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

[crazzeto]

@Padrej,

I think you sort of missed what I was saying, and misinterpreted the CCC in order to derive a “sinners prayer”. At no point ever, does anyone ever say “accept Jesus Christ in to your heart as your own personal Lord and Saviour”. Protistant groups which use this forumal, very typically do so to the minimization of baptism, or worse yet to the out right exclusion of it. Which if you ask me, since Christ is quite clear in John 3:

(Joh 3:3) Jesus answered and said to him: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

…

(Joh 3:5) Jesus answered: Amen, amen, I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

This sinners prayer, an invention of man, is billed as an aboslute formula for salvation as Anna says. It is this, which is grievously erroneous. Baptism saves, because it is what attaches us to the body of Christ, and is the sacrament through which we receive the spirit. It washes clean all our sins (to that point), and allows us to enter the kingdom.

The sinners prayer on the otherhand, is little more than a nice way to declare your ready to start your journey on the path to salvation. I don’t want to minimize the important emotional effect that might have for some, I think a lot of us could use a sinners prayer, perhaps at several points in our lives to redeclare our mission.

But it is wrong for us to look at this as a mechanism by which we can forget the sacraments and just move on like nothing happend. No such forumla exists, anyone claiming otherwise is promoting the tradition of men over the clear teachings of Christ Jesus him self, and explained further by his Apostles.

 

[Padrej]

@Padrej,

I think you sort of missed what I was saying, and misinterpreted the CCC in order to derive a “sinners prayer”. At no point ever, does anyone ever say “accept Jesus Christ in to your heart as your own personal Lord and Saviour”. Protistant groups which use this forumal, very typically do so to the minimization of baptism, or worse yet to the out right exclusion of it. Which if you ask me, since Christ is quite clear in John 3:

This sinners prayer, an invention of man, is billed as an aboslute formula for salvation as Anna says. It is this, which is grievously erroneous. Baptism saves, because it is what attaches us to the body of Christ, and is the sacrament through which we receive the spirit. It washes clean all our sins (to that point), and allows us to enter the kingdom.

The sinners prayer on the otherhand, is little more than a nice way to declare your ready to start your journey on the path to salvation. I don’t want to minimize the important emotional effect that might have for some, I think a lot of us could use a sinners prayer, perhaps at several points in our lives to redeclare our mission.

But it is wrong for us to look at this as a mechanism by which we can forget the sacraments and just move on like nothing happend. No such forumla exists, anyone claiming otherwise is promoting the tradition of men over the clear teachings of Christ Jesus him self, and explained further by his Apostles.

Good points. However, The water in a sacrament such as baptism is only the outward sign of the inward work.“Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat” It is thinking such as this that water baptism is absolutely essential that drives persons away from organized religion. Was the thief on the cross baptized? In his own blood yes. The Bible (and the catechism) tells us that it is the FAITH that saves the person, not the water. If the water had the power to save I would be spraying down the street in front of my church at everyone passing by.

Don’t believe that water is not necessary?
Hebrews 11:29 has historically been used as an ant-type of Baptism:

29By faith they passed through the Red sea as by dry land: which the Egyptians assaying to do were drowned.

But notice the words “by faith,” also did anyone notice those of Israel passed through on DRY LAND they never got wet.
Also used is Hebrews 11:7
*

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

Nowhere does the Bible ever say Noah got wet or his family.

Suppose you are a Jesuit missionary in the desert and need to baptize a person. Water is too valuable. You would use sand after the person made the profession of faith. The water is only the outward sign to the world.
Please do not get me wrong, I am in no way diminishing the sacraments in any way here, they are essential. They are the heritage that have been handed down to us from the apostles.

 

[Publisher]

Basically the “sinners prayer” is a public confession of sin and reception of God’s gift of salvation. The “words” no more guarantee “salvation” without a change of heart and intent than if a Catholic just “mouths” the words of a confessional prayer, and have no intent to change of “go and sin no more’…as I understand Catholic confession, while the priest absolves the “penitent” if the confessing Catholic is not penitent but simply “going through the motions” with no real repentance or sorrow of sin, the 'absolution” absolves nothing.

What I have seen in thread like this is a complete understanding on Catholics part…for any prayer of forgiveness it must be believed and a true intent to change with faith must be present…of course we all know that all a Catholic has to do is go to confession to have their sins forgiven…the joke among many Protestants…similar to the “joke” among Catholics about the “sinners prayer” is a Catholic can go out on Saturday night, get drunk, commit adultery/fornication, beat people up and go to confession on Sunday morning before mass…then go out and do it all over again…they’re “assured their sins are forgiven” simply because they made confession…they “said the words” whether they meant it or not.

Of course both scenarios are gross examples of misunderstanding each others beliefs…sometimes willfully so.

 

[crazzeto]

Basically the “sinners prayer” is a public confession of sin and reception of God’s gift of salvation. The “words” no more guarantee “salvation” without a change of heart and intent than if a Catholic just “mouths” the words of a confessional prayer, and have no intent to change of “go and sin no more’…as I understand Catholic confession, while the priest absolves the “penitent” if the confessing Catholic is not penitent but simply “going through the motions” with no real repentance or sorrow of sin, the 'absolution” absolves nothing.

What I have seen in thread like this is a complete understanding on Catholics part…for any prayer of forgiveness it must be believed and a true intent to change with faith must be present…of course we all know that all a Catholic has to do is go to confession to have their sins forgiven…the joke among many Protestants…similar to the “joke” among Catholics about the “sinners prayer” is a Catholic can go out on Saturday night, get drunk, commit adultery/fornication, beat people up and go to confession on Sunday morning before mass…then go out and do it all over again…they’re “assured their sins are forgiven” simply because they made confession…they “said the words” whether they meant it or not.

Of course both scenarios are gross examples of misunderstanding each others beliefs…sometimes willfully so.

I appreciate what you’re saying, but this again shows more basic problems stemming from the sinners prayer, which also unfortunetly go off topic from this thread. The subject of justification. Lets put it this way, it is certainly the Catholic understanding that no single confession of faith, no matter how faithful, how earnest, can assure you of salvation aboslutly.

 

[crazzeto]

@Padrej,

Your analysis of the typology Paul presents in Hebrews is contrary to the understanding of the Christian fathers from Apistolic times forward. You read that “they passed through the Red Sea on land: which the Egyptians attempting, were swollowed up” and think “see, you don’t need water after all”.

The fathers disagree with you, the see the water as salvation for the Hebrews. For it was the water which parted for them, making a safe path for them to cross when they had no other hope. Most directly, it was the water that crashed down upon the Egyptians destroying them, ensuring the safty of the Hebrews from them for the rest of their Journey.

Thus this prefigures the salvation offered the Christian through baptism, which makes us a member of the body of Christ and thus God’s adopted son. These are actual graces, instituded by Christ, for the salvation of souls.

The sinners prayer, is an invention of man, based upon certain general principals of faith. It offers the person saying the prayer no actual graces. This person still needs to step through the dry land of the parted Red Sea as the Hebrews did, in the sacrament of baptism provided by Christ.

 

[Publisher]

I appreciate what you’re saying, but this again shows more basic problems stemming from the sinners prayer, which also unfortunetly go off topic from this thread. The subject of justification. Lets put it this way, it is certainly the Catholic understanding that no single confession of faith, no matter how faithful, how earnest, can assure you of salvation aboslutly.

I have no wish to get into a discussion concerning “assurance of salvation” many if not most Protestants believe we can “know” we are safe in the Arms of God…Catholics may believe that that ‘assurance’ is not “absolute” but that is Catholic belief…Protestants have as much of an “assurance” as possible as Catholics do…believing in “assurance” one way or the other doesn’t change the state of one’s salvation.

One of my favorite hymns is “Blessed Assurance”…I am willing to “take my chances” and echo Paul’s statement…“I know in whom I have believed and am persuaded that he is able to keep what I have commited to him against that day.”…we are all in Good Hands…we all can lean on the Everlasting Arms…another good hymn.

 

[Padrej]

crazzeto
Contrary to the understanding of the Christian fathers from Apostolic times forward?

The earliest Christian document outside the New Testament writings comes to us from Clement of Rome AD 96: The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth (commonly known as Clement’s First Letter). It was so highly esteemed in Christian antiquity that for a while it was even accepted as part of the canon of Scripture in Egypt and Syria. Many scholars believe Clement is identified as the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Regardless, Clement was the bishop of Rome at the close of the first century. He was familiar with St. Paul’s Epistles, and he certainly believed and taught that we are justified by faith:
And we, therefore…are not justified of ourselves or by our wisdom or insight or religious devotion or the holy deeds we have done from the heart, but by that faith by which almighty God has justified all men from the very beginning (ch. 32:4).
Clement taught that the Christian moral life is imperative for salvation, that faith and obedience is what God considers righteousness. Clement points out that our actions—our good deeds prompted by faith—is what God reckons as righteousness: “Why was our father Abraham blessed?
Was it not because he acted in righteousness and truth, prompted by faith?” (ch.31:2-3). Clement further instructed the Church of Corinth that Abraham inherited God’s promises because of his (1) faith, (2) obedience and (3) hospitality:
It was obedience which led [Abraham] to quit his country, his kindred, and his father’s house, so that, by leaving a paltry country, a mean kindred, and an insignificant house, he might inherit God’s promises (ch. 10:2).
Because of [Abraham’s] faith and hospitality a son was granted to him in his old age (ch. 10:7).

Paul tells us that justification requires faith. Clement affirms that. But what does faith require? Paul says that faith requires (1) believing (cf. 1 Thes. 2:13; 2 Cor. 5:7), (2) obedience (cf. Rom. 1:5; 6:16), and (3) love [hospitality] (cf. Gal. 5:6), exactly what Clement said in Chapter 10 quoted above.
Paul and Clement accentuated the necessity of faith, that our salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ, and nothing we can do of our own accord (including holy deeds of the heart) apart from that faith will gain us our salvation. But they both taught that faith requires conversion that proves itself in Christian moral living, works of grace—fruits of the Holy Spirit working in us. St. Augustine would later remark that
Without love faith can indeed exist, but can be of no avail (De Trin. XV 18, 32).

The writings of another Apostolic Father from the East, Ignatius of Antioch AD 35-107, are further testimony of how truly far back this teaching reaches. Ignatius tells us that along with baptism, faith and charity, our works will be our deposits to receive what is our due:
Let your baptism be ever your shield, your faith a helmet, your charity a spear, your patience a panoply. Let your works be deposits, so that you may receive the sum that is due you" (Letter to St. Polycarp, 6).

Is Ignatius telling us that we are due something from God? Our due is death as a result of sin. But what is our due after baptism, faith, charity and obedience to God’s will? Then, we are due God’s promises according to the conditions God set forth.
God did not have to offer us any conditional element. He did not have to offer us anything. It’s entirely gratuitous from beginning to end. His infinite love drove Him to put Himself in a position of “owing” something to man, if man would only love and obey Him. If we are to love Him, we must first believe in him (faith). And John 14:15 tells us that if we truly love Him, we will obey him (conversion, holiness, right living, good deeds, righteousness).

The Eastern Father Justin Martyr AD 100-165 echoes the teaching of Ignatius insofar as he makes it clear that it is not those who “merely profess” Christ, but those who “do the works” the Savior commanded that will be saved:
Those who are found not living as he taught should know that they are not really Christians, even if his teachings are on their lips, for he said that not those who merely profess but those who also do the works will be saved (cf. Matt. 13:42, 43; 7:15,16,19)" (The First Apology of Justin, ch.16).

Justin also proves himself consistent with the other Fathers in affirming the necessity of faith: “For Abraham was declared by God to be righteous, not on account of circumcision, but on account of faith” (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. XCII).

From these statements alone you can see that it is the profession of Faith coupled with the acts of charity (love) that makes one the Christian. If you wish I can continue with many more early church fathers and saints on this matter.

 

[crazzeto]

Padrej, we’re now going down that slippary slope to being completely off topic. I invite you to start a new thread (related, split?) on this subject if we want to continue down this path.

 

[Anna_Scott]

crazzeto
Contrary to the understanding of the Christian fathers from Apostolic times forward?

The earliest Christian document outside the New Testament writings comes to us from Clement of Rome AD 96: The Letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth (commonly known as Clement’s First Letter). It was so highly esteemed in Christian antiquity that for a while it was even accepted as part of the canon of Scripture in Egypt and Syria. Many scholars believe Clement is identified as the Clement mentioned by Paul in Philippians 4:3. Regardless, Clement was the bishop of Rome at the close of the first century. He was familiar with St. Paul’s Epistles, and he certainly believed and taught that we are justified by faith. . . .

. . . . .From these statements alone you can see that it is the profession of Faith coupled with the acts of charity (love) that makes one the Christian. If you wish I can continue with many more early church fathers and saints on this matter.

Padrej, we’re now going down that slippary slope to being completely off topic. I invite you to start a new thread (related, split?) on this subject if we want to continue down this path.

Crazzeto: Very interesting discussion going on between you and PadreJ. Good points on both sides. As the OP, I would like to see where this discussion goes. I’ve had appointments today, and haven’t been able to respond as I would like.

I think the “Sinner’s Prayer” is certainly related to a “profession of Faith.”

PadreJ’s statement “From these statements alone you can see that it is the profession of Faith coupled with the acts of charity (love) that makes one the Christian,” is still on topic, at least from my standpoint.

The N.T. tells us we are saved by faith. So, a profession of that faith is important, whether it is in the “Sinner’s Prayer,” the liturgy, or by prayer that only God can hear. However, I believe “acts of charity (love)” must follow the profession of faith, as PadreJ said. Crazzeto, from you earlier posts, it seems like you both agree on this to some extent.

I think the problem arises in the use of the Sinner’s Prayer as a formula that is to “guarantee” salvation. It seems that all three of us agree that a “profession of faith” is the starting point on the path to salvation. I don’t think salvation can be reduced to one prayer or one singular act.

PadreJ and Crazzeto, please correct me, if I have misunderstood your posts.

I will write more later. Thanks to all who are contributing to the discussion.
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I agree, consider who the evangelist is dealing with. A former nonbeliever who has moved past the natural and accepted the supernatural by having faith in Jesus. Before this point the stories he has seen of the supernatural have been the occult and the good/bad witches.

In fiction he sees all manner of mayhem occur because the witch mispronouces one word from a foriegn language. The new Christian brings that life story installed prejudice to his new found faith and asked to be walked through that “siner’s prayer” so that he does not say the wrong thing to God and have mayhem happen because of it.

Basically the “sinners prayer” is a public confession of sin and reception of God’s gift of salvation. The “words” no more guarantee “salvation” without a change of heart and intent than if a Catholic just “mouths” the words of a confessional prayer, and have no intent to change of “go and sin no more’…as I understand Catholic confession, while the priest absolves the “penitent” if the confessing Catholic is not penitent but simply “going through the motions” with no real repentance or sorrow of sin, the 'absolution” absolves nothing.

What I have seen in thread like this is a complete understanding on Catholics part…for any prayer of forgiveness it must be believed and a true intent to change with faith must be present…of course we all know that all a Catholic has to do is go to confession to have their sins forgiven…the joke among many Protestants…similar to the “joke” among Catholics about the “sinners prayer” is a Catholic can go out on Saturday night, get drunk, commit adultery/fornication, beat people up and go to confession on Sunday morning before mass…then go out and do it all over again…they’re “assured their sins are forgiven” simply because they made confession…they “said the words” whether they meant it or not.

Of course both scenarios are gross examples of misunderstanding each others beliefs…sometimes willfully so.

I will respond later. Need to have time to consider everything posted.

Thank you both for contributing to the discussion, and anyone else I have missed. Will go back through the thread later.
Anna

 

[Padrej]

Crazzeto: Very interesting discussion going on between you and PadreJ. Good points on both sides. As the OP, I would like to see where this discussion goes. I’ve had appointments today, and haven’t been able to respond as I would like.

I think the “Sinner’s Prayer” is certainly related to a “profession of Faith.”

PadreJ’s statement “From these statements alone you can see that it is the profession of Faith coupled with the acts of charity (love) that makes one the Christian,” is still on topic, at least from my standpoint.

The N.T. tells us we are saved by faith. So, a profession of that faith is important, whether it is in the “Sinner’s Prayer,” the liturgy, or by prayer that only God can hear. However, I believe “acts of charity (love)” must follow the profession of faith, as PadreJ said. Crazzeto, from you earlier posts, it seems like you both agree on this to some extent.

I think the problem arises in the use of the Sinner’s Prayer as a formula that is to “guarantee” salvation. It seems that all three of us agree that a “profession of faith” is the starting point on the path to salvation. I don’t think salvation can be reduced to one prayer or one singular act.

PadreJ and Crazzeto, please correct me, if I have misunderstood your posts.

I will write more later. Thanks to all who are contributing to the discussion.
Anna

Anna
You are very much correct, the sinner’s prayer has been used to “guarantee” salvation. Actually the formulas that the early church father’s used mirrored (the ones I quoted) were based on faith.

 

[FrJohnB]

Padrej, we’re now going down that slippary slope to being completely off topic. I invite you to start a new thread (related, split?) on this subject if we want to continue down this path.

With all due respect, If I may interject here Padrej makes a valid point here on profession of faith and the early church fathers and how they interpreted the scriptures. It is not off of the topic one bit.

 

[FrJohnB]

Crazzeto: Very interesting discussion going on between you and PadreJ. Good points on both sides. As the OP, I would like to see where this discussion goes. I’ve had appointments today, and haven’t been able to respond as I would like.

I think the “Sinner’s Prayer” is certainly related to a “profession of Faith.”

PadreJ’s statement “From these statements alone you can see that it is the profession of Faith coupled with the acts of charity (love) that makes one the Christian,” is still on topic, at least from my standpoint.

The N.T. tells us we are saved by faith. So, a profession of that faith is important, whether it is in the “Sinner’s Prayer,” the liturgy, or by prayer that only God can hear. However, I believe “acts of charity (love)” must follow the profession of faith, as PadreJ said. Crazzeto, from you earlier posts, it seems like you both agree on this to some extent.

I think the problem arises in the use of the Sinner’s Prayer as a formula that is to “guarantee” salvation. It seems that all three of us agree that a “profession of faith” is the starting point on the path to salvation. I don’t think salvation can be reduced to one prayer or one singular act.

PadreJ and Crazzeto, please correct me, if I have misunderstood your posts.

I will write more later. Thanks to all who are contributing to the discussion.
Anna

Although as a Catholic Priest if I lead a soul to Christ there is no direct formula that I use as a “sinner’s prayer” so to speak. I usually ask if the person believes in Christ with all that is in them and ask them to invite Christ into their heart. It is after that that we can start the path towards the sacraments of the church. As I read the catechism and the Bible it is that profession of faith that the foundation stone so to speak of their faith.

So when padrej takes the quotes from all the early fathers here and adds to this discussion he is merely building on this discussion as the early fathers from my study also believed in a profession of faith coupled with works of charity.

 

[Padrej]

Although as a Catholic Priest if I lead a soul to Christ there is no direct formula that I use as a “sinner’s prayer” so to speak. I usually ask if the person believes in Christ with all that is in them and ask them to invite Christ into their heart. It is after that that we can start the path towards the sacraments of the church. As I read the catechism and the Bible it is that profession of faith that the foundation stone so to speak of their faith.

So when padrej takes the quotes from all the early fathers here and adds to this discussion he is merely building on this discussion as the early fathers from my study also believed in a profession of faith coupled with works of charity.

I have been reading a book entitled “Memoirs of Chaplain Life Three years with the Irish Brigade of the Army of the Potomac” by Fr. William Corby CSC. It is his accounts of the Civil War from a chaplain’s point of view. What struck me as I read part of it last night was he told how he lead a person who was about to be executed to Christ after finding he had little to no foundation of faith.
The questions from the Roman Catholic Chaplain were as follows:
“Do you believe in God?”
“Do you believe in Christ, and that He died to redeem the word?”
“Do You believe in the Trinity?”
After asking a few similar general questions of a similar nature the narrative continues… “If you knew Christ and you wish to be a Christian, and to be baptized a Catholic, would you comply with this wish?”

After receiving Baptism the soldier did receive communion and was executed.
Fr. Corby, after the Civil war returned to the University of Notre Dame in Indiana to become one of its presidents. I hope this helps with seeing a “sinner’s prayer” that had been written down from a Roman Catholic chaplain of the Civil War.

 

[crazzeto]

Crazzeto: Very interesting discussion going on between you and PadreJ. Good points on both sides. As the OP, I would like to see where this discussion goes. I’ve had appointments today, and haven’t been able to respond as I would like.

I think the “Sinner’s Prayer” is certainly related to a “profession of Faith.”

PadreJ’s statement “From these statements alone you can see that it is the profession of Faith coupled with the acts of charity (love) that makes one the Christian,” is still on topic, at least from my standpoint.

The N.T. tells us we are saved by faith. So, a profession of that faith is important, whether it is in the “Sinner’s Prayer,” the liturgy, or by prayer that only God can hear. However, I believe “acts of charity (love)” must follow the profession of faith, as PadreJ said. Crazzeto, from you earlier posts, it seems like you both agree on this to some extent.

I think the problem arises in the use of the Sinner’s Prayer as a formula that is to “guarantee” salvation. It seems that all three of us agree that a “profession of faith” is the starting point on the path to salvation. I don’t think salvation can be reduced to one prayer or one singular act.

PadreJ and Crazzeto, please correct me, if I have misunderstood your posts.

I will write more later. Thanks to all who are contributing to the discussion.
Anna

Ok, I didn’t want to run too far off topic as I consider that rude… But with this, I will go back (when I have a little more time), take another look at Padrej’s comments, and respond.

 

[crazzeto]

I have been reading a book entitled “Memoirs of Chaplain Life Three years with the Irish Brigade of the Army of the Potomac” by Fr. William Corby CSC. It is his accounts of the Civil War from a chaplain’s point of view. What struck me as I read part of it last night was he told how he lead a person who was about to be executed to Christ after finding he had little to no foundation of faith.
The questions from the Roman Catholic Chaplain were as follows:
“Do you believe in God?”
“Do you believe in Christ, and that He died to redeem the word?”
“Do You believe in the Trinity?”
After asking a few similar general questions of a similar nature the narrative continues… “If you knew Christ and you wish to be a Christian, and to be baptized a Catholic, would you comply with this wish?”

After receiving Baptism the soldier did receive communion and was executed.
Fr. Corby, after the Civil war returned to the University of Notre Dame in Indiana to become one of its presidents. I hope this helps with seeing a “sinner’s prayer” that had been written down from a Roman Catholic chaplain of the Civil War.

Again though, the destinction is this, the Protistant groups who typically make use of the prayer would have stoppled at

“Do you believe in the Trinity”

With that yes, they would have said “great, your saved”… Perhaps some might have baptised as a formality, sadly enough there certainly are others that consider baptism so unimportant that it never would have occured them.

This soldire is quite lucky, in that it would seem fairly certain though, thanks to the actions of this Priest that he indeed was saved. This preist when ahead and gave him the Sacraments of Baptism (perhaps Confirmation?) and then the Eucharist (as you post).

The Sacrament of Baptism is what washes away his sins, and saves the sinner by making him a member of the Body of Christ.

 

[Padrej]

Again though, the destinction is this, the Protistant groups who typically make use of the prayer would have stoppled at

“Do you believe in the Trinity”

With that yes, they would have said “great, your saved”… Perhaps some might have baptised as a formality, sadly enough there certainly are others that consider baptism so unimportant that it never would have occured them.

This soldire is quite lucky, in that it would seem fairly certain though, thanks to the actions of this Priest that he indeed was saved. This preist when ahead and gave him the Sacraments of Baptism (perhaps Confirmation?) and then the Eucharist (as you post).

The Sacrament of Baptism is what washes away his sins, and saves the sinner by making him a member of the Body of Christ.

The narrative does not mention Confirmation as conformation is done by a bishop. BUT as I mentioned before the Water is only the outward sign that you have been saved through the profession. The Water has no power in and of itself. “Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat”
When a person joins the Catholic church they are asked a series of questions prior to Baptism. This is similar to formulas used in many other Protestant faiths as well.
Confirmation is the re-affirmation of vows taken if you were an infant by your parents on your behalf now that you are able to answer and make your own profession “confirming” that faith.

The one and ONLY reference in the Bible that says specifically that Baptism saves the person comes from 1 Peter 3 : 21 "There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," HOWEVER, notice that it mentions that it is the “answer of a good conscience towards God” so it still boils down to the profession of faith first as claimed by the early church and handed down to us.

NOW, lets play a hypothetical game. Knowing that scripture and the early church fathers state it starts on the profession of faith. If person “X” has made the profession of faith (or sinner’s prayer) and is now on their way to the church to be baptized and a Mack truck slams into the car killing the person. Is this person saved because they never received the actual water but did everything else?

 

[FrJohnB]

The narrative does not mention Confirmation as conformation is done by a bishop. BUT as I mentioned before the Water is only the outward sign that you have been saved through the profession. The Water has no power in and of itself. “Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat”
When a person joins the Catholic church they are asked a series of questions prior to Baptism. This is similar to formulas used in many other Protestant faiths as well.
Confirmation is the re-affirmation of vows taken if you were an infant by your parents on your behalf now that you are able to answer and make your own profession “confirming” that faith.

The one and ONLY reference in the Bible that says specifically that Baptism saves the person comes from 1 Peter 3 : 21 "There is also an antitype which now saves us—baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ," HOWEVER, notice that it mentions that it is the “answer of a good conscience towards God” so it still boils down to the profession of faith first as claimed by the early church and handed down to us.

NOW, lets play a hypothetical game. Knowing that scripture and the early church fathers state it starts on the profession of faith. If person “X” has made the profession of faith (or sinner’s prayer) and is now on their way to the church to be baptized and a Mack truck slams into the car killing the person. Is this person saved because they never received the actual water but did everything else?

Padrej makes in interesting point here that the “water has no power in and of itself.” So that there is no feathers ruffled amongst the Catholic viewing this it should be stressed that what makes the sacrament valid is the FORM, MATTER, and INTENTION as explained by the following from the Catholic encyclopedia.

*Scholastic writers of the thirteenth century introduced into their explanations of the sacraments terms which were derived from the philosophy of Aristotle. William of Auxerre (d. 1223) was the first to apply to them the words matter (materia) and form (forma). As in physical bodies, so also in the sacramental rite we find two elements, one undetermined, which is called the matter, the other determining, called the form. For instance, water may be used for drinking, or for cooling or cleansing the body, but the words pronounced by the minister when he pours water on the head of the child, with the intention of doing what the Church does, determines the meaning of the act, so that it signifies the purification of the soul by grace. The matter and form (the res et verba) make up the external rite, which has its special significance and efficacy from the institution of Christ. The words are the more important element in the composition, because men express their thoughts and intentions principally by words. “Verba inter homines obtinuerunt principatum significandi” (St. Augustine, Christian Doctrine II.3; Summa Theologiæ III.60.6). It must not be supposed that the things used for the acts performed, for they are included in the res, remarks St. Thomas (Summa Theologiæ III.60.6, ad 2) *have no significance. They too may be symbolical, e.g. anointing the body with oil relates to health; but their significance is clearly determined by the words. "In all the compounds of matter and form the determining element is the form: (Summa Theologiæ III.60.7).
For more on this see:
newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm

In the hypothetical situation, the person should be viewed as saved. The water of Baptism is the outward sign to the world that you have made the inner change.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Ok, I didn’t want to run too far off topic as I consider that rude… But with this, I will go back (when I have a little more time), take another look at Padrej’s comments, and respond.

crazzeto,

Actually, I really appreciate your consideration in not wanting to take the Thread off topic. Threads are easily high jacked. Happens often. So, thank you for being respectful of the topic.

As the OP, I really wanted to see where this discussion goes. So, I am open to widening the topic, as long as we don’t lose sight of the original intent.

I think the topic of the Sinner’s Prayer does include “profession of faith” and how that is accomplished, as well as the dangers of using a formula for salvation–which is often done in many Protestant Churches. Of course this leads us to the issue of whether or not salvation occurs in a moment or is a journey that extends throughout our lives (and perhaps even into eternity, as we are further refined by God.)

Thanks,
Anna

 

[SteveVH]

The narrative does not mention Confirmation as conformation is done by a bishop. BUT as I mentioned before the Water is only the outward sign that you have been saved through the profession. The Water has no power in and of itself. “Sacramentum proprie dicitur quod ita signum est gratiae Dei, ei invisibilis gratiae forma, ut ipsius imaginem gerat et causa existat”
When a person joins the Catholic church they are asked a series of questions prior to Baptism. This is similar to formulas used in many other Protestant faiths as well.
Confirmation is the re-affirmation of vows taken if you were an infant by your parents on your behalf now that you are able to answer and make your own profession “confirming” that faith.

For the sacrament of Baptism to be valid there is no requirement for a profession of faith necessarily by the one being Baptized. In the CC the great majority of people receive infant Baptism (in the Eastern rite as well). There is a profession of faith made by the parents and Godparents on behalf of the infant as well promises made to raise the child in the faith. You are correct in that water is the “outward” sign, but, as with all sacraments, it accomplishes what it signifies; your sins are washed away. It is an action of God, not the recipient. The recipient responds to the grace (a free gift) given by God as he lives the Christian life.

As for Confirmation, it is not “the re-affirmation of vows taken… now that you are able to answer and make your own profession”. That is a common misunderstanding even among Catholics. It is related to Baptism in that it is a strengthening (thus the use of holy oil as the outward sign) of the grace received in Baptism through the reception of gifts of the Holy Spirit. In the Eastern right infants receive the sacrament of Confirmation along with Baptism and Hoy Eucharist (the sacraments of initiation).

NOW, lets play a hypothetical game. Knowing that scripture and the early church fathers state it starts on the profession of faith. If person “X” has made the profession of faith (or sinner’s prayer) and is now on their way to the church to be baptized and a Mack truck slams into the car killing the person. Is this person saved because they never received the actual water but did everything else?

They would be saved through “Baptism of desire”. God doesn’t get us on technicalities.