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

[Anna_Scott]

I certainly subscribe to all of this, through faith alone which leads to the fruits of charity in Christ.

It seemed like you, Padrej, FrJohnB, and SteveVH were pretty much on the same page. Just wanted to make sure I understood everyone. Many great posts on this Thread.

Huh, it’s almost a pretty good prayer, other than the finality which is attached to it. Very sad, particularly since even when I was just listening to Father read the Gosples I never got a sense of “finality” to your salvation, other than when you actually die in the Graces of our Lord.

Well, that is one of the many false doctrines in the Baptist Church; and it is sad that so many people are being mislead.

Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut on our topic, Crazzeto.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thread started by SteveVH: Non-Catholics - What does the word “Sacrament” mean to you?

Link: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6366808#post6366808

The Catechism of the Catholic Church defines “Sacrament” as follows:

“An efficacious sign of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us through the work of the Holy Spirit. The sacraments (called ‘mysteries’ in the Eastern Churches) are seven in number: Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance or Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.”

I have heard of Baptism being described as an ordinance (not absolutely necessary) or a profession of faith. As Catholics we believe the sacraments are the means of acquiring God’s grace, that they have a real, necessary, salvific, supernatural effect upon our soul. What say you?

I just posted there. Great place to continue the discussion of the Sacraments.
Anna

 

[SteveVH]

crazzeto, Padrej, FrJohnB, SteveVH:

I’ve gone back through all your posts. Took some time. :coffeeread: Great info.

Would it be safe to say all of you agree on the following?

• We are justified/saved through faith.
• Profession of faith is made by the parents/God Parents/guardians prior to infant Baptism.
• A profession of faith is made by the adult convert prior to Baptism.
• Baptism, the Eucharist, and other Sacraments, follow the profession of faith.
• “Water has no power in and of itself.” “Form, matter, and intention” make a Sacrament valid. Through the Sacrament of Baptism, God washes away our sins, and saves us by making us a member of the Body of Christ. Water signifies the purification of the soul by grace.
• Profession of faith, and the Sacraments must be accompanied by works of charity.

O.K. guys, do I have this right???

I would agree with all of the above. Your last statement here “Profesion of faith, and the sacraments must be accompanied by works of charity” brings up the most important component of all - LOVE. Charity is love in action. Love cannot exist without charity because love, by its very nature, must be put into action. My point is that we can have all the faith in the world but without love, it becomes meaningless as St. Paul reminds us in the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians. It is why we are not saved by “faith alone”. Works of charity are love in action and love is absolutely necessary for salvation. We will be judged by how much we loved, or didn’t. Sometimes the most important things get lost in the details. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[Padrej]

crazzeto, Padrej, FrJohnB, SteveVH:

I’ve gone back through all your posts. Took some time. :coffeeread: Great info.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I would agree with all of the above. Your last statement here “Profesion of faith, and the sacraments must be accompanied by works of charity” brings up the most important component of all - LOVE. Charity is love in action. Love cannot exist without charity because love, by its very nature, must be put into action. My point is that we can have all the faith in the world but without love, it becomes meaningless as St. Paul reminds us in the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians. It is why we are not saved by “faith alone”. Works of charity are love in action and love is absolutely necessary for salvation. We will be judged by how much we loved, or didn’t. Sometimes the most important things get lost in the details. Thanks for the reminder.

Well said, Steve. This brings me to one of my favorite passages of Scripture:

Mark 12 (ESV):
28 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the most important of all?”

29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. 30 And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’

31 The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these."

32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher. You have truly said that he is one, and there is no other besides him. 33 And to love him with all the heart and with all the understanding and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” And after that no one dared to ask him any more questions.

If I may interject on that part. The word “immerse” does not appear in the gospel narratives when it comes to Jesus being baptized. It is assumed because of the phrase “as he was coming up out of the water” that he was immersed. The word “baptize” in Greek means to dip, sprinkle, pour upon, or ceremonially wash. There would in my mind be more scripture verses backing pouring and sprinkling forms of baptism than immersion. Being that the water is only the outward sign I highly doubt that God would bar a person from Heaven based on the fact that he/she was not immersed because of a deathly fear of water.
Further, it has been my understanding that immersion baptism (that form) is more or less an entrance right into the Baptist church and none else will work.

Padrej, I appreciate the interesting information on the word “immerse.” You are right about entrance into the Baptist Church. One must be immersed.

I believe that upon your confession of faith in Christ as Savior that at that moment you have the eternal security. Jesus said that “nobody can snatch my sheep from me.” I do think though that you can break your fellowship with God through your sin. Just as a parent when the child breaks one of your rules, the child does not cease to be your child only the close fellowship for a while is broken because of the event. . . .

Padrej: This is an area of concern for me. In considering the New Testament as a whole, there seems to be much evidence that salvation is truly a path or a journey. My Episcopal Priest described salvation as not only a path in this lifetime, but an eternal one, as well. Yet, he said one can break a relationship with God.

You said, “I believe that upon your confession of faith in Christ as Savior that at that moment you have the eternal security.”

This seems to correspond to the Baptist view of OSAS, and receiving salvation upon praying the Sinner’s Prayer, which can be a “confession of faith in Christ as Savior.”

Would you provide more details for your understanding of “eternal security,” after one’s “confession of faith in Christ as Savior”?

The topic of the Sinner’s Prayer leads to many issues.

Anna

 

[Padrej]

You said, “I believe that upon your confession of faith in Christ as Savior that at that moment you have the eternal security.”

This seems to correspond to the Baptist view of OSAS, and receiving salvation upon praying the Sinner’s Prayer, which can be a “confession of faith in Christ as Savior.”

Would you provide more details for your understanding of “eternal security,” after one’s “confession of faith in Christ as Savior”?

The topic of the Sinner’s Prayer leads to many issues.

Anna

I think to start to answer your question on eternal security we have to look at those who say they have faith and those who do. It is one thing to say, “I believe,” but another thing to live it. 1 John 2: 4 says, *“The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” *So really what faith boils down to is the fruits that are produced. Jesus said, *“You will know them by their fruits,” *Matthew 7:16. The Bible tells me that I cannot judge another, but I CAN be a fruit inspector observing what fruit another person is showing in their life.

Now as to the comment of “breaking the relationship with God:” God does allow us free will, so we can choose to walk away from our relationship with God. We can choose to willfully sin. The Bible tells us the only unpardonable sin and that is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Now according to all that I have been taught in seminary on this sin, this is a continual, willful turning against and placing yourself in direct opposition to God and His redeeming grace, in short when you absolutely know better and directly say, “I will never accept this.” It is rather like placing yourself in the place of Satan.

I know that there are some faiths that teach that you can “loose your salvation.” They feel this way because you “backslide” as the OT calls it into the old ways. The eternal security crowd says, “you never had it to begin with.” I have been in ministry now over 20 years and I have seen many people who have a “said faith,” they say “I am a Christian” but their actions do not back their words. In some cases they may have been like the seeds that fell on the rocky ground in the parable of the sower that sprang up immediately but because of lack of root were choked out by cares of the world. The sad thing is the book of Hebrews 6:4 describes these people. “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” The reason is the feel they are saved and doing all the right things, but their heart is far from God.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I think to start to answer your question on eternal security we have to look at those who say they have faith and those who do. It is one thing to say, “I believe,” but another thing to live it. 1 John 2: 4 says, *“The man who says, “I know him,” but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” *So really what faith boils down to is the fruits that are produced. Jesus said, *“You will know them by their fruits,” *Matthew 7:16. The Bible tells me that I cannot judge another, but I CAN be a fruit inspector observing what fruit another person is showing in their life.

Now as to the comment of “breaking the relationship with God:” God does allow us free will, so we can choose to walk away from our relationship with God. We can choose to willfully sin. The Bible tells us the only unpardonable sin and that is blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Now according to all that I have been taught in seminary on this sin, this is a continual, willful turning against and placing yourself in direct opposition to God and His redeeming grace, in short when you absolutely know better and directly say, “I will never accept this.” It is rather like placing yourself in the place of Satan.

I know that there are some faiths that teach that you can “loose your salvation.” They feel this way because you “backslide” as the OT calls it into the old ways. The eternal security crowd says, “you never had it to begin with.” I have been in ministry now over 20 years and I have seen many people who have a “said faith,” they say “I am a Christian” but their actions do not back their words. In some cases they may have been like the seeds that fell on the rocky ground in the parable of the sower that sprang up immediately but because of lack of root were choked out by cares of the world. The sad thing is the book of Hebrews 6:4 describes these people. “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” The reason is the feel they are saved and doing all the right things, but their heart is far from God.

Padrej,

Very interesting comments. I agree that not all who claim to be a Christian are actually Christian. I agree that we are not to judge. I do think “fruits” can make a very loud statement.

Going back to the Sinner’s Prayer: I think many are misled to believe that if you just pray that prayer; no matter what you do, you are “saved.” This is altogether different from what you are describing regarding eternal security.

Thanks, Padrej.
Anna

 

[crazzeto]

@Padrej,

Baptism in it’s original greek root means “to immerse”, there for it is there in the bible. As far as eternal security, well that’s another discussion for another thread

 

[Padrej]

@Padrej,

Baptism in it’s original greek root means “to immerse”, there for it is there in the bible. As far as eternal security, well that’s another discussion for another thread

It depends which Greek lexicon you are looking into.

 

[SteveVH]

@Padrej,

Baptism in it’s original greek root means “to immerse”, there for it is there in the bible. As far as eternal security, well that’s another discussion for another thread

It seems to me that “eternal security” is exactly on point for this thread. Can a one time moment of authentic sincerity, through the recitation of the sinner’s prayer, save you? Or can we, through our free will, reject God and lose our salvation? In the Catholic Church we believe that we can lose our salvation if we fall into mortal sin. I don’t want this to be a tangent to this thread as I know some do not believe that serious sin is deadly. Regardless, scripture is not lacking in verses supporting the view that our salvation is determined at the end of our lives.

Phil 2:12 “…work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”
1 Pet 1:9 “…as you attain the the goal of your faith, savaltion.”
Mt 10:22 “…he who endures to the end will be saved.”
Mt 24:13 “…he who perseveres to the end will be saved.”
Mk 8:35 “…whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”
Acts 15:11 “…we shall be saved through the grace of Jesus”
Rom 5:9-10 “…since we are justified, we shall be saved.”
Rom 13:11 “…salvation is nearer now than first believed.”
1 Cor 3:15 “…he will be saved, but only as through fire.”
(Catholic Verse Finder (c) 1999-2003 San Juan Catholic Seminars)

In my mind, the only way to get around these verses is to approach them with a preconceived notion and pretty much ignore them. But I would be very interested in
the defense of OSAS in light of these verses.

 

[FrJohnB]

@Padrej,

Baptism in it’s original greek root means “to immerse”, there for it is there in the bible. As far as eternal security, well that’s another discussion for another thread

I would recheck a good Greek lexicon. While you are correct that the most common meaning of “baptizo” which gets translated Baptism is to immerse, IT CAN also mean to ceremonially wash or clean. The Jewish mikvah (spelling) of Jesus’ day would have been a place of both baptism and ceremonial washing or cleaning.

 

[crazzeto]

I would recheck a good Greek lexicon. While you are correct that the most common meaning of “baptizo” which gets translated Baptism is to immerse, IT CAN also mean to ceremonially wash or clean. The Jewish mikvah (spelling) of Jesus’ day would have been a place of both baptism and ceremonial washing or cleaning.

Ok, but the comment made is the fact that the word “immerse” just isn’t there, and based upon my reading’s from the following two sources that doesn’t really seem to be the case:

#New advent newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#II

The word Baptism is derived from the Greek word, bapto, or baptizo, to wash or to immerse. It signifies, therefore, that washing is of the essential idea of the sacrament. Scripture uses the term baptize both literally and figuratively. It is employed in a metaphorical sense in Acts 1:5, where the abundance of the grace of the Holy Ghost is signified, and also in Luke 12:50, where the term is referred to the sufferings of Christ in His Passion. Otherwise in the New Testament, the root word from which baptism is derived is used to designate the laving with water, and it is employed, when speaking of Jewish lustrations, and of the baptism of John, as well as of the Christian Sacrament of Baptism (cf. Hebrews 6:2; Mark 7:4). In ecclesiastical usage, however, when the terms Baptize, Baptism are employed without a qualifying word, they are intended to signify the sacramental washing by which the soul is cleansed from sin at the same time that water is poured upon the body. Many other terms have been used as descriptive synonyms for baptism both in the Bible and Christian antiquity, as the washing of regeneration, illumination, the seal of God, the water of eternal life, the sacrament of the Trinity, and so on. In English, the term christen is familiarly used for baptize. As, however, the former word signifies only the effect of baptism, that is, to make one a Christian, but not the manner and the act, moralists hold that “I christen” could probably not be substituted validly for “I baptize” in conferring the sacrament.

CCC 1214 usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#art1

This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as “a new creature.”

So I guess I’m looking for some clarification of what you posted. Are you saying it’s incorrect for someone to say the root of baptism is to immerse or to plunge, and there for it’s incorrect to say that this meaning might be found in the Gosples?

 

[FrJohnB]

Ok, but the comment made is the fact that the word “immerse” just isn’t there, and based upon my reading’s from the following two sources that doesn’t really seem to be the case:

#New advent newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm#II

CCC 1214 usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2.shtml#art1

So I guess I’m looking for some clarification of what you posted. Are you saying it’s incorrect for someone to say the root of baptism is to immerse or to plunge, and there for it’s incorrect to say that this meaning might be found in the Gosples?

You have completely misread what I and Padrej have both posted on this matter. According to the New Analytical Greek Lexicon (edited by Perchbacher) if you read clearly I said** IT CAN also mean to ceremonially wash or clean
**. I have in no way said this it does not mean immerse. As both of us have tried to point out there are more scripture verses for pouring and sprinkling than immersion.

Are you now going to deny historical evidence of the Jewish mikvah was a place of ceremonial washing AKA baptizing?
Have you in a Roman Catholic church seen immersion used frequently or is pouring or sprinkling used? By the tone (by this I mean you fail to respond to Padrej but seem to respond to mine with wanting to prove me wrong as a Catholic) you have taken with both of us you seem to be taking a strict literal Baptist view that Baptism can only be by immersion or it is not valid. Are you then saying that any child that I may have given the sacrament of baptism to via pouring using the form prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church is not valid by reason of not being immersed because of one interpretation that you have posted of the ancient Greek root word? If this is not the case then please forgive my going on.

I fully understand the sites you linked to, they are excellent sites and I do hope that they will lead some soul closer to the understanding that I have on this matter.

 

[crazzeto]

Ok, that’s all fine and good with one small problem. Padrej, if you read back to what I was responded to, stated in definet terms that to immerse can not be found any where in Gosples.

Is that a statement you are supporting?

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m still following the discussion.

Anna, (OP)

 

[brb3]

I do not know think it means they will necessarily end up in the Catholic Church, but it seems likely in most cases. In any case, I think one who maintains the spirit of the sinner’s prayer in their heart cannot fail to be aided by graces sufficient for salvation. If I understand correctly it would be as older theologians used to describe, that they can belong to the soul, if not the body of the Church, being in a state of grace, but not visibly attached to the Catholic Church.

Interesting idea. Who are these ‘older theologians’ ?

 

[Padrej]

Ok, that’s all fine and good with one small problem. Padrej, if you read back to what I was responded to, stated in definet terms that to immerse can not be found any where in Gosples.

Is that a statement you are supporting?

The actual word “immerse” does not appear in any English translation that I know of. Some early Greek interlinear Bibles would translate the word “dip-ize” but I feel the problem is we get too hung up on the first meaning which you site which I will agree is “immerse.” The word “baptize” is there. Is it because the form of sprinkling pouring or immersion does not matter, but rather the faith of the individual? People have the mistaken notion that the actual word “immerse” is in the Bible when it comes to Jesus’ baptism, that is what I was speaking to here, not the meaning.

I also have a copy of the same Lexicon that Fr. John is referring to as well as a couple of others, they all say that the word can be translated “ceremonially wash” or “Cleanse by washing.” Various other renderings of the word also give the meaning of “an ablution.” Remember the Septuagint was first translated into Greek from Hebrew. When David saw Bathsheba bathing from the rooftop; this would have been a ceremonial washing after her menstrual cycle according to Jewish laws and she would have been naturally very fertile when David “went in to her.” This would be one example of the word being used in a ceremonial way. Another would be when scripture says “you shall sprinkle me with water and I shall be clean, wash me and I shall be whiter than snow.” These would be examples of how the word would be used in the OT Greek Septuagint.

Fr. John also makes a valid point. If a Catholic is not immersed, is he/she validly baptized if the proper form is used that is prescribed by the church? The point of the conversation to begin with was the water was the outward visible part of a sacrament after the profession of faith was made.

 

[brb3]

The actual word “immerse” does not appear in any English translation that I know of. Some early Greek interlinear Bibles would translate the word “dip-ize”

People have the mistaken notion that the actual word “immerse” is in the Bible when it comes to Jesus’ baptism, that is what I was speaking to here, not the meaning.

Did the Jews and Christ go out to the Jordan River to wait for a rain shower ?

Dates from the Baptism of Jewish in Red Sea … walked BENEATH/UNDER the waters. The Early Church clearly taught immersion beneath the waters. To argue otherwise is laughable, pointless nonsense.

Not saying here that pouring isn’t efficacious … just that we all clearly know what was normative from the beginning. If offered a choice… always select immersion.

 

[crazzeto]

Did the Jews and Christ go out to the Jordan River to wait for a rain shower ?

Dates from the Baptism of Jewish in Red Sea … walked BENEATH/UNDER the waters. The Early Church clearly taught immersion beneath the waters. To argue otherwise is laughable, pointless nonsense.

Not saying here that pouring isn’t efficacious … just that we all clearly know what was normative from the beginning. If offered a choice… always select immersion.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was getting at with my original post before FrJohnB stepped in. There seems to be a bit of a communications issue between FrJohnB and I. Perhaps I should quote more particularly when Father is in the thread, I think it will help clear things up.

Padrej, I’m sorry but trying to argue that “immersion” isn’t to be found in the Gosples, because english translators prefer the word “baptize” over translating it “immerse” is ridiculous. The meaning was there from the start, and as a Catholic (note, my faith tradition typically sprinkles) I fully acknowlege that the normative from the start was total immersion in a body of water.

Just becase sprinkling is an OK practice, doesn’t mean that the meaning “immersion” isn’t there. Even when we sprinkle the meaning is there, in a spiritual rather than literal sense.

 

[Padrej]

Did the Jews and Christ go out to the Jordan River to wait for a rain shower ?

Dates from the Baptism of Jewish in Red Sea … walked BENEATH/UNDER the waters. The Early Church clearly taught immersion beneath the waters. To argue otherwise is laughable, pointless nonsense.

Not saying here that pouring isn’t efficacious … just that we all clearly know what was normative from the beginning. If offered a choice… always select immersion.

You claim the early church taught immersion. They also taught pouring. Please note:

The Didache
(the earliest Christian source of ritual believed to have been the teaching of the apostles)
After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).

Hippolytus:
Where there is no scarcity of water the stream shall flow through the baptismal font or pour into it from above; but if water is scarce, whether on a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available. Let them remove their clothing. Baptize first the children, and if they can speak for themselves let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D.215]).

Cyprian:
It behooves those to be baptized . . . so that they are prepared, in the lawful and true and only baptism of the holy Church, by divine regeneration, for the kingdom of God . . . because it is written “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Epistles 72 [73]: 21 [A.D. 252]).

As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born" (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

In the saving sacraments, when necessity compels and when God bestows his pardon, divine benefits are bestowed fully upon believers, nor ought anyone be disturbed because the sick are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69(76):12 [A.D. 254]).

So to say it was not normative from the beginning would be in error.

As to the Israelites walking through/under the water, read the bible carefully; the water separated and the walked on DRY LAND through the midst of the water. Nice try though.