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

[Padrej]

From Catholics, and from Scriptures. Both deny OSAS

I have yet to hear from ANY Catholic that salvation is a more than one time event and it Cannot be found in scripture. Once you are saved you become a babe in Christ see 1 Cor. 3 and then God expects you to grow. You do not go back into your mother’s womb every time you commit a sin in your parent’s house you only needed restoration. The same with God, you do not need to get baptized every time you sin or you do not need to give yourself to Christ just confess and be restored.

 

[FrJohnB]

From Catholics, and from Scriptures. Both deny OSAS

I too will have to agree with Padrej that I have NEVER known a Catholic to view salvation as a more than one time event. It almost seems like you are trying to push Protestantism on us Catholics under the guise of being Roman Catholic. I could be wrong, but it has happened before on this forum.

 

[FrJohnB]

A near-Apostate son … with many mortal sins. He would need Grace of Christ to be retrived for the Father. Recall that Catholic dogma does not allow a prodigal that dies with Mortal Sins to enter Purgatory … for a ‘second chance’ remission of.

Technically, and actually, the Prodigal was a ‘deadman walking’. Just a 5 minute flatline away from the abyss. Only the Good Shepherd ‘staff’ of Christ can catch and retrieve these wayward sons/daughters.

Look at what I have highlighted, you could not be more WRONG on purgatory either. A person who dies with mortal or venial sins can be purged in Purgatory. BUT where do you get off saying the son was a Mortal sinner? He committed no murder, did he? He stole no money, did he? He only was foolish with his fortune “spending all on riotous living” we are not told what these sins are but that does not say it is MORTAL. **Once again you are reading into scripture that is the only the Church’s responsibility to do so. **Are you purposefully trying to lead others astray by Protestant thought? Your last line of “only the good shepherd staff Christ can…” is typical once saved always saved speech with roots in John 10:28 “And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.”

 

[FrJohnB]

I’m online at CAF Apologetic Seminary almost daily for last several years … learning at the feet of the masters

I examine your arguments closely … and most I can accept.

If you have taken the course for years why do you then still speak as a protestant and try to bend (or as you call it “amend”) Protestant teaching to meet up with Catholic.

 

[FrJohnB]

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, [COLOR=“Red”]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.

Where do you find it in WRITING that the baptism of John was efficacious? (from Catholic sources) Look at the catechism:
438 *Jesus’ messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, “for the name ‘Christ’ implies ‘he who anointed’, ‘he who was anointed’ and ‘the very anointing with which he was anointed’. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.’” His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”, “that he might be revealed to Israel” as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as “the Holy One of God”. *
When Jesus was baptized he did so to “fulfill all righteousness” as he had not sin and need not to do any fruits worthy of repentance which is what John’s baptism was about. It was the anointing of the Holy Spirit that did the trick not the water. Bearing fruits worthy of repentance is the only thing in line with Catholic dogma.

BTW where do you see in ANY of scripture that John the Baptist told those or others of “sinner’s prayers” as you assert.

 

[brb3]

I too will have to agree with Padrej that I have NEVER known a Catholic to view salvation as a more than one time event.

I take it you mean ONE TIME Baptism … our Initial Justification. Yes, that is a ONE TIME ‘water’ baptism. A Trinitarian one, only ONE per lifetime needed, or advised by the Church. This is why the Protestant’s Trinitarian baptism is Fully accepted / honored as valid by the Catholic Church.

Nevertheless, Catholics say we are in a process, a journey, leading to hoped SALVATION. We are allowed to say we HAVE BEEN Saved [justified/sanctified], we ARE CURRENTLY saved/sanctified [if fully confessed of mortals], and we HOPE TO Persevere to our Final Salvation. No Catholic is rightly allowed to have ABSOLUTE certainty that we will persevere. We cannot know the future. God alone knows and judges us.

Thus, our salvation is a PROCESS, a journey of faith, one that DEMANDS perseverance til our LAST DAY. Any of us might become Prodigals … if we fail to persevere in faith and gracious works.

Imagine me explaining this to seminarian … Did I get it right Father ?

 

[Padrej]

Where do you find it in WRITING that the baptism of John was efficacious? (from Catholic sources) Look at the catechism:
438 Jesus’ messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, “for the name ‘Christ’ implies ‘he who anointed’, ‘he who was anointed’ and ‘the very anointing with which he was anointed’. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.’” His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”, “that he might be revealed to Israel” as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as "the Holy One of God".
When Jesus was baptized he did so to “fulfill all righteousness” as he had not sin and need not to do any fruits worthy of repentance which is what John’s baptism was about. It was the anointing of the Holy Spirit that did the trick not the water. Bearing fruits worthy of repentance is the only thing in line with Catholic dogma.

BTW where do you see in ANY of scripture that John the Baptist told those or others of “sinner’s prayers” as you assert.

Originally Posted by brb3 View Post

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.

I would be curious as to where the “pleadings and sinners prayers” come in also. What Bible are you reading from BRB3? Are you reading from one of the apocryphal New Testament books which the Roman Catholic church does not recognize as part of the cannon, maybe it says something about pleadings and sinners prayers that John said to do.
Funny the Catholic University apologetic course had NOTHING in regard to John’s baptism being efficacious, is this another brb3 read into doctrine and interpret how you see fit time again?

 

[brb3]

Where do you find it in WRITING that the baptism of John was efficacious? (from Catholic sources) Look at the catechism:
438 Jesus’ messianic consecration reveals his divine mission, “for the name ‘Christ’ implies ‘he who anointed’, ‘he who was anointed’ and ‘the very anointing with which he was anointed’. The one who anointed is the Father, the one who was anointed is the Son, and he was anointed with the Spirit who is the anointing.’” His eternal messianic consecration was revealed during the time of his earthly life at the moment of his baptism by John, when “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power”, “that he might be revealed to Israel” as its Messiah. His works and words will manifest him as "the Holy One of God".

This CC # 438 is dead on correct. … but, I don’t see where it denies the efficaciousness of John’s Baptism. Indeed Christ welcomed John’s Baptism … Matt 3:14-15 “I [John] need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now; for thus IT IS FITTING FOR US TO FULFILL ALL RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Christ is in essence saying… ‘baptize me now, and later I will thereafter Baptize you’. John needed to witness God the Father baptizing Christ — AFTER John had performed the water baptism. This was done for OUR BENEFIT and UNDERSTANDING … so that it would live forever in fulfillment of scripture, and live in scripture forever. Just as the Father annoints the Son, we too are similarily annointed by the Son with our Spiritual Baptismal Rebirths, whenever the priests/pastors/laity submerse us in water.

The take home message is that John’s [OR ANY PRIESTS/PASTOR/LAITYS baptism of us] is MADE EFFICACIOUS BY CHRIST. Christ alone knows our hearts … and performs the spiritual baptism of all the contrite, who fully confess all their sins — and desire redemption IN CHRIST.

Man baptizes, and lays on the hands … and it is Christ who CONFIRMS, with his Spirit, giving newness of life, the new man/woman.

 

[brb3]

is this another brb3 read into doctrine and interpret how you see fit time again?

I accept all I’ve encountered in the Catholic Catechism. I think it is fabulous !! I’m not a Cafeteria Catholic. I may be a slow eater of the dogma … but, what I eat I retain. I do accept it. I’m simply making the point here that BEFORE we ‘recently’ got the CC … we did just fine with Tradition and Sacred Scripture.

IMO, Tradition is first [which includes the written OT and ORAL NT], then comes written NT Canon, finally the CC … in order of priority. They all are unified and efficacious. The first two are inspired revelation … the 3rd [CC] is the Church explaining the first two in a most excellent way.

 

[brb3]

I would be curious as to where the “pleadings and sinners prayers” come in also. What Bible are you reading from BRB3?

Rom. 10:9-10, Matt. 7:7-8 , Luke 18:13-14 see bible-knowledge.com/sinners-prayer/

I like the RSV Bible. The Catholic Church has it on it’s kosher list.

 

[crazzeto]

Where do you find it in WRITING that the baptism of John was efficacious? (from Catholic sources) Look at the catechism:

I can find in the bible where it clearly states it is not effcacious from a Christian perspective

 

[brb3]

I can find in the bible where it clearly states it is not effcacious from a Christian perspective

At the POINT IN TIME when it was used … it was EFFICACIOUS !!! Again, man/womankind are on a JOURNEY to our fuller understandings IN CHRIST.
Christ came to JOHN, to make John’s Baptism COMPLETE. John knew it IMMEDIATELY ! As he said/taught “I must decrease, as Christ must increase”.

IF John baptized After meeting Christ … surely he added the name of Jesus to his Baptismal spoken Rites.

I’m off for several days or R & R, spiritual reflection/study,etc. Away from the net for awhile. When I return, I hope to learn that you 4-5 here have come to accept John’s Baptism as Efficacious for it’s age … and that Christ has ALWAYS been the one doing the Spiritual Baptisms ! … dating back to the Age of Noah and Family, including any infants/young children on the Ark

To my friends in Christ … Mikeledes / Fr.John / Padrej / Crazzeto / etc … lets work out our minor doctrinal speedbumps . :grouphug: … and head for the RED ZONE ! Always heading for the Goal // our High Calling IN CHRIST .

 

[Padrej]

Rom. 10:9-10, Matt. 7:7-8 , Luke 18:13-14 see bible-knowledge.com/sinners-prayer/

I like the RSV Bible. The Catholic Church has it on it’s kosher list.

Your words said JOHN required the pleadings and sinner’s prayers what you have quoted here has NOTHING to do with John and the link is to a Protestant site one of whose primary goals is to pull people away from the Catholic Church.
The Matthew 7 passage you cite refers to being persistent in prayer and asking in faith; once again nothing to do with John.
The Romans passage is about confessing with the mouth and believing in your heart and you will be saved; something that on this thread has already been established that there is no version of the sinner’s prayer in the Catholic Church.
The Luke passage you cite is the root of what we know as the Jesus prayer, “Jesus have mercy on me a sinner” that many Catholic and Orthodox say but it cannot be construed as a sinner’s prayer that leads one to salvation.

The way I see it you must have been a fairly strong Baptist as that is showing up in your posts, but you cannot put Baptist/Protestant theology into the Catholic faith any more than I can ask the Pope to become the Arch Bishop of Canterbury and head of the Anglican church, it just does not work that way.

 

[Padrej]

At the POINT IN TIME when it was used … it was EFFICACIOUS !!! Again, man/womankind are on a JOURNEY to our fuller understandings IN CHRIST.
Christ came to JOHN, to make John’s Baptism COMPLETE. John knew it IMMEDIATELY ! As he said/taught “I must decrease, as Christ must increase”.

IF John baptized After meeting Christ … surely he added the name of Jesus to his Baptismal spoken Rites.

.

He must not have added Christ because in Acts 19: 1-7 these 12 believers (Disciples as it says in some translations) had never heard of Jesus’ Baptism but only John’s for repentance. So it is blatantly obvious that these persons who never received the Holy Spirit at baptism needed to be re-baptized into Jesus’ baptism. Verse 4 is the most telling in that "Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” " Notice Paul tells the Purpose of John’s baptism and they should believe on Jesus but he obviously did not add Jesus to the Baptism formula as these “disciples” did not know the Holy Spirit. IF John had added Jesus to the baptism formula they would have known the Holy Spirit.

 

[FrJohnB]

At the POINT IN TIME when it was used … it was EFFICACIOUS !!! Again, man/womankind are on a JOURNEY to our fuller understandings IN CHRIST.
Christ came to JOHN, to make John’s Baptism COMPLETE. John knew it IMMEDIATELY ! As he said/taught “I must decrease, as Christ must increase”.

IF John baptized After meeting Christ … surely he added the name of Jesus to his Baptismal spoken Rites.

I’m off for several days or R & R, spiritual reflection/study,etc. Away from the net for awhile. When I return, I hope to learn that you 4-5 here have come to accept John’s Baptism as Efficacious for it’s age … and that Christ has ALWAYS been the one doing the Spiritual Baptisms ! … dating back to the Age of Noah and Family, including any infants/young children on the Ark

To my friends in Christ … Mikeledes / Fr.John / Padrej / Crazzeto / etc … lets work out our minor doctrinal speedbumps . :grouphug: … and head for the RED ZONE ! Always heading for the Goal // our High Calling IN CHRIST .

Once again your opinion on the matter, so I will pose the same question again.
Where do you find it in WRITING that the baptism of John was efficacious? (from Catholic sources)

The only way it would have been efficacious is for showing repentance as cited by Padrej in Acts 19. But I am interested being the BRB3 brought up that the Catholics believe this way, I want to see it from CATHOLIC sources not from a Protestant link whose aim is to pull persons away from Catholicism.

 

[FrJohnB]

He must not have added Christ because in Acts 19: 1-7 these 12 believers (Disciples as it says in some translations) had never heard of Jesus’ Baptism but only John’s for repentance. So it is blatantly obvious that these persons who never received the Holy Spirit at baptism needed to be re-baptized into Jesus’ baptism. Verse 4 is the most telling in that "Then Paul said, “John indeed baptized with a baptism of repentance, saying to the people that they should believe on Him who would come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.” " Notice Paul tells the Purpose of John’s baptism and they should believe on Jesus but he obviously did not add Jesus to the Baptism formula as these “disciples” did not know the Holy Spirit. IF John had added Jesus to the baptism formula they would have known the Holy Spirit.

Excellent point Padre! John did not add Jesus’ name as Brb3 supposed, once again I think this may be brb reading into things to make a point.

 

[Padrej]

Excellent point Padre! John did not add Jesus’ name as Brb3 supposed, once again I think this may be brb reading into things to make a point.

Thank you Father, I am wondering (sarcastically) if brb3 will suggest the old Baptist “Jericho march” around the church as being liturgical and part of Catholic teaching also. I can just see in the middle of the Pope’s mass at the Vatican the first several pews getting up and singing praises marching around the basilica 7 times. After all that is in the Bible and the cannon is important to brb3.

 

[FrJohnB]

Thank you Father, I am wondering (sarcastically) if brb3 will suggest the old Baptist “Jericho march” around the church as being liturgical and part of Catholic teaching also. I can just see in the middle of the Pope’s mass at the Vatican the first several pews getting up and singing praises marching around the basilica 7 times. After all that is in the Bible and the cannon is important to brb3.

“Jericho March” I needed that belly laugh. ::choocho::egyptian:

 

[Padrej]

Let me see if I can try to clear this Prodigal son “issue” up as well as baptism and regeneration in one whack.

Lets establish that baptism gives us new birth into God’s family, I say this because of this in the catechism
683 “***No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit.” “God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, 'Abba! Father!”’ This knowledge of faith is possible only in the Holy Spirit: to be in touch with Christ, we must first have been touched by the Holy Spirit. He comes to meet us and kindles faith in us. By virtue of our Baptism, the first sacrament of the faith, the Holy Spirit in the Church communicates to us, intimately and personally, the life that originates in the Father and is offered to us in the Son.***Baptism gives us the grace of new birth in God the Father, through his Son, in the Holy Spirit. For those who bear God’s Spirit are led to the Word, that is, to the Son, and the Son presents them to the Father, and the Father confers incorruptibility on them. And it is impossible to see God’s Son without the Spirit, and no one can approach the Father without the Son, for the knowledge of the Father is the Son, and the knowledge of God’s Son is obtained through the Holy Spirit.
Also
694 Water. The symbolism of water signifies the Holy Spirit’s action in Baptism, since after the invocation of the Holy Spirit it becomes the efficacious sacramental sign of new birth: just as the gestation of our first birth took place in water, so the water of Baptism truly signifies that our birth into the divine life is given to us in the Holy Spirit. As “by one Spirit we were all baptized,” so we are also “made to drink of one Spirit.” Thus the Spirit is also personally the living water welling up from Christ crucified as its source and welling up in us to eternal life

As parents, we give instructions to our children. If they don’t listen to us, we are sad, hurt, but we don’t throw them out of the family. Obedience doesn’t make us members of a family, birth does. Likewise we become members of God’s family not by obeying is commands but by receiving the new birth he give us. Our obedience is how we glorify God. As part of the family, Jesus tells us how we are to give Glory to the father of the family, by loving one another. Jesus is saying, if it is your intention to glorify God, to give praise to God who has made you a member of his household, if you want to respond to God’s grace in your life, if you want to respond to God’s love in your life, if you want to be a responsible family member, here is how to do that; obey the command of love.

So when the prodigal returned he was already a member of the family he only needed restoration through confession. He was restored because the father celebrated by killing the fatted calf. The words “my son was dead and now is alive” is telling that to the father he felt as though he was dead. The prodigal already knew he was still a son because he said “I am no longer worthy to be called YOUR SON.” I can imagine (this is my mind picturing here) the father watching daily for the wayward son to return just as He (the Heavenly Father) does us when we wander from the Church. Lets say you have been baptized and confirmed and then leave the church and live in the “world” does that make you out of the Church/God’s family or just out of fellowship. It would mean out of fellowship, and confession and repentance would mean that you can be restored. NO sinner’s prayer that invites God back into your life and then you get re-baptized and re-confirmed again that would be redundant and in error.

In my mind the sinner’s prayer was a tool brought into the church by Satan to give a false assurance that if you just say the words you can do anything you darn well please. In short it is a license to sin.

 

[JustaServant]

Okay, let’s try this again.
Charles Grandison Finney (1792-1875) was a minister, a lecturer, a professor, and a traveling revivalist who held heretical views on the Atonment. He invented the practice which he called the Anxious Seat, and developed a theological system around it. Finney was straightforward about his purpose for this technique and wrote the following comment near the end of his life:

“The church has always felt it necessary to have something of this kind to answer this very purpose. In the days of the apostles, baptism answered this purpose. The gospel was preached to the people, and then all those who were willing to be on the side of Christ, were called out to be baptized.** It held the place that the anxious seat does now **as a public manifestation of their determination to be Christians”

The Anxious Seat was considered to be a **psychological technique that manipulated people to make a premature profession of faith. It was considered to be an emotional conversion influenced by the preachers’ magnetism.
The system that Finney admitted had replaced biblical baptism, is the nucleus for the popular plan of salvation **that was made normative in the twentieth century.
It was popularized by Dwight L. Moody. It was standardized by Billy Graham.