Salvation is Certain?

[batman1973]

First time I’ve heard of “the sinners prayer” from Protestants. It sounds similar to the act of contrition we Catholics say within the Sacrament of Confession.

What is the formula of the sinners prayer and where did it come from?

Best I could find:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner’s_prayer

 

[SteveVH]

There is no one formula for the sinner’s prayer. Any prayer said by a “sinner” (meaning a non-Christian) that basically does several things:

Yes, the breakdown is that you are either a born-again Christian or you are a sinner. It seems to me a very dangerous idea to consider one’s self as free from sin, or more accurately, that one’s sins no longer matter.

 

[ltwin]

Yes, the breakdown is that you are either a born-again Christian or you are a sinner. It seems to me a very dangerous idea to consider one’s self as free from sin, or more accurately, that one’s sins no longer matter.

I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I was not implying that people born-again are free from sin. I’m saying that “the sinner’s prayer” is used by those sinners who have not yet accepted the grace of God and his forgiveness. That’s why its called “a sinner’s prayer,” since it is formulated primarily for those sinners not yet washed by the blood of Jesus.

All of us are sinners. Some of us are forgiven sinners. Even those who believe in OSAS don’t believe we are free from sin.

In any case, the sinner’s prayer is often said by people already claiming to be born again, since it works either way: as an act of initial commitment or an act of renewal of commitment. So there is no assumption that born again Christians are “sinless.”

 

[SteveVH]

I think you have misunderstood what I wrote. I was not implying that people born-again are free from sin. I’m saying that “the sinner’s prayer” is used by those sinners who have not yet accepted the grace of God and his forgiveness. That’s why its called “a sinner’s prayer,” since it is formulated primarily for those sinners not yet washed by the blood of Jesus.

All of us are sinners. Some of us are forgiven sinners. Even those who believe in OSAS don’t believe we are free from sin.

In any case, the sinner’s prayer is often said by people already claiming to be born again, since it works either way: as an act of initial commitment or an act of renewal of commitment. So there is no assumption that born again Christians are “sinless.”

I am speaking strictly from my own experience with the “born-again” crowd. You are either “saved” or you are a “sinner”. If one does sin it is already “covered by the blood of Jesus”. As you say, “Some of us are forgiven sinners”. I’m sorry, but I think that notion is spiritually dangerous. Don’t get me wrong, I am the first to believe in forgiveness of sins, but only after they have been confessed. That is the danger that I see, that one believes their sins no longer affect their salvation.

 

[ltwin]

I am speaking strictly from my own experience with the “born-again” crowd. You are either “saved” or you are a “sinner”. If one does sin it is already “covered by the blood of Jesus”. As you say, “Some of us are forgiven sinners”. I’m sorry, but I think that notion is spiritually dangerous. Don’t get me wrong, I am the first to believe in forgiveness of sins, but only after they have been confessed. That is the danger that I see, that one believes their sins no longer affect their salvation.

I agree with you. In order for a sin to be forgiven, it must be confessed. I did not know I needed to spell that out. In any case, I agree with you that any belief that said sin is not an issue is a problem and dangerous.

 

[CopticChristian]

There is no chance that the elect will fall away. False converts can very well fall away from their perverted version of the gospel because they don’t have the real gospel, and very often do, but that is irrelevant to the debate about whether or not the truly saved have eternal security

Pauline,

Is this belief/Doctrine infallible and if so on what basis is it so?

I want to know without doubt and on what basis this is to be believed. John Calvin was a fallible man stating a fallible opinion. Am I or anyone to believe that this could not be error? Am I or anyone to believe that it is certainly without error?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Augustine, good question. The statement “they were never saved to begin with” is something that should be avoided. The only time it should be said is if someone dies in a state of unbelief and apostasy. Otherwise, someone who falls away must be called to faith and repentance. We do not know their fate. We aren’t commanded to read their heart, but proclaim the gospel

Yes, I do believe the saints will persevere until the end.

I concur. Saying they were never saved to begin with should be avoided; because even one who had faith can lose it and die in unbelief and apostasy. Salvation involves continual repentance and continual faith.

However, the last statement seems to be a tautology. The very definition of saint is one who perseveres to the end! So, obviously, a saint will persevere to the end.

The problem arises is that we don’t know who will persevere to the end until the end is reached. During the present time we don’t know those who are truly saints; we don’t know who is “truly saved” or not. It is so easy to say, “So and so didn’t have saving faith to begin with (but I do!).”

No matter how you cut it, we don’t now for sure if we will hold on to our faith and our promises made in baptism and in the sinner’s prayer. (Unless, of course, God tips His hand and lets an individual know beforehand if he is one of the elect!)

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I concur. Saying they were never saved to begin with should be avoided; because even one who had faith can lose it and die in unbelief and apostasy. Salvation involves continual repentance and continual faith.

However, the last statement seems to be a tautology. The very definition of saint is one who perseveres to the end! So, obviously, a saint will persevere to the end.

The problem arises is that we don’t know who will persevere to the end until the end is reached. During the present time we don’t know those who are truly saints; we don’t know who is “truly saved” or not. It is so easy to say, “So and so didn’t have saving faith to begin with (but I do!).”

No matter how you cut it, we don’t now for sure if we will hold on to our faith and our promises made in baptism and in the sinner’s prayer. (Unless, of course, God tips His hand and lets an individual know beforehand if he is one of the elect!)

I do not believe that those with the grace of faith will lose it. Otherwise I agree with almost everything you say. There is a difference between assurance and certain knowledge. We can have assurancd that Christ is a sufficient savior; we can have the assurance of the Spirit testifying that we are children of God; we can have assurance that if we are obedient to Christ, we are born of God; we can have assurance that Christ has reconciled us to the Father apart from us. We must, as Peter says, strive to make our election sure and continue the goid fight until the end.

 

[ltwin]

I do not believe that those with the grace of faith will lose it. Otherwise I agree with almost everything you say. There is a difference between assurance and certain knowledge. We can have assurancd that Christ is a sufficient savior; we can have the assurance of the Spirit testifying that we are children of God; we can have assurance that if we are obedient to Christ, we are born of God; we can have assurance that Christ has reconciled us to the Father apart from us. We must, as Peter says, strive to make our election sure and continue the goid fight until the end.

I believe that faith once had can be lost. However, other than that, I do agree that we can have assurance when it comes to ourselves. Now I don’t think we can have any degree of assurance when it comes to the spiritual condition of specific people besides ourselves (unless perhaps they go to their death bed refusing to accept God’s grace).

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I believe that faith once had can be lost. However, other than that, I do agree that we can have assurance when it comes to ourselves. Now I don’t think we can have any degree of assurance when it comes to other people (unless perhaps they go to their death bed refusing to accept God’s grace).

Yes, because faith will always manifest itself. If someone is on their death bed and stating they deny Christ and die a few minutes later, we have no reason to believe they are going to Christ.

At least you’re a consistent Arminian!

 

[mackbrislawn]

There is no chance that the elect will fall away. False converts can very well fall away from their perverted version of the gospel because they don’t have the real gospel, and very often do, but that is irrelevant to the debate about whether or not **the truly saved **have eternal security

Again, this is a tautology. That is what the elect are, those who do not fall away. However, how do we know who will fall away beforehand? We don’t. We can only know that after the race is over.

Of course, again, the “truly saved” have eternal security, but we only know who are “truly saved” in retrospect. Which does us no good now.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I do not believe that those with the grace of faith will lose it. Otherwise I agree with almost everything you say. There is a difference between assurance and certain knowledge. We can have assurancd that Christ is a sufficient savior; we can have the assurance of the Spirit testifying that we are children of God; we can have assurance that if we are obedient to Christ, we are born of God; we can have assurance that Christ has reconciled us to the Father apart from us. We must, as Peter says, strive to make our election sure and continue the goid fight until the end.

I agree with everything you say, as well!

And I do not deny that those with the grace of faith cannot lose it. The question is, though, do we know beforehand who has the grace of faith? No. Therefore saying those who have the grace of faith will not lose it doesn’t mean anything in a practical sense. That is my problem with Calvinist and OSAS thinking. It’s tautological!

I like your statement there is a difference between assurance and certain knowledge. We do have assurance in our God and Savior. He is not fickle and whimsical like the pagan gods. Our God we can rely on. Therefore we have assurance of our salvation.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

I agree with everything you say, as well!

And I do not deny that those with the grace of faith cannot lose it. The question is, though, do we know beforehand who has the grace of faith? No. Therefore saying those who have the grace of faith will not lose it doesn’t mean anything in a practical sense. That is my problem with Calvinist and OSAS thinking. It’s tautological!

I like your statement there is a difference between assurance and certain knowledge. We do have assurance in our God and Savior. He is not fickle and whimsical like the pagan gods. Our God we can rely on. Therefore we have assurance of our salvation.

I don’t think it’s tautological, though, mack. There are traditions that believe faith can be lost. Remember that the five points of Calvinism were defined in response to the teaching of the disciples of Arminius. They did teach a conditional election that could be forfeited. The Synod of Dordt responded with the canons which denied their assertions. It’s not a tautology but the condemnation of views held in opposition.

 

[namvietnv002]

bygsunflower poster 2012
Dang tin,up tin t? d?ng nhanh chóng lên hon 5300 di?n dÃn, qu?ng cáo.
Vu?t qua câu h?i b?o m?t và mã an ninh captcha khi dang tin, up tin
Dang tin qu?ng cáo b?ng nhi?u tÃi kho?n m?t lúc
T?o nick hoÃn toÃn t? d?ng, t?c d? nhanh, 1000 nick 1 gi?, t? d?ng vu?t qua captcha và câu h?i ng?u nhiên
Lên l?ch up tin t? d?ng lên forum di?n dÃn rao v?t
Don gi?n, d? s? d?ng v?i ngu?i m?i b?t d?u.
T?o tÃi kho?n nick di?n dÃn t? d?ng
T? thêm, b?t các di?n dÃn dang tin.
Auto post bÃi nhanh 500 di?n dÃn ch? m?t 10 phút.
T? d?ng dò box link d? dang tin.
TÃch h?p Auto Reply + Pageview Hack.
Xu?t báo cáo dang tin.
Nh?p tÃi kho?n di?n dÃn qua file excel
T?o/d?i ch? ký t? d?ng
T?o/d?i Avatar t? d?ng
T?o/d?i thông tin cá nhân c?a account
H? tr? spin content (spintax, spyntax) trên tiêu d? và n?i dung nh?m t?o ra n?i dung khác nhau khi dang tin
Hu?ng d?n s? d?ng bygsunflower poster
Mu?n dang l?i tiêu d? cu ho?c chuyên m?c mÃ* tiêu d? cu ( vui lòng vÃo BYG–> Xóa d? li?u h? th?ng–>Xóa các topic dã post) xong dóng tab t?t m? d? c?p nh?t ( luu ý dùng d? tránh thu?t toán chim cánh c?t)
20/5/2012 tr? di có nhi?u di?n dÃn báo mail v? r?t ch?m vÃ* d? ta reg dc 600 mail, d? 30 phút - 4 ti?ng s? mail reg nh?ng di?n dÃ*n g?i v? >900 mail ( tuong duong > 1500 nick)

Fix l?i c?p nh?t 12/7 thu?t toán Penguin 1.0

Mu?n dang l?i tiêu d? cu ho?c chuyên m?c mÃ* tiêu d? cu ( vui lòng vÃo BYG–> Xóa d? li?u h? th?ng–>Xóa các topic dã post) xong dóng tab t?t m? d? c?p nh?t và thay d?i proxy . Có nhi?u chuyên m?c hon ,data trên 10.000 ->dang 1 l?n theo chuyên m?c t? 60- 300 bÃi + seo blacklink trên 1000 bÃi
12/7/2012 tr? di reg 1 l?n dc 750 mail, d? 30 phút - 4 ti?ng s? mail reg nh?ng di?n dÃn g?i v? >900 mail ( tuong duong > 1600 nick)
Luu ý : khi th?y reg nick b? l?i 100 và 301 nhi?u vÃ* reg mail du?c 100mail vui lòng xoá profile t?o l?i profile m?i nha (cái dó nó báo trùng profile nên ch? reg dc nhiu dó)

Fix l?i c?p nh?t 15/8 thu?t toán Penguin 1.4 thêm spam blog
*
1/10/2012 tr? di tang lu?ng 100 hay vì 50 lu?ng , tang timeout t? 50 lên 100 , thêm thu?t toán , tang boxlink
*

---

Luu ý : khi th?y reg nick b? l?i 100 và 301 nhi?u và reg mail du?c 100mail vui lòng xoá profile t?o l?i profile m?i nha (cái dó nó báo trùng profile nên ch? reg dc nhiu dó)**

****Fix l?i c?p nh?t 29/11/2012 *thu?t toánPenguin ***2.0

Ph?n m?m dang tin post 2013 HQForumPoster

********- H? tr? forum **********VBB, **XenForo, phpBB3, IPB3

- Ch?c nang dang tin RONGBAY t? d?ng

- Ph?n m?m d?u tiên và duy nh?t t?i Vi?t Nam hi?n nay h? tr? Forum Xenforo*

- T?o tÃi kho?n forum (Không dang ký l?i khi trên Profile dã có user/pass)*

- T?o tÃi kho?n forum b?ng tay*

- T?o tÃi kho?n Email Yahoo bán t? d?ng.*

- Ki?m tra tÃi kho?n s?ng hay ch?t*

- KÃch ho?t mail t? d?ng*

- Dang tin ->**** Up tin → ****Up tin theo l?ch

- Spam ki?m bÃi- SEOKeywords*

- Spam khách tham ( trang profile)

- T?o ch? ký;**** ****Thay d?i avatar

- H? tr? gi?i mã deathbycaptcha.com, captchatrader

- H? tr? spintax ( cách dùng a ho?c a )

- H? tr? g?i tên ( cách dùng namvietnv002, forums.catholic-questions.org, 02:53:33, 18-01-2013 )

- Luu l?i câu h?i ng?u nhiên

• CHNN Server - Online
• Nh?p xu?t d? li?u d? dÃng*

---

- C?i ti?n thu?t toán T?o nick cho VBB, tang t? l? dang ký thÃnh công thêm 20%***

*- Thêm kh? nang t? d?ng tr? l?i CHNN th? 2 cho VBB *
**

- Thêm ch?c nang “*Xóa forum không ph?i là VBB” ? "T?o tÃi kho?n", giúp b?n l?c forum d? dÃng hon.

- Thêm kh? nang t? phát hi?n forum Xenforo trong danh sách VBB->VBB-D

- Fix ch?c nang nh?p vÃo forum VBB-A ->VBB-D (không nh?p vÃ*o du?c)

- C?i ti?n thu?t toán T?o nick cho VBB, tang t? l? dang ký thÃnh công thêm 20%*

*- Thêm kh? nang t? d?ng tr? l?i CHNN th? 2 cho VBB
*

- Thêm ch?c nang “*Xóa forum không ph?i là VBB” ? "T?o tÃi kho?n", giúp b?n l?c forum d? dÃng hon.

- Thêm kh? nang t? phát hi?n forum Xenforo trong danh sách VBB->VBB-D

- Fix ch?c nang nh?p vÃo forum VBB-A ->VBB-D (không nh?p vÃo du?c)
*

[phan mem dang tin (http://www.bygsunflower.net/) | [ph?n m?m dang tin (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)[** ** (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)| [phan mem seo (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)** | [ph?n m?m seo (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)[ ** (http://www.bygsunflower.net/)
bygsunflower.net
Liên h? :mr :Vu 092.295.2095

 

[mackbrislawn]

I don’t think it’s tautological, though, mack. There are traditions that believe faith can be lost. Remember that the five points of Calvinism were defined in response to the teaching of the disciples of Arminius. They did teach a conditional election that could be forfeited. The Synod of Dordt responded with the canons which denied their assertions. It’s not a tautology but the condemnation of views held in opposition.

Indeed, my tradition believes faith can be lost.

A tautology is something that is true by definition. A rose is a rose. By definition, the elect are going to heaven. So, of course, all the elect will go to heaven. They, by very definition, cannot forfeit their election.

Some say that a person with true, saving faith will not lose it. Okay. They then assert that when a person loses his faith, that is evidence that he didn’t have true saving faith to begin with. Well! How can you argue with logic like that? These statements cannot be disproven. They are true by their very nature. Since they cannot be disproven, are true by their very nature, what use are they? Since we do not know who are among the elect, what good is it to say that election cannot be forfeited?

Unless…unless…and here is where I put out bait for someone to answer…God gives certain persons direct knowledge of their election…only then is it useful to say election cannot be forfeited.

P.S. As a corollary, if you do not receive this direct knowledge, that is evidence on the face of it that you are not of the elect. Correct?

 

[ltwin]

Yes, because faith will always manifest itself. If someone is on their death bed and stating they deny Christ and die a few minutes later, we have no reason to believe they are going to Christ.

At least you’re a consistent Arminian!

Does my consistency make me special? :dancing:

 

[Porknpie]

Reuben, yes I would more or less agree. Those who are born of God will live lives with a pattern of righteousness. I do not agree with the teaching of the Latin church that a justified sinner can become unjustified. Having said that, we cannot be presumptuous and must make “our calling and election sure.”

Gaelic,

Scripture says that we can lose our salvation.

Revelation 3 … Do you believe a person who was not justified could have been written in the book of life

5 If you conquer, you will be clothed like them in white robes, and I will not blot your name out of the book of life; I will confess your name before my Father and before his angels.

Romans 11… Can a person who was not justified be attached?

20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand only through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe.

And what did the early church say, the oral tradition passed down from Christ himself…before any bible was written? A few 1st and 2nd century quotes from scripturecatholic.com below.

(notice the intercessory prayer for others…very Catholic)

“And pray ye without ceasing in behalf of other men; for there is hope of the repentance, that they may attain to God. For ‘cannot he that falls arise again, and he may attain to God.’” Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians, 10 ( A.D. 110).

“Watch for your life’s sake. Let not your lamps be quenched, nor your loins unloosed; but be ye ready, for ye know not the hour in which our Lord cometh. But often shall ye come together, seeking the things which are befitting to your souls: for the whole time of your faith will not profit you, if ye be not made perfect in the last time.” Didache, 16 (A.D. 90).

“And as many of them, he added, as have repented, shall have their dwelling in the tower. And those of them who have been slower in repenting shall dwell within the walls. And as many as do not repent at all, but abide in their deeds, shall utterly perish…Yet they also, being naturally good, on hearing my commandments, purified themselves, and soon repented. Their dwelling, accordingly, was in the tower. But if any one relapse into strife, he will be east out of the tower, and will lose his life.” Hermas, The Shephard, 3:8:7 (A.D. 155).

It’s really a mystery to a Catholic why one believes and follows someone in the 17th century versus following those closest to Christ in the early Church. I don’t see the Protestant view of Salvation in the early church writings…the same Church which then canonized scripture.

For example, someone (not necessarily Gealic) please show me where Once Saved Always Saved was taught and practiced by the early Church?

Love and Charity,

Pork

(ps drinking one of my favorite coffees today, Starbucks Verona :coffeeread: )

 

[CopticChristian]

Gaelic,

Scripture says that we can lose our salvation.

Revelation 3 … Do you believe a person who was not justified could have been written in the book of life

Romans 11… Can a person who was not justified be attached?

And what did the early church say, the oral tradition passed down from Christ himself…before any bible was written? A few 1st and 2nd century quotes from scripturecatholic.com below.

(notice the intercessory prayer for others…very Catholic)

It’s really a mystery to a Catholic why one believes and follows someone in the 17th century versus following those closest to Christ in the early Church. I don’t see the Protestant view of Salvation in the early church writings…the same Church which then canonized scripture.

For example, someone (not necessarily Gealic) please show me where Once Saved Always Saved was taught and practiced by the early Church?

Love and Charity,

Pork

(ps drinking one of my favorite coffees today, Starbucks Verona :coffeeread: )

Pork,

You bring up a good point.

If, as we believe, in many and various ways God spoke to us in part through Prophets and in these last days He spoke to us through His son…

We believe and profess that the Deposit of Faith is made known by Divine Revelation. If the Deposit, as we believe is as we believe, and if Revelation is complete…and we profess

Our Faith
Live our Sacramental life
Model Christ
Pray…

Then this notion of the elect would be considered some new revelation and we know that revalation ceased with Christ and the apostles. Calvin and those following this new revelation, never heard, would have to be suspect.

If the elect are, as this new revalation suggests, act and proceed as the elect…then it is as if there is no need…

to continually repent=Metanoia=change our minds or continually not be conformed to the world but be transformed by the renewal of our minds…and

What need is there to model Christ to become Holy as our God is Holy if as the elect we are in effect

God’s chosen…and I know you have heard this in other contexts…

There is a disparity in this thinking, I am sure you would agree…

I love your recommendation for the USA Catechism…good one…

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Indeed, my tradition believes faith can be lost.

A tautology is something that is true by definition. A rose is a rose. By definition, the elect are going to heaven. So, of course, all the elect will go to heaven. They, by very definition, cannot forfeit their election.

I agree, mack. That is why I addressed the context within which the phrase “Perseverance of the Saints” was used. Remember that the Calvinists who coined this term were debating those who did not accept the idea that the elect are by definition going to heaven. They were not debating Roman Catholics or Lutherans on this topic. They were debating Arminians.

In comparison, in Roman Catholic theology, by definition, the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ. If someone comes along and says the Pope is not the vicar of Christ, for the church to formally declare that he is, is not a tautology.

The same goes for any other doctrine. To say “Christ is fully God and fully man” would be redundant, since by nature Christ is fully God and fully man, etc. Statements affirming this are not intentionally being redundant…they are definitions intended to refute those who oppose them.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Does my consistency make me special? :dancing:

Yes! Because the majority of modern Arminians believe in the free will to accept Christ, but also believe in eternal security. i.e., once you accept Christ, you lose your free will!