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

Thanks, Pro. The “Dropped Arguments” charge: I’m sorry I didn’t say anything about all your historical sources in the first round. I have basically no knowledge of all the sources you quoted, so I wasn’t sure how to respond. I thought tackling the “I never said you stole money” argument would be enough. Anyway, apologies. I have been thinking about the subject and I believe I have made some progress in the area. I do not deny the credibility of your sources, but, however, I do deny that all those quotes carry a significant weight of evidence. This ties closely to the “I never said you stole money” issue, so I will do my best to address both here. Note that I am not arguing the validity of the individual quotes; I am arguing that even taken as a group, such witness may not convey the truth. So, on to Pro’s response to the “money” issue. Pro quotes 2 Peter 3:16, which says, "He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." Great. I thank Pro for bringing this up. This is an important issue and we shall do well to address it earlier rather than later in the debate. First, notice the exact wording. Peter says Paul’s letters contain “some things” that are “hard to understand.” Not impossible, but hard. So, rather than 2/3 of the NT, we have “some” of that 2/3, (some of Paul’s writing is straightforward) and rather than the “I never said you have money” phrase, which would be impossible to understand out of context, we have whole books, which I maintain, given that we have the NT in the original language (Greek) and a valid understanding of the cultural conditions Paul was writing from, would allow us to understand what Paul was saying. Also notice that this only refers to Paul’s writings. Is Pro conceding the rest of the Bible? :] This verse not only provides little help to Pro, but it also is of aid to the case I will present. I quote: “ . . . which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction . . .” Very interesting. So, even in the “early days” of Peter and Paul, there were people who distorted Paul’s teachings. This flies directly in the face of Pro’s claim that those who lived the briefest length of time after the writing of the Bible understood it the best. II John, III John, and Jude all contain references to deceivers and antichrists who try to deceive and who preach false things. “For many deceivers have gone out into the world . . .” “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for condemnation . . .” There is no need for Pro to “refute” these texts, as they are only quoted for demonstrative purposes. My only point is that, even during the lifetime of Peter and John, there were deceivers who appeared to come out of the church and proceeded to teach what was contrary to scripture. This is corroborated by the church’s own witness. Why do we not accept the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of our Lord, the Gospel of Judas, and all the other extra-biblical texts dating from the time of the early church as reliable and valuable? The answer should be: they are not in the Bible, and as a result we cannot know that they are accurate. Paul basically said the same, when he said that even an angel preaching a different gospel should not be believed. This would certainly hold true to even Peter and Paul’s peers. Only the Bible is ABSOLUTELY true. As a result, we must judge every other book and early church writer by what the Bible says, rather than the other way round. This allows us to discount all Pro’s “testimony” and focus on exactly what the Bible says. On understanding the biblical languages: I didn’t say Jerome wasn’t familiar with biblical languages. I said 300 years was long enough for the benefits of proximity to dissipate. By that point, all the original authors and their grandchildren and great-grandchildren would have all died. Also remember that at this point heresies and wayward doctrines, such as Gnosticism, had been around for a long time. Understand that I am not making a solid case against the Vulgate. That’s not the issue here. I’m simply saying that when you consider that our translators also have access to the original Greek and Hebrew text, there is no reason to value Jerome’s translation over the KJV or ESV without further scrutiny. Clear enough? Now, it appears that I have been accused of erecting “straw man” arguments. Pro says, “ I never said that one must participate in the sacraments in order to keep the gift of grace.” Pro is right. He didn’t say that. But I am pretty sure that the Church teaches baptism is necessary for salvation, at least in cases where the person has access to baptism. In fact, I looked this up online and found the following on www.catholic.com: “Thus the early Church Fathers wrote in the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381), "We believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins." 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).” [1] Later on in the article the writer specifies that baptism is a normative rather than an absolute necessity. There are exceptions. But, in the main, baptism is needed for salvation. As Pro has very carefully pointed out, all he is arguing is that the sacraments are biblically instituted ways God has decided to convey grace to us. We “do” the sacraments, and we receive grace. But Pro has offered no rebuttal (so far) to my charge that this doctrine is contrary to the very definition of grace and Christianity’s nature as a religion not by works but of God’s free gift to mankind. If we get grace through getting baptized and then presumably more grace through the Eucharist, and so on, then we are earning grace. I levy no “dropped argument” charges, but Pro hasn’t really addressed this. Galatians 2:15-21: The sacraments are righteous actions, correct? If they are done to gain favor with God and ultimately salvation then I think we can group them in with all other “works of the law.” Acts 2:38: Pro’s response is dependent on the translation. The “let each of you be baptized” part is in a different person from the “repent” part of the verse, indicating a break in thought between the imperatives. Acts 22:16: We’re not really getting anywhere here. Again, we can’t rely on English order of words to determine the original meaning, but even from my English Bible there is no indication that the “washing away of sins” directly correlates with the washing by water. “So it is quite reasonable to believe that God offers the grace necessary to "wash away sins" via baptism.” Really? In Ephesians 2:8-9 Paul states that grace is a gift of God, as I’m sure Pro knows and agrees. The entire NT seems to forward a view of salvation as instant and irrevocable. “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life . . .” John 3:36. “Yet to all who received Him, to those who believed in His name, He gave the right to become children of God–“ John 1:12 This one clinches it for me: “ . . . Anyone who gives heed to what I say and puts his trust in Him who sent Me has hold of eternal life, and does not come up for judgment, but has already passed from death to life.” No reference to normative baptism, confirmation, or any other official sacraments. He who puts his trust in Christ has already passed from death to life. Nothing else is necessary. I Peter 3:20-21: Well, what makes the NKJV wrong? The parentheses are reflective of a real break in thought. Eucharist: Again, PRO never said the Eucharist was needed for salvation, but someone else did: The Basic Catholic Catechist Home Study Course says: “Like Baptism, the Eucharist is necessary for salvation to be received either sacramentally or in desire.” [2] John 6:51: Jesus literally died for the life of the world. But I still maintain that He was speaking figuratively. Jesus says, “if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever . . .” If Jesus IS the bread, then even a nonbeliever can live forever just by eating the bread. Question: Was Jesus speaking literally when He said He was the “bread come down from heaven”? I Corinthians 10:16-17: How does one sin against a symbol? By desecrating that symbol. Why do we view flag-burnings as an offense against our national honor? Desecrating the symbol (or treating it disrespectfully) indicates we disrespect the object of the symbol. Blasphemy is a sin. Why? Is God’s name somehow “God”? No, but it is His title and what represents Him. Penance: The Bible clearly teaches that only God can forgive sins (Mark 2:10-11). Making God’s forgiveness conditional upon a priest’s decision would clearly be wrong. In fact, this verse seems to be referencing church officials’ power to mete out punishment and forgiveness in that sense, rather than heavenly forgiveness. Of the early church references, the Didache speaks of confessing of sins being important, which I would agree on, but does not mention grace or salvation. The Letter of Barnabas is similar. Ignatius seems to make confession of sins a necessary part of salvation, which is obviously contrary to the free nature of grace. Confirmation: I thank Pro for introducing me to the Catholic rationale for this Sacrament. However, while the Bible does endorse the “laying on of hands,” it states that this laying on of hands is for the purpose of receiving the Spirit, not grace or salvation, as is obvious from the Hebrews passage Pro quoted. I have no knowledge of Hippolytus or Cyprian, and as I pointed out before their words cannot take precedence over scripture. [1] http://www.catholic.com... [2] http://www.therealpresence.org...