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

Again, I capitalize for emphasis only. CON'S CONCESSION: I would like to thank my opponent for admitting he didn't respond/dropped some of my arguments from last round. That shows a lot of integrity on his part. I accept his apology. EUnfortunately for him, however, dropped arguments are considered true for the remainder of the debate, which puts him at a disadvantage when trying to garner argument votes. MY FAVORITE PART: I also appreciate Con saying, "I do not deny the credibility of your sources..." Con went on to say that he disagreed with the beliefs of the early Christians. Well, that's to be expected since he took the opposite position of me, but it leaves me with a question: Where is his counter evidence? Remember, one of the things we are debating is whether historical evidence suggests such a belief is reasonable. If my opponent isn't going to offer his own historical evidence, and isn't going to"deny the credibility" of my sources... he's basically conceded the "historical evidence" part of the resolution. On 2 Peter 3:16, Con says: "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." MY RESPONSE: But most people who read the Bible can't understand Greek, nor do they have a "understanding of the cultural conditions" of those times. But I'll tell you who did have a knowledge of those things... the very people Con said he disagrees with. Con then asks if I am saying all other books of the New Testament are easy to understand. The answer is "no". The book of Revelation is very difficult to understand. All the more reason to look to the first Christians to get an understanding what the authors of the New Testament really meant. Con then inexplicably claimed this verse hurts my claim: " . . . which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction . . ." MY RESPONSE: This verse SUPPORTS my claim. It shows we shouldn't read the Bible without first being taught how to understand it. And who better than someone who was a student of John, and ordained by Peter? Sure there were people misinterpreting Paul's letters... ignorant people who read the Bible for themselves without consulting learned people. On the other hand, I quoted educated people (some of whom were taught the faith directly by the Apostles and were chosen by the Apostles to be their replacement). So, it's doubtful they would be considered "ignorant" of the true faith. They should also not be compared to the Gospel of Thomas And other Gnostic gospels because none of them were Gnostics. When determining if a belief is orthodox or not, the question.should always be: "Is this a brand new doctrine that no one has ever heard of before now or is this in line with what.has been taught from the beginning?" And since I have offered biblical evidence that agrees with their belief, it is reasonable to call such beliefs "biblical". And since Con has been unable to provide any historical evidence to support his claims, his is the one that should be doubted. On understanding the biblical languages: Con continues to denigrate the testimony of Jerome and the idea that 300 years is too long... but I HAVEN'T EVEN QUOTED JEROME. Every source I have offered is much earlier than that. Some were written during the Apostolic age (the Apostle John was still alive when the Didache was written). CON CONTINUES HIS STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS: Con said: "Pro is right. He didn"t say that [baptism is necessary for salvation]. 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." MY RESPONSE: Con is misinterpreting the quote. All that it's saying is that one should be baptized ONCE for the forgiveness of sins. It's not saying that baptism is the only way to have your sins forgiven. We know this because if that's what Catholics believed, then we wouldn't have the sacraments.of penance or anointing of the sick. Later, Con even ADMITS his source says baptism is simply the normative (normal) way one initially receives grace. And if that's the cars, that implies there are other ways God can give us grace. I acknowledge and accept all the biblical passages Con has offered and will offer that mention how God can give us grace in other ways, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE DEBATING. We are debating whether or not ONE of the ways God gives (conveys) us grace is through the sacraments. If anyone doubts that, I refer them to the debate resolution: "The belief that the sacraments convey grace is reasonable based on the Bible and historical evidence" As anyone can see, the resolution DOESN'T say the sacraments are the only way. It just asks if they convey grace or not. I NEVER DROPPED ANY OF CON'S ARGUMENTS: Con insists on doubling down on straw man arguments: Notice what Con said about earning grace: "If one says that grace is "earned," whether by sacraments or by continuation of good works, they are mistaken as grace cannot be "earned" if defined as a free gift." MY RESPONSE: Well, I'm not saying that, and neither is the Catholic Church, so there's no need to respond to something I didn't say. Let me be clear, you can't earn grace. It's not possible. You dint earn grace through the sacraments, or in any other way. The sacraments are simply one way God has chosen to deliver grace to us. He does so freely. He does not owe it to us because we don't earn it. Con tries to defend his claims: 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." MY RESPONSE: No you cannot "group them in with the works of the law" 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. On Acts 2:38, Con says: "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." MY RESPONSE: My opponent makes a claim (different person) without offering any evidence, and as such, it should be rejected as baseless. I challenge him to show me a translation that does what he claims... to which I will respond with 10 that don't. On Acts 22:16, Con says: "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." MY RESPONSE: No correlation? How about right after telling them to be baptized, it says "and wash away your sins"? How's there no correlation? Do you have an English translation that says otherwise, or are you saying that every single English translation of the Bible is wrong? 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. As I said before, God can give us grace any way He wants to. We're not debating if there are other ways besides the sacraments. What were debating is if the sacraments are ONE way He gives us grace. We're also not debating if one can lose their salvation. That's a different subject. Con asks: "I Peter 3:20-21: Well, what makes the NKJV wrong? The parentheses are reflective of a real break in thought." MY RESPONSE: The problem IS the.parentheses. The fact that no other translation uses them is an indication that the parentheses were added for purely doctrinal reasons. On the Eucharist Con said: "Again, PRO never said the Eucharist was needed for salvation, but someone else did:" Con quotes from an unofficial source. No reference is made by the source to any magisterial document. With this in mind, there's no need to respond to what it says. Con is debating me, not The Basic Catholic Catechist Home Study Course. I can't be expected to defend the private beliefs of every individual Catholic. On John 6:51, Con says: "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"?" MY RESPONSE: Who am I to question our Lord Jesus? Maybe a non believer does receive grace when he receives communion. Sounds like Con has a problem with what Jesus said, and mot with what I'm saying. Doesn't God want all non believers to come to Him? And doesn't He give everyone enough grace to choose Him? On 1 Corinthians, Con said: "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." MY RESPONSE: I don't view flag burning as an offense. It's a matter of free speech. Are you really saying that burning a flag is sinful? Would burning a picture of me make you guilty of my body and blood (as verse 11:27 mentions)? That sounds like the language of homicide to me. On Penance, Con said: "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." MY RESPONSE: I would assert that.the passage Con references actually supports MY position. Notice the verse refers to Jesus forgiving sins as the Son of MAN. It was in His HUMAN nature that He forrgave sins. We know this by reading Matthew's account of the same story: 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. On the testimony of the early Church, Con said: "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." MY RESPONSE: The Didache says to confess your sins IN CHURCH, so this isn't some private confession. Con says: "The Letter of Barnabas is similar." MY RESPONSE: In what way? That's not really a response. Con said: "Ignatius seems to make confession of sins a necessary part of salvation, which is obviously contrary to the free nature of grace." MY RESPONSE: Not if penance is just a channel of God's grace. Again, no one is saying this grace is earned. CON DROPS THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY.HIPPOLYTUS AND CYPRIAN: All he says is that he is unfamiliar with them. Well that's no reason to ignore their historical testimony. On cofirmation, Con said: "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." MY RESPONSE: Are you really saying that when you receive the Holy Spirit that He comes without grace? You can't be serious. ANOINTING OF THE SICK James 5:14-15New International Version (NIV) 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise them up. If they have sinned, they will be forgiven. John Chrysostom "The priests of Judaism had power to cleanse the body from leprosy"or rather, not to cleanse it at all, but to declare a person as having been cleansed. . . . Our priests have received the power not of treating with the leprosy of the body, but with spiritual uncleanness; not of declaring cleansed, but of actually cleansing. . [9] Sources: 9. http://www.catholic.com...