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

Simply saying something "is not enough" is not a valid rebuttal. If itwere, instead of this debate being Cons longest debate it could be hisshortest. We both could simply say: " What you offered is notenough.", and be done. If you're going to say my evidence is "not good enough" you need to explain why, or else it's just empty words. Pro refers to what I said in the last round: 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. Historical evidence is not enough, as is the argument from popularity that would be the corroboration of other churches, because churches can go off in doctrinally errant directions. John warns in 1 John 2 that “antichrists” have gone out into the world. How can we tell who the antichrists are? By comparing their teachings to the Bible. That is why I keep bringing this back to the Bible. If Pro loses the Bible’s side of this debate, he loses, period. I already explained most of this. I am debating Pro, and he maintains that baptism is not necessary for salvation, so I’ll leave that issue. PRO SAYS: So Com says we must DO SOMETHING to be saved (confess). So ifProtestants aren't earning grace when they have to do something to get it, then it's unfair for them to accuse Catholics who "do something" to receive grace. If it's not earning when they do it, it's not earningwhen we do it. I don’t believe confession is necessary. Not for salvation. Pro obviously doesn’t completely understand what I believe. That is fine, but it means his point is moot. This quote adequately explains the two kinds of forgiveness, only one of which is necessary for salvation: At the same time,1 John 1:9 does indicate that somehow forgiveness is dependent on our confessing our sins to God. How does this work if all of our sins are forgiven the moment we receive Christ as Savior? It seems that what the apostle John is describing here is “relational” forgiveness. All of our sins are forgiven “positionally” the moment we receive Christ as Savior. This positional forgiveness guarantees our salvation and promise of an eternal home in heaven. When we stand before God after death, God will not deny us entrance into heaven because of our sins. That is positional forgiveness. The concept of relational forgiveness is based on the fact that when we sin, we offend God and grieve His Spirit (Ephesians 4:30). While God has ultimately forgiven us of the sins we commit, they still result in a blocking or hindrance in our relationship with God. So, forgiveness at the cross is total. Read this article for more information: http://www.gotquestions.org... Pro’s claim that I admitted works were necessary is also false. I said works were IMPORTANT, not NECESSARY. As believers, righteousness is imputed to us by Jesus’ death. This means that good works are not a factor in determining salvation. This is the view held by both my church and me. However, I still believe good works are important. All that is necessary for salvation is faith. That’s it. See Ephesians 2:8-9. By jumping onto the offensive and employing a failed tu quo argument, Pro is tacitly admitting that works are needed for salvation, or at least for grace. So I guess some works are ok for my opponent, but too many is bad?Well why does he get to decide how much is too much? If it's not earning when they do it, it's not earningwhen we do it. Since Pro didn’t actually counter any of my arguments, I’ll just copy and paste them here. 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 togive 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 freegift. 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 sacramentsaren'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. In the end, it comes down to this: The Catholic idea of “grace” is conditional, based on the fulfillment of the sacraments (although, as Pro has pointed out about 10 times, God can give grace any way He pleases). If you get married, you get grace. If you get baptized, you get grace. If you drink wine and eat a cracker (even if you aren’t saved) you get grace. However, the very definition of grace (“unconditional”) invalidates this ideology. Grace is unearned. Unearned = Unconditional. We receive grace through faith, true. But what is faith? Faith is the realization that we are sinners, that we need God’s love. It isn’t a ritual. It isn’t a mandatory dunk in the water. It’s basically a change in heart, a request for God’s grace as the sinner realizes that he desperately needs it. Once the believer has believed, grace is his. To set up sacraments by which one might receive grace is to make it conditional and hence earned. REGARDING CONFESSION: What if the priest decides not to forgive someone? Confession makes God’s forgiveness conditional upon man’s forgiveness when it should be other way round: We should forgive others BECAUSE God forgives them. Colossians 2: 13 And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, 14 having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us. And He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. The point here is that God has forgiven all our sins already. This is in accordance with the doctrine of positional forgiveness I mentioned earlier. God’s positional forgiveness of the Christian is unconditional. The Catholic doctrine hence makes confession a condition on salvation, which results in the earning of grace–all wrongly. PRO SAID: MATRIMONYProverbs 18:22: "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receivesfavor from the LORD."On Proverbs 18:22, Con surprisingly said:"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 ofa basis for a sacrament. "MY RESPONSEAgain, the married couple isn't earning grace. God is simply deciding,on His own, to bless the couple with His grace/favor. As for thenumber of verses supporting a teaching, I have to ask a question: How many times does the Bible have to teach something before Con believes it?"Even the historical evidence does not mentiongrace, just peace."MY RESPONSEIf we have His peace, we have His grace. I should have done more research the last time. I looked at several commentaries, and they all seemed to view the “favor” received from the Lord as the actual wife. E.g., if you find a wife, God has given you something good: the wife. If this was what Pro believed, I wish he’d made it more clear. So we are not speaking of a spiritual blessing but rather the wife. But what if the wife is a criminal who later poisons all the husband’s kids (and him too)? Obviously in that case the wife is not a manifestation of God’s grace. What about the Moabite wives that drew the Israelites into idolatry? (Num. 25) Even Christian wives can draw their husbands astray. As a result, this verse should be construed to mean just that wives are usually a blessing. Paul seemed to think otherwise, as I mentioned earlier. Marriage doesn’t always convey God’s favor. As a result, it cannot be considered to consistently “convey grace,” even letting the point about earning grace slide. As the resolution included no qualifiers, this means that Matrimony must fall. The wife being the blessing, we must also consider whether God deliberately withholds his grace from ugly men. After all, ugly men find it harder to find a wife (let alone a good one :}). So if a wife is always God’s gift, then God must be biased toward handsome men! Holy Orders: 2 Timothy 1:8 Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor ofme his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel in the power ofGod, 9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue ofour works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace . . . This verse clearly means that God calls us to “holy orders” because of grace, not that those who become priests receive grace. The debate resolution concerns the conveyance of grace, not what the grace of God might do. This is Pro’s only supporting reference and hence Holy Orders falls along with Matrimony. Even if I only prove two Sacraments do not convey grace, I still win the debate. In fact, I have proved that the Sacraments constitute "earning" grace, which makes them invalid, earlier, so I win on that basis too. The historical side is irrelevant. It removes one barrier to Pro’s victory, true, but if he fails the Biblical portion, (as he has) then he fails, period.