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

[crazzeto]

The mass is always a celebration of the Salvation event. What I am saying is that the profession of faith is a one time event after this it becomes a confession of faith that is the difference.

OK, the “one time event” language again is pretty loaded… It’s just very difficult for a Catholic to subscribed to this view. “Faith alone, with out all works, of all laws” is another toughie…

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[mikeledes]

Yes, but, as priests will confirm, the spoken words of a confessing sinner are normative. And, also their anguish / remorse is often expressed by making reparations to those we have wronged. John the Baptist demanded the Pharisees demonstrate works c/w their pleadings for receipt of renewal Baptism.

What the Sinner’s Prayer does is focus one on their guilt and need to confess … and be renewed by Water & Blood. Their need to become acceptible to God, Justified/Sanctified thru Christ the Son. Confession IS a sacrament. Christ IS our high priest. He alone forgives Sins, thru his priests. God blesses all Catholic & Protestant Pastors/Evangelists who preach the Gospel.

Yes. In confession, you can’t remain “silent.” But we are not talking about “spoken words” in general, but of a specific prayer formulated and rooted in a very specific kind of Protestant theology called the “Sinner’s Prayer.” This is why I asked you to define what you meant by “Sinner’s Prayer” and you cited what is generally identified as “the Sinner’s prayer.” There is a difference between a sinner’s prayer and the Sinner’s Prayer. We don’t have a problem with a sinner’s prayer as long as its the expression of a believing and contrite heart and is rooted in good theology/ soteriology. But it is not a specific formula that makes a prayer efficacious and that’s why I’m saying that the Sinner’ Prayer saves no one. Moreover, the theological roots of the Sinner’s Prayer are faulty and the intent of that prayer is not in accordance with Catholic teaching. It is presented by many Protestants as the normative way of being born again and receiving Christ and hence it is a denial of regeneration in the sacrament of Baptism. That’s why we are opposed to the Sinner’s Prayer.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I see no problem !! Don’t we teach that Salvation is a Continuum ? We were saved, we are saved, we have Determined to Persevere … and be declared a ‘good and faithful servant’ on our last day.

David’s contrite / repentance prayers are little different from that needed on our First Confession. David sinned greatly in his midlife crisis, and knew well how to confess … having made many prior contrite confessions [including his ‘first’ Sinner’s Prayer].

Does the Sinner’s prayer change over time ? Does our satisfaction before God come in new ways ? I read that Popes confess sins at least weekly. Confession is bedrock OT theology. For lack of confession, God withdrew the Jews favored status on numerous occasions, finally annulling his covenant with the Jewish nation when they failed to Confess Christ as Lord.

Again, this is why I asked for a definition of what you meant by “the Sinner’s Prayer” because I think there is some confusion here. Like I said in the previous post, THE Sinner’s Prayer is a reference to a specific Protestant prayer formulated for a specific purpose that contradicts Scripture and Catholic teaching because it denies the express purpose of the Sacrament of Baptism. A sinner’s prayer is more generic and is simply another way of saying “act of contrition.” A sinner’s prayer that does not deny that we are regenerated in the Sacrament of Baptism and restored to grace of justification in the Sacrament of Confession is fine. The Sinner’s Prayer, however, is anti-sacramental and hence not acceptable for Catholics.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

I just want to add that anyone who has recited the Sinner’s Prayer and has been justified extrasacramentally has been saved despite the Sinner’s Prayer, and not because of it. BRB, I like the example you used of Apollos. Prior to meeting Priscilla and Aquila, he had an imperfect understanding of Christian teaching:

Acts 18:25-26

**25This man had been instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in spirit, he was speaking and teaching accurately the things concerning Jesus, being acquainted only with the baptism of John;
26and he began to speak out boldly in the synagogue. But when Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they took him aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately. **

And there were others like him:

Acts 19:1-3

**1It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples.
2He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.”
3And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” **

My point is this. The Sinner’s Prayer represents an imperfect version of Christian soteriology. Once the perfect comes, the imperfect passes away. Why take a step backwards when we should be taking a step forward?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

You weren’t implying that the CC teaches that salvation is a one time event were you? Hmmm… Yeah, looks like an evangelical take on the CCC…

You caught em Thought he said earlier the two don’t mix… I think he’s a closet Catholic, who needs to commiit, and get his dogmas in sync.

 

[brb3]

Let me do something … and that is cite the catechism.

.

So, this is your new standard ?

 

[brb3]

620 Our salvation flows from God’s initiative of love for us, because “he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins” (I Jn 4:10). “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself” (2 Cor 5:19).

WOW salvation is on God’s terms NOT ours. That flies in the face of most evangelical theology.

Where did you come up with that errant conclusion … which ‘flys in the face’ of reality ?

 

[brb3]

I am saying is that the profession of faith is a one time event … after this it becomes a confession of faith …that is the difference.

It’s the INITIAL event for sure, but to say it can ONLY be a ‘one time’ event ??? :nope:.

Recall the Prodigal’s status as stated by the Father … [in Luke’s account] “for this your brother was DEAD, and IS ALIVE; he WAS LOST, and IS FOUND”.

And the Prodigal said … “Father, I have sinned against HEAVEN and BEFORE YOU; I am NO LONGER WORTHY TO BE CALLED YOUR SON”.

 

[brb3]

Interesting way of putting it as you do put your faith in Christ once and then as at every mass we do celebrate salvation we also have the CONFESSION of our faith in the creed. It would make no sense to profess and continue to do so, it would be your confession of faith.

Said like a true Protestant FrJohn … Ecumenism should be doable in this Century.

But, much more than just the Creed. Consider the words of the Mea Culpa we proclaim.

All: I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned throught my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
and I ask the blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

Priest: Lord, we have sinned against you: Lord, have mercy.
Laity: Lord, have mercy.
Priest: Lord, show us your mercy and love.
Laity: And grant us your salvation.

Priest: You were sent to heal the contrite: Lord, have mercy.
Laity: Lord, have mercy.
Priest: You came to call sinners: Christ have mercy.
Laity: Christ, have mercy.
Priest: You plead for us at the right hand of the Father: Lord, have mercy.
Laity: Lord, have mercy.

Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us, FORGIVE US OF OUR SINS, AND BRING US TO EVERLASTING LIFE.
Laity: AMEN.

 

[mikeledes]

Said like a true Protestant FrJohn … Ecumenism should be doable in this Century.

But, much more than just the Creed. Consider the words of the Mea Culpa we proclaim.

All: I confess to almighty God,
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have sinned throught my own fault,
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done,
and in what I have failed to do;
and I ask the blessed Mary, ever virgin,
all the angels and saints,
and you, my brothers and sisters,
to pray for me to the Lord, our God.

Priest: Lord, we have sinned against you: Lord, have mercy.
Laity: Lord, have mercy.
Priest: Lord, show us your mercy and love.
Laity: And grant us your salvation.

Priest: You were sent to heal the contrite: Lord, have mercy.
Laity: Lord, have mercy.
Priest: You came to call sinners: Christ have mercy.
Laity: Christ, have mercy.
Priest: You plead for us at the right hand of the Father: Lord, have mercy.
Laity: Lord, have mercy.

Priest: May almighty God have mercy on us, FORGIVE US OF OUR SINS, AND BRING US TO EVERLASTING LIFE.
Laity: AMEN.

Yes, these are proper prayers asking for God’s mercy because they are rooted in a solid soteriology.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

the theological roots of the Sinner’s Prayer are faulty and the intent of that prayer is not in accordance with Catholic teaching. It is presented by many Protestants as the normative way of being born again and receiving Christ and hence it is a denial of regeneration in the sacrament of Baptism. That’s why we are opposed to the Sinner’s Prayer.

Explain what you mean by ‘faulty’ and ‘not in accordance’ .

Most Protestants DO teach Baptism as Normative. It’s just that they believe Faith, leads to Baptism [of desire, and then a literal water Baptism]. They look at the sequence of events in Paul’s conversion … to support their understandings.

Now, for Catholics … this can be hard to imagine, since Baptism preceeds their CONFESSION [Confirmation] of Faith. Most Catholics come to the Church as infants … ALL Protestants come to the Church as did Paul, @ or after the age of reason.

This is why we need to rejoin as Brothers. Since Both types of conversions are Biblical. And, most of those we will evangelize in this world will be children or adults, having reached age of reason. They will need conversion by the Pauline process … just as what happened @ Pentecost. The Adults believed by hearing the spoken Word of Peter the Evangelist … were convicted of sins, and BY FAITH, gave consent to water Baptism.
And, they ALSO had their infants/young children Baptized ‘Catholic style’ … and later they got CONFIRMED at their age of accountablility. So … we see the EARLY CHURCH knew both Protestant AND Catholic norms of Baptism.

Why can’t we today accept this Biblical rebirth reality by BOTH normative means… when the Early Church did ?

 

[mikeledes]

Explain what you mean by ‘faulty’ and ‘not in accordance’ .

Most Protestants DO teach Baptism as Normative. It’s just that they believe Faith, leads to Baptism [of desire, and then a literal water Baptism]. They look at the sequence of events in Paul’s conversion … to support their understandings.

Most Protestants teach that Baptism is a mere ordinance, that regeneration does not occur in Baptism. You are born again and justified before you are baptized. Baptism is never a means God uses to bestow the grace of justification. So baptism is not the normative means of being regenerated. In fact, no one is ever regenerated in baptism. That contradicts the teachings of Christ and His apostles and hence is not in accordance with Catholic teaching. Those who promote the Sinner’s Prayer believe that and that’s why that prayer is rooted in faulty theology and should not be promoted by Catholics.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is an extrasacramental justification if one performs an act of perfect contrition and intends to be baptized or go to confession. It’s under very specific circumstances and it is not the norm.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

That’s why we are opposed to the Sinner’s Prayer.

I think you overstate the facts. FrJohn likes it, … sees the merit of it.

Are you saying the actual words are errant, or that it lacks a specific mention of water baptism ? For example take the Campus Crusades’ 4 Laws Sinner’s Prayer and AMEND it to suit the Catholic Soteriology. Lets see exactly what it would take to make it kosher.

Put your amended version next to it … so we can compare line for line.

 

[crazzeto]

I think you overstate the facts. FrJohn likes it, … sees the merit of it.

Are you saying the actual words are errant, or that it lacks a specific mention of water baptism ? For example take the Campus Crusades’ 4 Laws Sinner’s Prayer and AMEND it to suit the Catholic Soteriology. Lets see exactly what it would take to make it kosher.

Put your amended version next to it … so we can compare line for line.

I think you and Fr John are talking about it in two different contexts. You’re giving the protestant sinner’s prayer equivilency with the actual sacraments. This is a grave error.

 

[mikeledes]

I think you overstate the facts. FrJohn likes it, see the merit of it.

Are you saying the actual words are errant, or that it lacks a specific mention of water baptism ? For example take the Campus Crusades’ 4 Laws Sinner’s Prayer and AMEND it to suit the Catholic Soteriology. Lets see exactly what it would take to make it kosher.

Put your amended version next to it … so we can compare line for line.

The intent of the prayer is errant. It is an expression of a soteriology that denies the sacrament of Baptism as the means God has established to bestow the grace of justification/ rebirth and denies that the sacrament of Confession is the means God uses to restore those who have fallen into mortal sin to the grace of justification. Why should we amend it when we have perfectly good acts of contrition of our own? That’s like wanting to continue with the Baptism of John when we have the Sacrament of Baptism.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

Most Protestants teach that Baptism is a mere ordinance, that regeneration does not occur in Baptism. You are born again and justified before you are baptized. Baptism is never a means God uses to bestow the grace of justification. So baptism is not the normative means of being regenerated. In fact, no one is ever regenerated in baptism. That contradicts the teachings of Christ and His apostles and hence is not in accordance with Catholic teaching. Those who promote the Sinner’s Prayer believe that and that’s why that prayer is rooted in faulty theology and should not be promoted by Catholics.

The Catholic Church teaches that there is an extrasacramental justification if one performs an act of perfect contrition and intends to be baptized or go to confession. It’s under very specific circumstances and it is not the norm.

They believe just as Peter taught. Let me quote him for the record.

1 Peter 3:20-21 “…Noah, during the building of the Ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but AS AN APPEAL TO GOD FOR A CLEAR CONSCIENCE, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Did not Noah and families FAITH … preceed their travel in the ARK ? This is impossible to miss or refute !

 

[mikeledes]

They believe just as Peter taught. Let me quote him for the record.

1 Peter 3:20-21 “…Noah, during the building of the Ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water. Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but AS AN APPEAL TO GOD FOR A CLEAR CONSCIENCE, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Did not Noah and families FAITH … preceed their travel in the ARK ? This is impossible to miss or refute !

They do not believe what Peter taught:

**38Peter said to them, "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. **

They teach that forgiveness of sins is never granted in Baptism. Baptism is only a symbolic act. BRB, those who promote this prayer do not believe in baptismal regeneration and hence do not teach what Peter taught.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

Why should we amend it when we have perfectly good acts of contrition of our own?

That’s like wanting to continue with the Baptism of John when we have the Sacrament of Baptism.

Mike … !!! You know you’re my hero apologist :yup: … but, you have a blind spot on this one.

It doesn’t need amending !! It is dead on bibically correct. Now, to your way of thinking, it may not be COMPLETE enough. Add or subtract … to make it fit your [Catholic] dogma. Show us what is missing or errant with it.

Now, about Baptism of John … the Church accepts it as EFFICACIOUS. This was one of my first attempts at Apologetics several years ago, in the Sacred Scripture sector. And, after much to and fro with Catholics … the Catholics had to finally acknowledge that the Baptism of John was efficacious, and in line with Catholic dogma.

And, we know John REQUIRED faith & repentance [demonstrated by works, pleadings, sinners prayers, etc] of those he Baptized. FAITH preceeded their water Baptism. Again, just another in a long list of scriptural examples that support the Protestant viewpoint … for ADULTS.

Does this make the Catholic viewpoint for infants and young children errant ? By no means !!! Both Baptismal ‘temporal’ sequences are EFFICACIOUS.

 

[brb3]

They teach that forgiveness of sins is never granted in Baptism. Baptism is only a symbolic act. BRB, those who promote this prayer do not believe in baptismal regeneration and hence do not teach what Peter taught.

Well I can’t speak for ALL the Protestants. But, for Baptists … it is SACRAMENTAL !

I will let the Calvinists, the Anglican’s, the Methodists, and Lutherans speak for themselves.

 

[mikeledes]

Well I can’t speak for ALL the Protestants. But, for Baptists … it is SACRAMENTAL !

I will let the Calvinists, the Anglican’s, the Methodists, and Lutherans speak for themselves.

Baptists do not believe in baptismal regeneration. What they call “water” baptism is mere a symbol.

God Bless,
Michael