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

[brb3]

***846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it***.

Many of genuine faith, are mixed into the soup of various Protestant Churches. Indoctrinated from youth that the Catholic Church is the oldest, but lost its way in 1500’s, and God inspired a Reformation to bring about a return of original purity to the faith. When they see the periodic Catholic scandals, like the sexual corruption in priesthood, their longheld ideas about Catholicism are reinforced.

Our job of convincing Protestants to re-join the ‘true’ Catholic Church has recently gotten alot harder. Many are convinced Pope Benedict is culpable in a ‘coverup’. IMO, those Catholics with the full knowledge who err, will be judged with more stripes than those who weren’t born in the Catholic fold.

 

[crazzeto]

I find it curious that a Roman Catholic uses the John 20: 20-23 passage that has Christ breathing on ALL the apostles and saying whatever sins they retain are retained and whatever are forgiven are forgiven. Are you now coming over to the Protestant point of view here that the binding and loosing power was NOT given to Peter alone but to all the apostles? It would seem so from this post. This line is usually given by Protestants to show that Peter was NOT the head, but rather all were equal.

Your arguments that follow are very Protestant in nature also regarding salvation and do not mention the Catholic church at all. Funny when push comes to shove that you can find good answers from sola scriptura. Very Good!! you should be commended on your knowledge.

I do notice you are specifically avoiding the “Muslim issue” from this paragraph of the catechism:
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

You paint a very broad picture with all due respect. However, if one studies the Koran, the God in there IS NOT the same merciful God that we adore. Can you relate this to salvation?

Ohwowo… Do you seriously think Catholics believe that only Peter can give aboslution? That was never a Catholic teaching, that was never a point of contraversy between protistants and Catholics.

To use Luthers own words, he felt people were justified “With out all works, of all laws” by “faith alone”. This is the point of contention, not that people other that Peter (& successor) can offer absolution.

To the contrary, we say any validly ordained priest (i.e. by a Bishop, who has valid Apistolic succession) can absolve sins.

 

[crazzeto]

Being Anglican I would say, YES I could declare sins forgiven. Many Protestants such as Methodists and Presbyterians will give and “assurance of pardon” based upon scriptures mentioned. That is the difference.

And here is the point of contention, I would only say yes you can if you were given valid holy orders by a Bishop who has valid Apistolic succession. And even then, I’m not sure about the particulars in so far who may actually receive aboslution.

 

[PJM]

=brb3;6513392]Christ says above that any who would come after him as disciples must DAILY take up cross [be obedient to our high calling in Christ]. Even a Righteous man will commit venial sins, on daily basis … but these don’t separate us from God like Mortal sins. Nevertheless, for either venial or mortal sins … we must ‘deny ourselves’ [repent/confess] and bear our cross on daily basis.

The Sinner’s Prayer is generally considered our FIRST confession / repentance, but if we later become Prodigals, we will need to renew / restore our standing in Christ by revisiting the Sinner’s Prayer.

I know, some will quote me Heb. 6:4-6 … and say “restoration is impossible” ---- but, life experience for many suggests otherwise.

---

Dear friend in Christ,

Am I to understand your position as a Catholic to be that Confession is NOT Necessary? And if so on what basis? What role does a “Sinners Prayer” have in Catholic Theology?***

God’s continued blessings,

 

[Padrej]

And here is the point of contention, I would only say yes you can if you were given valid holy orders by a Bishop who has valid Apistolic succession. And even then, I’m not sure about the particulars in so far who may actually receive aboslution.

My lines as an Anglican Bishop have Roman Catholic succession as well as Orthodox. I do not think we need to get into the battle over whose order’s are valid. as St. Paul said in 1 Corinthians 3 when we say we are of this group or that we are CARNAL. From what I have read of your post I would not want to think you to be in that category.

 

[Padrej]

Ohwowo… Do you seriously think Catholics believe that only Peter can give aboslution? That was never

 

[FrJohnB]

---

Dear friend in Christ,

Am I to understand your position as a Catholic to be that Confession is NOT Necessary? And if so on what basis? What role does a “Sinners Prayer” have in Catholic Theology?***

God’s continued blessings,

I would be curious to know the answer to the last question myself. as someone who has done prison ministry, I have used a sinner’s prayer myself and THEN introduced Catholic theology. The reason this is done is that many prisons do not allow for specific religions to teach their ways first but allow the individual to make the choice. BUT sadly, if the person wants to introduce the Muslim faith there is no problem with that in many prisons so it is small wonder our prisons are turning out more of the Muslim faith than Christian.

 

[FrJohnB]

And here is the point of contention, I would only say yes you can if you were given valid holy orders by a Bishop who has valid Apistolic succession. And even then, I’m not sure about the particulars in so far who may actually receive aboslution.

Crazzeto
I personally know the Roman Catholic bishop who laid hands on PadreJ and he is a valid Catholic bishop so I would tread lightly in his direction.
Fr John

 

[FrJohnB]

You have misunderstood what you are reading. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Those who are saved that are not identified with the visible Catholic Church (Muslims and our separated brethren) are saved because they are part of the Church. Jesus only has ONE BODY, ONE CHURCH. Therefore, all who are saved are members of HIS ONE BODY, the Church. It flows from the Church because He only founded ONE CHURCH. Salvation is through Christ alone. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved. He established His Church as the means by which we are connected to Him as the Head.

With all due respect you have taken a wooden literal translation of the sited passages of the catechism.
Let me cite the passage in question again.
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

The passage clearly states that those who acknowledge the creator ARE part of the plan of salvation. the passage mentions NOTHING about it coming out of the Catholic church but rather the profession of faith.
I do as a Catholic acknowledge that we hold the path of salvation BUT, the catechism does state that there are others outside of the church who do have salvation.

 

[brb3]

---

What role does a “Sinners Prayer” have in Catholic Theology?***

Its key, … as FrJOHNB should well know !

It’s important to our justification before Father God. Exhibit A, of the importance of “Sinner’s Prayer” is Luke 18:10-14 /// Parable of Christ.

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, BUT BEAT HIS BREAST, SAYING, ‘GOD, BE MERCIFUL TO ME A SINNER !’ I tell you, this man went down to his house JUSTIFIED rather than the other; …”

 

[guanophore]

Hey Guan… Is it because the rejection of Christ church and it’s teachings they many not have salvation?

Matthew

I suppose that is true for some, but it is not a requirement for salvation. God can save whoever He wants, however He likes. He can save those who have never heard of Christ or His Church, and those who are invicibly ignorant of her.

The point I was trying to make is that all who are saved are members of His One Body, the Church, whether they know it, or not.

 

[guanophore]

To think we’re not still sinners (you don’t sin any more???) is to not understand the Bible on this issue, IMO.

We still have a tendency toward sin (the sin nature), however, the blood of Jesus has freed us from our slavery to sin, and we are to “go and sin no more”. He empowers us by the HS to live without sin. We are to consider ourselves dead to sin, and alive to Christ.

• Ro 7:17 “But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.” This may speak to the issue of us having two natures; non-Christians only have one nature.

Yes, but remember Rom 8:1! God has triumphed over sin, so this struggle can always be won by His grace. We are not compelled to sin, only tempted.

Ro 7:18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.

Yet, within us is the new nature, that which is born of God, that does not continue to sin.

Ro 7:20 Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.

It would be a mistake to think that, because we are tempted to sin, that it is necessary to do so.

Ro 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

A law to which we are no longer subject, because since the Son has set us free, we are free indeed.

Ro 4:7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;” Our sins are covered by the blood of Jesus not gone totally until Heaven, IMO.

Why would He “cover” the sins, and leave them there? This is not consistent with the Scriptural testimony. If they are not put as far away from us as the East is from the West, then we are still dead in our sins.

Ro 4:8 “Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.” We’re still sinners but our sins are not imputed to us if we’re truly Christian, IMO.

God does not want snow covered dunghills, but those who are conformed to His image and likeness. We are to be holy, sanctified, purified, and consecrated to Him. We are no longer to identify ourselves as “sinners”, but as "saints’.

• 1 John 1:
  8 ¶ " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
  9 If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
  10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us."

This is a reference to the sacrament of reconciliation, through which we receive grace to live free from sin.

Galatians 6:3 “For if anyone thinks himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceives himself.”

This is not giving permission to sin. It is an exhortation to have humility.

• IMO, to realize our potential to sin is an important motive for spiritual growth.

Yes, I agree. It is very important to have a thorough awareness of our potential to sin, and that is a strong motive for spiritual growth. However, potential for sin is not equivalent to being a sinner.

 

[guanophore]

So friend your explaination for the following is?

We are expected to conduct ourselves in holiness, and not continue to live a lifestyle of sin (sinner).

We are to identify ourselves with the risen Christ, by whose blood we have been saved, not with our fallen nature.

 

[guanophore]

I find it curious that a Roman Catholic uses the John 20: 20-23 passage that has Christ breathing on ALL the apostles and saying whatever sins they retain are retained and whatever are forgiven are forgiven. Are you now coming over to the Protestant point of view here that the binding and loosing power was NOT given to Peter alone but to all the apostles? It would seem so from this post. This line is usually given by Protestants to show that Peter was NOT the head, but rather all were equal.

They are two different authorizations and responsibilites. The power to forgive sins was given to all the Apostles, and their successors.

The responsibility of feeding and caring for the flock was given exclusively to Peter.

The authority to bind and loose (legislate) is connected to the other two, and none of them operate in isolation of each other. Peter never exercised his pastoral authority apart from the other Apostles.

Peter is not the Head of the church, Christ is. Jesus left Peter with the responsibility for the earthly flock, and Peter passed this on to his successor. The role of Peter serves a unifying function in the Church.

 

[guanophore]

John 20:23 Here Jesus was giving the disciples their Spiri-powered and Spirit-guided mission–to preach the Good News about Jesus so people’s sins might be forgiven.

Absolutely!

The disciples did not have the power to forgive sins

Certainly not before they were empowered by Christ to do so.

If He was referring back to the forgiveness that comes through recieving the Gospel, this part would have been redundant, would it not?

How do you account for the fact that the Apostles and all those who were discipled by them misunderstood His meaning, and that Jesus was unable to correct this misperception?

{only God can forgive sisn},

How do you account for the fact that the Scripture attests that this power was given to “men”?

but Jesus gave them the priviledge of telling new believers that their sins have been forgiven because they have accepted Jesus’ message. All believers have this same priviledge.

Yes, he did, and yes, we do, but the power He gave to forgive and retained was given only to the ordained.

 

[guanophore]

So let me go out in a limb here and ask you as a Catholic priest to another catholic that always has been taught that other faiths DO have salvation because our catechism says so that you claim that now they do not? Prior to Vatican 2 your answers were correct, we do have a more open view on this matter now.
I too would like to hear you directly answer the “Muslim problem” that padrej brings up instead of broadly answering it. I tend to agree with him after reading the Koran myself that the god of the Koran IS NOT the same God we worship. This is something the magisterium is looking into.

I would say that it is not the "other faiths’ that give salvation. There is no other name under heaven by which we may be saved but Christ. However, there are people in other religions that find HIm, even though they don’t know who He is. It is like Nathaniel, who was alone and praying. Nathaniel knew he was there alone with God. When Jesus made Nathaniel aware that He was also present, Nathaniel realized who He was.

The children of Ishmael believed in the God of Abraham long before the Koran came along. Many of them still do, even sometimes in spite of Modern day Islam.

 

[guanophore]

With all due respect you have taken a wooden literal translation of the sited passages of the catechism.

Let me cite the passage in question again.
841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

No, I don’t think I have taken a “wooden literal translation”.

The catechism states “togehter with us”. When they profess and hold the faith of Abraham, they are members of His One Body,the Church. They may not realize this, but since there is only ONE BODY, and all who are saved are members of it, it is impossible for anyone to be “together with us” if they are outside of that Body.

 The passage clearly states that those who acknowledge the creator ARE part of the plan of salvation. the passage mentions NOTHING about it coming out of the Catholic church but rather the profession of faith.

I do as a Catholic acknowledge that we hold the path of salvation BUT, the catechism does state that there are others outside of the church who do have salvation.

Jesus has only one body, one church. Salvation can only come through Him, who is the Head of that Church. All who are saved in Him and through Him are, by default, in the Church. They are improperly joined, since they do not formally recognize and accept visible Catholicism, but that does not change the fact that they are saved through the Church. Jesus makes them part of His mystical body.

 

[brb3]

The children of Ishmael believed in the God of Abraham long before the Koran came along. Many of them still do, even sometimes in spite of Modern day Islam.

Many Children of Ishmael, living in Holy Land, are coming to Christianity at this time. More than in the past. And, they are having Annual celebratory events with the 75K Messianic Jews in Holy Land.

This is the only way a true and lasting peace will occur in that land. God is raising up a group of Arab Christians to point the Jews to the Messiah. The Gentiles will accomplish this mission unto the Jews. Someday the Jews will again proclaim “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” … and they will have a lasting peace.

Read about these efforts in current issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

 

[brb3]

No, I don’t think I have taken a “wooden literal translation”.

The catechism states “togehter with us”. When they profess and hold the faith of Abraham, they are members of His One Body,the Church. They may not realize this, but since there is only ONE BODY, and all who are saved are members of it, it is impossible for anyone to be “together with us” if they are outside of that Body.

Jesus has only one body, one church. Salvation can only come through Him, who is the Head of that Church. All who are saved in Him and through Him are, by default, in the Church. They are improperly joined, since they do not formally recognize and accept visible Catholicism, but that does not change the fact that they are saved through the Church. Jesus makes them part of His mystical body.

There will be ONE FLOCK, and ONE SHEPHERD … so teaches the WORD. Nevertheless, we are also taught by the WORD that He has other flocks we don’t know about. And He is bringing them all into UNITY, thru/into his Church Universal.
Christ is alway unifying, never dividing. Peace He give to us, but not as this world knows peace. Thus, there will be many wars, and the final Great Tribulation is yet to come.
So taught the Prophets … and John re-confirms in his summary of their prophesies, in his Revelation.

 

[crazzeto]

There will be ONE FLOCK, and ONE SHEPHERD … so teaches the WORD. Nevertheless, we are also taught by the WORD that He has other flocks we don’t know about. And He is bringing them all into UNITY, thru/into his Church Universal.
Christ is alway unifying, never dividing. Peace He give to us, but not as this world knows peace. Thus, there will be many wars, and the final Great Tribulation is yet to come.
So taught the Prophets … and John re-confirms in his summary of their prophesies, in his Revelation.

I wish that were true, but it was never meant to be and Christ knew it. He knew that ultimate unity would first start with division, thus he said he came to divide father against son, mother against daughter. I have a feeling we will remain divided, until the very end when all things are brought to him.