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

Part III Concerning the accuracy of the early Christians’ beliefs: Many of the epistles were written to correct the misconceptions of the early Church. As a result, I maintain that we cannot just look at what the “early church” said, especially after the death of Peter and Paul, to find the truth. There is simply no way of knowing whether the quoted “early church members” were doctrinally inerrant or not, a very real possibility that they were wrong, and we have the Bible to determine which is the case. That was all I was trying to say and I don’t see how a reasonable person could disagree. So can we leave the early church sources and just focus on the Bible? Baptism: Con is not misinterpreting the quote. Catholic.com did clearly state that baptism was usually necessary for salvation. In other words, for the average person, baptism is necessary for salvation. In addition, look at Pro’s verses: Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and I Peter 3:20-21. I have been trying to refute them, but now I realize Pro refuted them himself! Pro denies that baptism is necessary for salvation in one part and then maintains that these verses say that baptism is necessary for salvation in the very next section!!! So I need not try any longer. If Pro is right about the verses he is wrong about salvation and baptism, and vice versa. Now, Pro continues to deny that grace by sacraments is equivalent to “earning” grace. Earn: “to receive as return for effort and especially for work done or services rendered.”[1] If I rake the lawn and then receive money for my efforts, then I have earned that money. In any case in which a person does something and then receives something from someone else because he has done that action he can be said to have earned it. Ephesians 2:8-9: 8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—9 not by works, so that no one can boast.” We are obviously saved by grace, which Paul makes plain is a gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. Concluded: Grace is unearned. This is also obvious from the very definitions of grace commonly used. Can the sacraments be classed as “works”? That is the real question. Pro says no, as: “Paul was addressing those who thought believers had to keep the Jewish rituals. The sacraments aren't Jewish rituals. We know they're not because no Jew practices them.” They’re not Jewish, so they’re fine? Really? These verses cannot be applied to any other rituals but the Jewish rituals, because Paul was originally speaking to Jews? Not so. The Jews believed in animal sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. Catholics believe in penance for the forgiveness of mortal sins. Jews believed in circumcisions; Catholics (quite obviously by now) believe in baptism. The similarities are clear: both sets of rituals require us to participate in ceremonies that give us, at the least, favor with God (grace). That said, I conclude that Paul’s denouncement is highly applicable here and encourage the reader to revisit it in my Round II. If a Catholic does not confess his/her mortal sins, he/she will go to hell. [2] This is contrary to the once-for-all-time forgiveness the Bible shows to occur at salvation. See John 5:24 and John 3:36. John 10:28: “And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.” (Italics show word added by translators.) The Catholic doctrine that mortal sins lead to damnation without repentance directly contradicts this verse, as it would allow the devil to snatch believers out of God’s hand. Pro says: “Con then quotes a number of verses that say how God can give us grace in other ways other than baptism (or any sacrament for that matter). Again, I don't deny this.” The issue is that if God truly forgave all our sins at the moment of salvation, (as is clear) then there is no need for several of the sacraments and they are in error. Here is my position: The sacraments are unnecessary, as Christ died once for all for our sins (1 Peter 3:18) and no further works or rituals are required. Is Jesus the bread controversy: I question Pro’s interpretation of Christ’s words, nothing more. Pro says: “Maybe a non believer does receive grace when he receives communion.” Wow. I didn’t expect that. Look at 1 Corinthians 11:29, where Paul says that judgment will come as a result of drinking the cup the wrong way. That aside, Ephesians 2:8-9 (as well as Pro’s own position on baptism) make it clear that simply drinking the “blood” cannot save us. As Pro’s position on the Eucharist would require that, his position his wrong. Again, Pro’s interpretation of the Bible is at odds with other aspects of his position. Flag-burning controversy: Pro hasn’t yet addressed my point about blasphemy. Flag burning is offensive even if it is not a crime. Penance: Only God can forgive sins. That is beyond dispute. That God forgave sins while in a human body does not support Pro’s position. Pro has not addressed the issue that I brought up earlier: making forgiveness conditional upon confession and a priest’s forgiveness is contradictory to the once-for-all nature of salvation as well as to the definition of grace. Matthew 9:8: “"But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men." So we see that the Bible says that more than one man (men) have the authority to forgive sin.” So men can forgive sins? Obviously not. These catholic doctrines amaze me. Our sins were forgiven at the cross. If a church leader refused to forgive someone, would they not be forgiven? Pro would have you believe so. The verse just point out that Jesus’ actions amazed the people, who were surprised that a man could forgive sins. All these historical sources: I don’t really want to debate them. Our arguments are barely fitting the size limit as it is, so can we just focus on the biblical portion of this debate? If my position is more biblical, the bible trumps any historical sources. If Pro’s is more biblical then he doesn’t need historical sources. This whole debate comes down to one issue: Can sacraments be said to constitute an “earning” of God’s grace? If so, then they are unbiblical. First of all, according to the portion of Galatians 2 I quoted earlier: ““[K]nowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified. But if, while we see, to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is Christ therefore a minister of sins? Certainly not! For if I build again those things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. For I through the law died to the law that I might live to God. I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me. I do not set aside the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the law, then Christ died in vain.” (Italics obviously added.) We see that Paul considered the “works of the law” to be futile and unnecessary. What are the works of the law? For the early church, the works of the law were circumcision and the Mosaic Law. Certain Jews claimed that to be Christians believers had to follow their rituals. Those rituals required believers to go through a certain process to have their sins forgiven. In addition, Mosaic Law required believers to be circumcised to become part of the people of God. Animal sacrifices earned Jews favor with God. Catholicism also requires an initial ritual (at least normally) for salvation: baptism. The ritual of the Eucharist gives the eater favor with God, if not salvation. Penance provides for forgiveness of sins, very similar to the Jewish requirement of animal sacrifice in principle. The parallel is clear: Catholicism involves the “earning” of grace, God’s unearned favor. If grace truly does come through the Sacrament of Holy Orders, or Ordination, then one cannot deny that it is earned. The priest-to-be dedicates himself to the work of God, and as a result is given grace. Baptism is the New Testament version of circumcision. In fact, I see all of the sacraments as “earning.” I only need, however, one sacrament to be proven as unbiblical to win this debate. Penance, baptism, and Ordination all qualify. I also contest marriage. Look at what Paul says in I Corinthians 7: Verse 27-28: “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.” Verse 32-33: “But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord–how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world–how he may please his wife.” Does it look like Paul is endorsing marriage? He is endorsing the state of singleness as being more efficacious for the service of the Lord. In addition, a priest cannot be married (perhaps for this very reason). Catholics must give up earning (or “receiving”) grace in one way in order to receive it in another way! If marriage distracts from serving the Lord, then why is it a means of receiving grace? Thank you Pro. I appologize for any unintentionally dropped arguments. [1] http://www.merriam-webster.com... [2] https://www.ewtn.com... http://www.vatican.va...