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

[mikeledes]

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.

The baptism of John was not sacramental. That’s why those disciples like Apollos that only knew about the baptism of John had to be baptized again! Moreover, in the baptism of adults, yes they have to believe and be contrite. However, there is a BIG difference between how Catholics understand the baptism of adults and how Protestants understand it. Catholics believe that the adult must have faith and be contrite, but that person is reborn when he or she is baptized. Most Protestants believe that a person is regenerated/ justified through faith prior to baptism. Baptism in their theology is merely a symbol of something that has already occurred * indpendent *of baptism. Catholics believe that this occurs in baptism.

If the Sinner’s Prayer is “dead on biblically correct”, then it wouldn’t need amending.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[brb3]

The baptism of John was not sacramental. That’s why those disciples like Apollos that only knew about the baptism of John had to be baptized again! Moreover, in the baptism of adults, yes they have to believe and be contrite. However, there is a BIG difference between how Catholics understand the baptism of adults and how Protestants understand it. Catholics believe that the adult must have faith and be contrite, but that person is reborn when he or she is baptized. Most Protestants believe that a person is regenerated/ justified through faith prior to baptism. Baptism in their theology is merely a symbol of something that has already occurred * indpendent *of baptism. Catholics believe that this occurs in baptism.

If the Sinner’s Prayer is “dead on biblically correct”, then it wouldn’t need amending.

Not true. This is very subtle, we have to closely look at the scriptures … all of them of Acts …to see what is being taught on subject of Baptism.

Acts19:2-12 And he[Paul] said to them [Apollos & 11 friends], “DID YOU RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT WHEN YOU BELIEVED?” And they said, “NO, WE HAVE NEVER EVEN HEARD THAT THERE IS A HOLY SPIRIT.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, TELLING THE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN THE ONE TO COME AFTER HIM, THAT IS JESUS.”
On hearing this they were BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them [Confirmed them], THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME ON THEM, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.

Commentary: Now earlier in verses 24-28 … we learn that Apollos was an eloquent and convincing apologist for Christ. He was a ZEALOT … preaching Jesus WAS THE CHRIST. But, here is the great MYSTERY. Paul knew something was amiss !!

When he learned Apollos, and his evangelist band of brothers [12 in number] were ignorant of GOD’S HOLY SPIRIT … he knew they needed COMPLETION of baptism. They were indeed ‘feverent in spirit’ … but not REBORN of God’s H.S. John & his disciples, were not using the Trinitarian words with their baptisms … before Christ came to John.

Thus, those receiving baptism of John, were not receiving H.S. thereof. Yes, Christ received Baptism of John, BUT IT WAS GOD THE FATHER WHO CONFERED THE HOLY SPIRIT ONTO JOHN, CONFIRMING JESUS AS THE TRUE CHRIST.

AFTER THIS POINT IN TIME, we know that John would of baptized those who came to him in NAME OF JESUS. Yet, even John had EARLIER said to those whom he was baptizing, that Christ would follow him … baptizing “WITH SPIRIT & FIRE”.

Those whom John baptized, before Christ arrived … were needful of receipt of H.S. Christ provided this to all of them, when those believers who followed John came and started following him. It would appear that most had later received H.S., many at occasion of Pentecost, [with a few exceptions, like Apollos and friends]. Nevertheless, even they too WERE FINALLY ENLIGHTENED … God using the account in Acts to instruct us in our FULLER UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS, and need to receive Baptism into the Father AND SON [by words of man], … and via H.S. [by Christ alone].

As long as we are Baptized into the Father AND SON … Christ can then perform his REBIRTH of Holy Spirit upon us. Notice that Paul doesn’t actually rebaptize them saying “in the name of Father, the Son, and the H.S.” … as we do today. But, he knew they had not received the fuller Christian Baptism he was performing on all Converts. Apollos and friends ‘HAD CONFESSED’ to him they were ignorant of the H.S. He knew, JUST AS JOHN HAD TAUGHT HIS FOLLOWERS, that they had yet to receive Baptism INTO JESUS … who could/would then further Baptize the believers with the H.S. … as ONLY CHRIST CAN DO !!! Paul laid his hands on those he Baptized … to CONFIRM them. And BAM !, they were Confirmed IN CHRIST. Confirmation is being taught here as ESSENTIAL SACRAMENT.

All Catholic infants, earlier baptized … must latter receive H.S. via Confirmations. This is bedrock Catholic Dogma. Those who don’t continue further to be Confirmed IN CHRIST … are in error with Catholic Doctrines.

So, was John’s Baptism efficacious ? YES … CHRIST saw to it. CHRIST MADE his baptism EFFICACIOUS … when these earlier Converts were COMPLETED into Christ by their CONFIRMATIONS — With Christ always DOING THE HONORS !!! There is no salvation apart from Christ. Confirmation is the Final Key factor. W/O Christ confirming us with his H.S. … we remain in our error, not yet fully enlightened.

 

[FrJohnB]

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

The original quote by Padrej is

Originally Posted by Padrej View Post

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.

What he stated is the truth! It is hardly an errant conclusion. Do you now deny the words of the catechism of the Catholic Church that you are now claiming to be? Catholics believe that Salvation is on God’s terms not ours and that does fly in the face of evangelical theology. Brb3 with all due respect take a Catholic apologetics course and learn what we do and do not believe before criticizing a Protestant who HAS taken a Catholic apologetics course like Padrej.

 

[FrJohnB]

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”.

Once again you are reading into scriptures and interpreting them incorrectly. Salvation is a one time event even for protestants unless you are a member of the Church of Christ who believe that every time you sin you must be re baptized. You are taking the words of a confession of the prodigal son and equating it to a salvation prayer used by Protestants it just is not there.

 

[FrJohnB]

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.

These are proper prayers asking for God’s mercy and forgiveness because they are rooted in a solid soteriology. It IS NOT a Sinner’s prayer that leads one to salvation in any way shape or form. A person praying such could already have salvation or could not but that is not the prayer that brings them into the kingdom. Once again you are trying to put Protestant thought into Catholic dogma and you are failing miserably. The Catholic church has no magic formula prayer that leads one to salvation like the Protestants do. We do not believe that way and to imply that we do is simply putting yourself counter to church teachings and making yourself an anathema to the Catholic faith. For your own good, I pray that you stop this belief and learn what it is to be Catholic.

 

[FrJohnB]

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.

Where do you get that I “like it” and “see the merit of it.” If a person wants to believe that way that is fine but they cannot be a Catholic and do so. SHAME ON YOU to try and make it sound like you have an person who thinks as you do and point out that it is me.

Those 4 laws of the Campus crusade are not to be found in Catholic theology, please stop implying they are. I find in terribly interesting that you say to “AMEND it to suit the Catholic Soteriology,” why would any reasonable practicing Catholic want to do this? At least here you are admitting that you are trying to make Protestant thought into Catholic doctrine.

 

[FrJohnB]

Not true. This is very subtle, we have to closely look at the scriptures … all of them of Acts …to see what is being taught on subject of Baptism.

Acts19:2-12 And he[Paul] said to them [Apollos & 11 friends], “DID YOU RECEIVE THE HOLY SPIRIT WHEN YOU BELIEVED?” And they said, “NO, WE HAVE NEVER EVEN HEARD THAT THERE IS A HOLY SPIRIT.” And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” They said, “Into John’s baptism.” And Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, TELLING THE PEOPLE TO BELIEVE IN THE ONE TO COME AFTER HIM, THAT IS JESUS.”
On hearing this they were BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS. And when Paul had laid his hands upon them [Confirmed them], THE HOLY SPIRIT CAME ON THEM, and they spoke in tongues and prophesied. There were about twelve of them in all.

Commentary: Now earlier in verses 24-28 … we learn that Apollos was an eloquent and convincing apologist for Christ. He was a ZEALOT … preaching Jesus WAS THE CHRIST. But, here is the great MYSTERY. Paul knew something was amiss !!

When he learned Apollos, and his evangelist band of brothers [12 in number] were ignorant of GOD’S HOLY SPIRIT … he knew they needed COMPLETION of baptism. They were indeed ‘feverent in spirit’ … but not REBORN of God’s H.S. John & his disciples, were not using the Trinitarian words with their baptisms … before Christ came to John.

Thus, those receiving baptism of John, were not receiving H.S. thereof. Yes, Christ received Baptism of John, BUT IT WAS GOD THE FATHER WHO CONFERED THE HOLY SPIRIT ONTO JOHN, CONFIRMING JESUS AS THE TRUE CHRIST.

AFTER THIS POINT IN TIME, we know that John would of baptized those who came to him in NAME OF JESUS. Yet, even John had EARLIER said to those whom he was baptizing, that Christ would follow him … baptizing “WITH SPIRIT & FIRE”.

Those whom John baptized, before Christ arrived … were needful of receipt of H.S. Christ provided this to all of them, when those believers who followed John came and started following him. It would appear that most had later received H.S., many at occasion of Pentecost, [with a few exceptions, like Apollos and friends]. Nevertheless, even they too WERE FINALLY ENLIGHTENED … God using the account in Acts to instruct us in our FULLER UNDERSTANDING OF EVENTS, and need to receive Baptism into the Father AND SON [by words of man], … and via H.S. [by Christ alone].

As long as we are Baptized into the Father AND SON … Christ can then perform his REBIRTH of Holy Spirit upon us. Notice that Paul doesn’t actually rebaptize them saying “in the name of Father, the Son, and the H.S.” … as we do today. But, he knew they had not received the fuller Christian Baptism he was performing on all Converts. Apollos and friends ‘HAD CONFESSED’ to him they were ignorant of the H.S. He knew, JUST AS JOHN HAD TAUGHT HIS FOLLOWERS, that they had yet to receive Baptism INTO JESUS … who could/would then further Baptize the believers with the H.S. … as ONLY CHRIST CAN DO !!! Paul laid his hands on those he Baptized … to CONFIRM them. And BAM !, they were Confirmed IN CHRIST. Confirmation is being taught here as ESSENTIAL SACRAMENT.

All Catholic infants, earlier baptized … must latter receive H.S. via Confirmations. This is bedrock Catholic Dogma. Those who don’t continue further to be Confirmed IN CHRIST … are in error with Catholic Doctrines.

So, was John’s Baptism efficacious ? YES … CHRIST saw to it. CHRIST MADE his baptism EFFICACIOUS … when these earlier Converts were COMPLETED into Christ by their CONFIRMATIONS — With Christ always DOING THE HONORS !!! There is no salvation apart from Christ. Confirmation is the Final Key factor. W/O Christ confirming us with his H.S. … we remain in our error, not yet fully enlightened.

Once again you are trying to breathe Protestant thought into Catholic dogma. John’s baptism was for the remission of SIN. It was NOT sacramental. If it was sacramental why did Jews of Jesus’ day have Mickva baths to cleanse the body? The purpose of the Mickva was to ceremonially wash the body, nothing more. This is why the converts had only heard of John’s baptism.

 

[FrJohnB]

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.

For Baptists, Baptism is an entrance right into the church and NOT a sacrament. Baptists do not look at sacraments they way we do.

 

[Padrej]

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.

How do you get that Baptists think of baptism is a “sacrament” when they do not believe in the sacraments? To them the Lord’s supper and Baptism are SYMBOLS. A symbol is NOT a sacrament or sacramental.

 

[Padrej]

Originally Posted by Padrej View Post

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 ?

Where do you get that this is “errant”? As Fr John states this is from your own catechism. are you now going to change your catechism to reflect what YOU want it to say. Maybe I should change that in light of another post, “AMEND” the catechism so it says what YOU want it to say.

 

[Padrej]

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”.

Come on BRB this is basic theology 101. The Prodigal was **already a son **so why would he need to reclaim such? All he needed was restoration through confession which is what you have quoted. The Dead… lost… and found expresses the feelings of the father that his son after being gone so long was dead and lost. Even Protestants believe that.

Where do you get that salvation is a more than one time event? as Fr John points out the only Protestants I know of who feel this way is the Church of Christ who require re-baptism after one has sinned. This is quite frankly what you are implying here. It is not good Protestant theology and neither is it good Catholic theology.

 

[crazzeto]

Where do you get that I “like it” and “see the merit of it.” If a person wants to believe that way that is fine but they cannot be a Catholic and do so. SHAME ON YOU to try and make it sound like you have an person who thinks as you do and point out that it is me.

Those 4 laws of the Campus crusade are not to be found in Catholic theology, please stop implying they are. I find in terribly interesting that you say to “AMEND it to suit the Catholic Soteriology,” why would any reasonable practicing Catholic want to do this? At least here you are admitting that you are trying to make Protestant thought into Catholic doctrine.

To be fair, I was about to post the same thing but then I realized exactly where he got it from… He got it from competely mis-interpreting yours and Pardj’s discourse on the value of something like a Sinners Prayer to put some one in the proper disposition to accept Christ and take that first step on the Journey to the New Jerusalem. As BRB3 has been this whole time, he’s taking a veage comparison and trying to make it directly equivalent to the misguided evangelical belief that salvation is normativly a one time thing.

It’s not way you or Padrej were saying, rather you were discussing at a high level the language of the prayer and it’s value getting someone on that right path. As I stated earlier while your conversation has value in this thread, it didn’t address the OP which is what BRB3 is trying to make it do. You just can’t do it, it’s a false comparison.

 

[Padrej]

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 !

Original post

Originally Posted by mikeledes View Post

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.

I am going to have to agree with mikeledes on this one under MOST Protestants teach… Regeneration does not happen at your baptism. as the book of Hebrews says it is by FAITH that those in the ark and the Israelites walked on dry land were saved. But may I also point out that those in the ark and passed through the red sea waters NEVER GOT WET.

 

[brb3]

How do you get that Baptists think of baptism is a “sacrament” when they do not believe in the sacraments? To them the Lord’s supper and Baptism are SYMBOLS. A symbol is NOT a sacrament or sacramental.

This is rich ! An Anglican telling a former Baptist what we believed … Why do we call ourselves BAPTISTS ? Would we be so stupid as to deny the ESSENTIAL necessity of Baptism in our Salvation … :nope:

The Eucharist is considered symbolic to them … but, Baptism is tantamount to a Sacrament. I will restate again my position ----- a ‘mainline’ Baptist [Southern Baptist], who answers an Altar call of pastor, or prays the Sinner’s Prayer [or equivalent thereof] and later declines Baptism would have their Salvation seriously questioned.

 

[brb3]

For Baptists, Baptism is an entrance right into the church and NOT a sacrament. Baptists do not look at sacraments they way we do.

Yes, it is considered Mandatory ‘entrance’ into Church built on the Rock/Christ. It is also a key component in our Salvation … but, it is not called a Sacrament. They should call it a sacrament … they have no valid reason not to. It’s a vocabulary error on their part.

 

[brb3]

Where do you get that salvation is a more than one time event?

From Catholics, and from Scriptures. Both deny OSAS

 

[brb3]

Come on BRB this is basic theology 101. The Prodigal was **already a son **so why would he need to reclaim such? All he needed was restoration through confession which is what you have quoted.

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.

 

[brb3]

But may I also point out that those in the ark and passed through the red sea waters NEVER GOT WET.

That’s my Padre

Protestants can be so honest at times !! If we can be shown the Bible teaches it … we are very prone to accept it w/o further question. Now, Catholics can too, but they first have to check the Catechism, published in approx 1900.

It’s as St. Peter tells us. It’s an “appeal to God … to wash our conscience [souls, minds, hearts] of sin”. Christ performs the Baptisms … with his H.S. ---- when he sees man is accepting of need for Water Baptism, in OBEDIENCE to his Word to us.

 

[brb3]

Brb3 with all due respect take a Catholic apologetics course and learn what we do and do not believe

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.

 

[Padrej]

This is rich ! An Anglican telling a former Baptist what we believed … Why do we call ourselves BAPTISTS ? Would we be so stupid as to deny the ESSENTIAL necessity of Baptism in our Salvation … :nope:

The Eucharist is considered symbolic to them … but, Baptism is tantamount to a Sacrament. I will restate again my position ----- a ‘mainline’ Baptist [Southern Baptist], who answers an Altar call of pastor, or prays the Sinner’s Prayer [or equivalent thereof] and later declines Baptism would have their Salvation seriously questioned.

How do you know that I have always been Anglican??? You do not so I would not go there if I were you.
Do you forget I also teach in a seminary that teaches not only Baptists but other Non-denominational types? Baptism is hardly a sacrament to them and you know it, you admit as much in you comment to FrJohnB, Your words

Yes, it is considered Mandatory ‘entrance’ into Church built on the Rock/Christ. It is also a key component in our Salvation … but, "it is not called a Sacrament. They should call it a sacrament

… they have no valid reason not to. It’s a vocabulary error on their part.

The it’s a vocabulary error on their part is your opinion. How do you go from it is not called a sacrament to it is. This does not even show you to be a good Baptist.