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

Thank you Con for your timely response. Having said that, I do have a few concerns about some of them. As always, I capitalize only for emphasis. MORE DROPPED ARGUMENTS Last round, I offered scriptural and historical evidence to support the claim that the sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick was a channel of grace. Con made no attempt to refute this argument. Debate.org makes it clear that dropped arguments are to be considered true for the remainder of the debate. " Drop - An argument is dropped when it is not responded to. Arguments that are dropped are usually considered true for the remainder of the debate. You must respond to an argument once it is made, you cannot wait until the next round." [13] My opponent is digging quite a hole for himself. SHOTGUN BLAST OF BUCKSHOT After reading my opponent's last response, I can't help but feel like someone had just shot a huge blast of buckshot out of a gun. Buckshot is great if your trying to hit several targets at once, but is less effective if your attempting to hit the bullseye of a single target. Unfortunately for Con, we're only supposed to be shooting at ONE target... And here it is: "The belief that the sacraments convey grace is reasonable based on the Bible and historical evidence." Despite my opponent's attempts to the contrary, here's what we're NOTdebating: 1. Can one lose their salvation? 2. Can God give us grace in an additional way? 3. Is flag burning offensive? If my opponent would like to debate me on these topics, he is free to send me a debate challenge as soon as our current debate is over. Until then, however, I will only be debating the topic he and I agreed on before the debate began. STAR WARS To put it in another way, my opponent's last offering reminded me of the scene from Stat Wars when Luke and the rebels were trying to blow up the Death Star. Remember when they were flying down that trench, and the squad leader kept saying, "Stay on target. Stay on target."? Well that's how I feel now except I feel like I should be saying, "Stay on TOPIC, STAY ON TOPIC." HISTORICAL EVIDENCE Concerning the accuracy of the early Christians" beliefs, Con decides to reject them all, because in biblical times, some people misunderstood the Apostles. He says we can't know if they early Church were doctrinally inerrant. But my question is, where is his counter evidence? Remember half of the resolution says we're basing our decision on "historical evidence". So far, I'm the only one who has offered any. Con says we have the Bible, but really all he has is his fallible INTERPRETATION of it. And remember what I said in the first round (which my opponent didn't refute) concerning the development of doctrine. The way you tell if a proposed doctrine is true is by checking if it can be traced to the early Christians. My claims can be.. Con's cannot. And since Con dropped that argument, we must presume what I said is true. IT'S NOT JUST A CATHOLIC THING As proof that it's reasonable to believe the sacraments convey grace, I would like to point out the protestant denominations who believe this to be true: Remember, protestants get their doctrines from the Bible ALONE: 1. Lutherans A. Believe that baptism conveys grace. 1. Lutherans hold that Baptism is a saving work of God,[119] mandated and instituted by Jesus Christ.[120] Baptism is a "means of grace" through which God creates and strengthens "saving faith" as the "washing of regeneration"[121] in which infants and adults are reborn.[10] B. The Eucharist conveys grace. 1. For Lutherans, the means of grace include the Gospel (both written and proclaimed), as well as the sacrament of Holy Baptism, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Some Lutherans also include Confession and Absolution as sacraments and as such a means of grace, [11] 2. Methodists A. According to John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, the means of grace can be divided into two broad categories, with individual and communal components: Communal Practices-- Holy Communion Baptism [11] 3. Anglicans When the Thirty-Nine Articles were accepted by Anglicans generally as a norm for Anglican teaching, they recognised two sacraments only " Baptism and the Eucharist " as having been ordained by Christ ("sacraments of the Gospel" [1]) as Article XXV of the Thirty-Nine Articles describes them) and as necessary for salvation. [12] Con asks: "So can we leave the early church sources and just focus on the Bible?" Answer: No, because the resolution calls for BOTH. On Baptism, Con said: "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." MY RESPONSE: The quote never uses the phrase, "usually necessary". It does say baptism is the "normative" way of being initially justified, but that means there are exceptions. And if there are exceptions to something, then that something isn't NECESSARY. It may be the standard, but it's not necessary. MORE STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS Con claims I said there are verses that say baptism is necessary for salvation. I never said any such thing. I challenge him to show otherwise. Baptism is the normal way one is justified, but as I keep saying, God is free to give grace any way He wants too. It's not absolutely necessary. WE DON'T EARN GRACE OR SALVATION If we are going to have a fruitful discussion,we're going to have to stick with what each of us ACTUALLY believe. The Catholic Church doesn't teach we earn salvation. Cons lawn mower analogy is not preferable. 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. WORKS OF THE LAW Con asks a good question. Basically he asks if Paul meant "all works" when he condemned "works of the Law". Well I would assert if he meant all works, he would have said "all works", but he didn't do that. After all, "works" is easier to say than "works of the Law". But he specifically singled out "works of the Law". Also, we see in Romans 2:6-8Revised Standard Version (RSV) 6 For he will render to every man according to his works: 7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality,he will give eternal life; 8 but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. Also in Philippians 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. So we clearly see that Paul was specifically condemning Jewish rituals. HOW DO WE RECEIVE GRACE? Con is right to say that Jesus died once for all sins. I agree, but even Con wouldn't say that everyone is going to Heaven, so the question remains... Since Christ died for our sins, how do we receive the grace from Him? I have shown that it is reasonable to believe that ONE way He does this is through the sacraments. ON THE SUBJECT OF JESUS'S BODY AND BLOOD Con says: 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." MY RESPONSE 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. Con continues: "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." MY RESPONSE 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. On Penance, Con said: "Only God can forgive sins. That is beyond dispute. That God forgave sins while in a human body does not support Pro"s position." MY RESPONSE 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: "If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Again, were not debating if we can lose our salvation. Com continues: "So men can forgive sins? Obviously not." MY RESPONSE Again, my opponent seems to have a problem with the Bible, and not with me. Matthew 9:8 couldn't be any clearer: "to men" Con continues: "Our sins were forgiven at the cross." MY RESPONSE I would like to ask Con a question: Is everyone going to Heaven, or must we confess in order for our sins to be forgiven? Con asks: "If a church leader refused to forgive someone, would they not be forgiven?" MY RESPONSE That's what the Bible says (John 20:23). CON INTENTIONALLY DROPS.HALF OF THE.RESOLUTION He says: "All these historical sources: I don"t really want to debate them." THINGS I'VE ALREADY COVERED IN THIS ROUND 1. We don't earn grace. 2. We don't participate in "works of the Law". 3. Baptism is NORMALLY what one does to be justified, but it's not necessary. 4. The sacraments are God's work, not ours. On marriage, Con said: "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?" MY RESPONSE Paul isn't disparaging marriage. He's simply saying it's not for everyone. Well, that's what I've been saying all along! The sacraments aren't the ONLY way God gives us grace, but they are ONE way He does. God gives Grace through the sacrament of matrimony: Proverbs 18:22 "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor from the LORD." HISTORICAL EVIDENCE "How beautiful, then, the marriage of two Christians, two who are one in hope, one in desire, one in the way of life they follow, one in the religion they practice. Hearing and seeing this, Christ rejoices. To such as these He gives His peace. - Tertulian 202 A.D. [14] Sources: 10.http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 11.http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 12.http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 13. http://www.debate.org... 14.https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...