Here we find clearly the Catholic church’s position on interpretation, DOES NOT fall to the individual “saint” as you are asserting along with many other Protestants and Evangelicals but to the Catholic Church alone. This is why quite frankly the Catholics on this site are trying to warn you that you are treading in dangerous waters and keeping one foot in Catholicism and one in Protestantism.

To be blunt with you some of you interpretations of scripture are not falling into line with even mainline Protestant thought.

Can you explain the lion to Nero thought of yours so that I can be clearer on this matter as well. I have looked back and the comment just seemed to have popped up out of the blue. Where do you get that a lion in scripture “could have been Nero?”

 

[Padrej]

I am Protestant (by definition and by default, not being Catholic or Orthodox), but I am not a Sinner’s Prayer person. The closest I come to it is that I believe Romans 10:9-10.

[bibledrb]Romans 10:9-10[/bibledrb]

So the question is then how would you lead somebody to Christ? What words would you use?

 

[Izdaari]

So the question is then how would you lead somebody to Christ? What words would you use?

The classic Roman Road works well enough.

 

[Padrej]

The classic Roman Road works well enough.

This is true that the Roman Road works but it speaks of “confess with you mouth,” HOW do you help the new convert confess if they have never done so before?

In the Roman road link it mentions or implys full immersion baptism, do you also think that the water in that method is 100% necessary or is it only the outward sign and you would go with pouring or sprinkling? I ask this with consideration that there are more scripture verses to support the latter of sprinkling and pouring.