The belief that the sacraments convey grace is reasonable based on the Bible and historical evidence

This is the longest debate I have ever had. I will be impressed if anyone actually reads the whole thing and understands all the arguments. If you have, please comment and I will personally congratulate you. We are debating whether all seven sacraments convey grace. Providing evidence that Protestant churches hold to one or two of them is simply not enough. Historical evidence is not enough, as I have already shown. We need to focus on the Bible. The resolution does mention both. However, if Pro neglects to prove one, he loses. If I neglect to disprove one but disprove the other, I win. As a result, I would like to focus on the Bible, given the vast amount under debate already. Catholic.com quote concerning Baptism: is it necessary for salvation? Pro believes I misinterpreted Catholic.com. He believes that saying something is “normative[ly]” necessary for salvation basically means it isn’t necessary for salvation. This is obviously not the case. If something is usually (normatively) required, it is usually required. That means that it is required for most people. Do not be fooled by Pro’s word games. Read the article. http://www.catholic.com... Or just read this–a direct quote–: And the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The Lord himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation [John 3:5]. . . . Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament [Mark 16:16]" (CCC 1257). Pro WAS trying to prove baptism was necessary for salvation. If this is the case, again, "baptism" is immediately followed up with "and wash away your sins". So it is quite reasonable to believe that God offers the grace necessary to "wash away sins" via baptism. Pro basically said that we receive the grace needed for salvation at baptism. In other words, grace is needed for salvation, and we get that grace through baptism. This constitutes a clear endorsement of salvation by (or through) baptism. Peter is saying the water of baptism doesn't wash you PHYSICALLY, bit rather it washes you SPIRITUALLY. He couldn't be more clear "Baptism... now saves you" There. He said it! Pro clearly stated that he believed Peter was saying that baptism was a means of salvation. I am very suspicious that Pro is not actually debating what he believes but rather what he believes is defensible. DO CATHOLICS EARN GRACE? Pro’s birthday present analogy: “Let's try a different one. Let's say my son wants to buy me a birthday present, but asks me to give him $50 s he can buy it. Who really bought that present? Me, the father. Did my son earn the money? No, I gave it to him as a free gift. God is like that. He gives us the grace to want to seek Him, then we seek Him. It's not our works, it's HIS work. The sacraments aren't our works, they're HIS work.” If we ask, and God gives us grace (as I would argue happens at conversion), then that is obviously a gift. The $50 is also obviously a free gift. But what if the father demanded that the son do 50 pushups to get the $50? The son could honestly say, in some sense of the word, that he “earned” the $50. The sacraments are quite similar. Devout Catholics will spend thousands of hours doing the sacraments. If God gives grace conditionally based upon the fulfillment of the sacraments I believe we can really say that that grace is earned, which is obviously unbiblical. Think of it this way: if I spent five years serving God in Tasmania and in the sixth year God gave me salvation, then I would have earned that salvation. Grace is a free gift, and spending thousands of hours in pursuit of receiving that free gift sounds a lot like “earning” it to me. Remember, the debate basically hinges on this issue, at least for Pro. If he loses this, he loses the debate. I am disappointed he did not devote more space to it. Pro then proceeds to discuss why he thinks works are necessary. He quotes Philippians where Paul commands “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” Whatever the interpretation, it is obvious that “good works” are important for a Christian. However, I did not say that Paul was referring to all good works. Paul did not say “works” because he did not mean all works. He was speaking to the Jews with their pronounced system of rituals. I believe he would have similar words to say about Catholicism’s rituals. I spent several paragraphs drawing parallels between the rituals of Judaism and the rituals of Catholicism. There is a marked similarity, strong enough to equate Catholicism’s grace-by-sacraments policy with Paul’s words. Last round Pro made the troubling statement that a nonbeliever could be saved (possibly) by having communion. This round, all he says concerning that is: How did Con ever first come to believe in God? I bet he would say it was by the grace of God. God offers His grace to all humans. The only question is how and when. I submit that one possibility is through the sacraments. Salvation is through grace, which is through faith. Skipping the step of faith short-circuits the process. I came to salvation through grace, through faith. A nonbeliever who (without faith) drinks communion is obviously not saved if he disbelieves Christ’s sacrifice. If communion (and baptism) is a valid method of receiving grace towards salvation regardless of prior belief then we would do well to do what some priests have done and splash people with baptismal water or slip ground-up communion wafers into their meals. Such an obviously ridiculous position is the logical conclusion to Pro’s position, yet another result of what can reasonably be said to be the earning of grace. If grace is transmitted as the result of an action without even belief, then how can it not be said to be earned? If my son mows the lawn and doesn’t even ask for money, but I pay him anyway because of his work, then he obviously has earned the money. Pro also says: “But the Bible says that we are saved by the blood of Christ (Romans 5:9) so grace must be involved. "Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God's wrath through him?" So this belief is NOT in conflict with.Ephesians 2:8-9.” The blood of Christ on the cross, yes. As Pro admitted, Christ saved us once for all on the cross. His sacrifice is already completed; no further bleeding is necessary. PENANCE: Pro: “Con seems to have.forgotten where I pointed out the Bible says the power to forgive sins was given "to men" (Matthew 9:8). Having said that, certainly it's God who forgives sins, but the question is HOW? I would suggest that John 20:23 suggests Jesus gave His first priests the authority to forgive sin in His name:” Pro seems to have skimmed over my response. How does God forgive sins? Directly. As God, He can obviously forgive sins without human help. If the priest refused to forgive a confessor, then would that penitent person not be forgiven? Pro would have you believe so based on his position regarding a certain verse, which I already addressed. In fact, he admits it later on. However, 1 John 1:9 says that whoever confesses his sins will be forgiven by God. Period. Look it up. God’s forgiveness is not conditioned upon human prejudice. IS EVERYONE GOING TO HEAVEN? No. Grace, through repentant faith, is needed. Requiring confession for salvation, however, is, firstly, impossible as some people can’t remember even all their mortal sins, and secondly, far too similar to the sacrificial system of the old testament. MATRIMONY Proverbs 18:22: "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD." No mention of grace. Grace is unearned favor, not favor bestowed as a result of doing a particular approved action. One verse is not much of a basis for a sacrament. Even the historical evidence does not mention grace, just peace. I believe we are getting somewhere. This debate has been a lot of work, but I am glad we had it anyway. Over to you, Pro. I’m sorry if I dropped any more arguments. In the last round I will summarize and present what I believe is a strong case for the contention.