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

Unfortunately, however, I do have some concerns about his response, or lack thereof. I will be capitalizing for emphasis only. DROPPED ARGUMENTS As anyone can see, the resolution mentions TWO subjects we will be investigating: scripture and history. My opponent responded to the scriptures I offered, but IGNORED all the historical evidence given. This is what is known as a "dropped argument" in debate circles, and isn't taken lightly. A drop means that you didn't respond to the argument the first time you could have. This results in the dropped arguments being presumed true for the remainder of the debate. So in this case, all the quotes last round from church historians and early Church fathers are accepted as true for the rest of the debate. [1] REBUTTALS Last round Con said: "I like Pro"s argument, and I agree that those closest to the authors of the Bible would be probably have a good idea of what the authors were talking about. " My response: CONCESSION I appreciate Con conceding that my approach is a good idea when it comes to interpreting scripture. But immediately afterwards, he tries to change what I said about the approach to the. subject of context. This is not what I was arguing. To say my argument concerned context is inaccurate. Concerning the context of a work, Con said: But the "I never said you stole money" argument fails because of context. The argument is basically an argument for examining verses in context. Pro fails to realize that ". .. if that phrase had appeared in the Bible (or any other complete literary manuscript), there would be little or no unintentional ambiguity. Context (the rest of the book) would enable us to discover what the author was trying to say. " My response: I would like Con to consider what the Bible says about whether or not it's easy to understand by itself. 2 Peter 3:16: (referring to Paul) "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. " So here we see the Bible says the person who wrote 2/3 of the New Testament wrote somethings that were "hard to understand". So, if 2/3 of the New Testament contains things "hard to understand", I don't see how you could say I am only referring to one verse, or that content always provides understanding. On understanding the biblical languages: If Con believes I offer the words of someone who isn't familiar with the biblical languages, it is up to him to make such a case. He goes on to question Jerome' s translations because they took place 300 years after the Bible was finished. Butt if a 300 year old interpretation can't be trusted, then NONE of Con's interpretations can be trusted since they all took place nearly 2,000 after the Bible was written. And if he is claiming Jerome misinterpreted something, I'm going to have to ask for some evidence. One final issue concerning Jerome. .. I DIDN'T QUOTE HIM last round. I quoted from Hermas, who lived during the same time as the Apostles, and I quoted from Ignatius of Antioch, who was ordained by Peter and was a student of the Apostle John. So he definitely falls under the category of someone who has, as my opponent would say, "a good idea of what the authors were talking about. " CON'S MAIN ARGUMENT "Grace is the "free and unearned favor of God," according to just about any definition, including ours. Something is not "unearned" if a state of being must be maintained to keep that object. 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. If I told my daughter (I"m 15 and unmarried but just let me use this example) I would give her a pony, but that the pony would be lost if she did not keep her room tidy, would the gift be free? No, because a condition would be attached. " My response: Con has engaged in a straw man argument. I never said that one must participate in the sacraments in order to keep the gift of grace. Having said this, I want to make sure everyone knows I don't think Con did this on purpose. Since he has never debated a Catholic before it's highly possible he was simply confused about what the Church teaches on this issue. MORE STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS BY CON: Pro tries to undercut my stance on baptism by pointing to the thief on the cross. Con argues that the thief is saved without being baptized. It is at this point that I would like to remind my opponent of what I am NOT SAYING (from round one): What I am NOT saying: I am not saying the sacraments are the only way God gives us grace. God can give us grace any way He wants. What I am saying is that the sacraments are biblically instituted ways He has decided to convey grace to us. Concerning a specific verse of scripture (Acts 16:1) where Paul doesn't mention baptism, I regret to have to say that Con is engaging in a logical fallacy called "the argument from silence". "Arguments from silence, based on a writer's failure to mention an event, are distinct from arguments from ignorance which rely on a total "absence of evidence" and are widely considered unreliable; however arguments from silence themselves are also generally viewed as rather weak in many cases; or considered as fallacies. "[2] CON'S BIBLE VERSES Galatians 2:15-21: Paul is here speaking of his encounter with Peter concerning the Jewish attempt to conform Gentiles to the Mosaic law: "[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. ) MY RESPONSE: Thus passage is not relevant to our debate because it is not condemning any of the sacraments, but rather "the works of the law" None of the sacraments fall under that category. Notice how Paul is not condemning all works, but rather only the specific "works of the law". With this in mind, Con's choice of Bible passage (and subsequent argument) is irrelevant. Con continues: "Finally, why would Paul say, "I thank God that I baptized none of you . . . " in I Corinthians 1 if baptism were necessary for salvation? If baptism were an integral part of the salvation process, then one would imagine Paul would be quite preoccupied with the subject. Later he says, "For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel," (I Corinthians 1:17) indicating that the salvation of men was his main concern and that men could be saved regardless of their further baptisimal condition. " MY RESPONSE: Paul is glad he didn't baptize because, as he goes on to say, his specific duty was to preach the gospel. God gave the job of baptizing to someone else. Con said: Acts 2:38: The reference to baptism here does not imply that baptism is necessary for salvation. The reference to baptism is, according to C. Gordon Olsen, parenthetical, indicating that those who repent should also be baptized. MY RESPONSE: This interpretation doesn't make grammatical sense. The Word closest to the phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" is "baptism", not "repent". With this in mind, it doesn't make sense to claim this verse is speaking about baptism parenthetically Con said: "Acts 2:16: Commentators agree that this reference refers to baptism as emblematic of the washing away of sins. Barnes says, "It cannot be intended that the external rite of baptism was sufficient to make the soul pure, but that it was an ordinance divinely appointed as expressive of the washing away of sins. " [2] MY RESPONSE: I can only assume Con is really referring to my use of Acts 22:16, and not Acts 2:16. If this is the case, again, "baptism" is immediately followed up with "and wash away your sins". So it is quite reasonable to believe that God offers the grace necessary to "wash away sins" via baptism. Con said: "I Peter 3:20-21: The NKJV renders "(not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God)," indicating that Peter is clearly speaking figuratively and even breaks his line of thought (indicated by the parenthesis) to tell his readers that he is speaking of the regenerate work of God rather than the physical ritual. " MY RESPONSE: The parentheses are only found in the NKJV of the Bible when searching biblehub. com. In every other translation, Peter's words are one thought. Peter is saying the water of baptism doesn't wash you PHYSICALLY, bit rather it washes you SPIRITUALLY. He couldn't be more clear "Baptism. .. now saves you" Con said: "The Eucharist: Luke 22:19-20: Jesus says "do this in remembrance of me. " This is a command, but there is no implication here that those who do not do it are denied grace or salvation. " MY RESPONSE: Again, I never said those who don't receive the Eucharist are denied grace. This is just one way to receive grace, as Jesus says, "so that sins may be forgiven. " Con said: "John 6:51: Jesus says, " . . . if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever . . . " This is an affirmation that Christ is the living bread that came down from heaven to make and keep men alive to God. In verses 35 and 47 He already established that, so to define the bread as a figurative term for Christ is no large leap of the imagination. Setting up the Lord"s Supper as a ritual that must be performed regularly in order to maintain salvation in an individual is contrary to the Bible"s clear message of Christ dying once for all. " MY RESPONSE: My opponent claims Jesus bus being figurative here when He speaks of those who "eat this bread will live forever". With this in mind, I have a question for my opponent. Did Jesus give his literal flesh or his figurative flesh "for the life of the world"? Because it is this flesh that He calls bread and says we must eat. Con says: "I Corinthians 10:16-17: This verse talks of the fellowship of believers. Barnes states: "The cup of blessing which we bless - The design of this verse and the following verses seems to be, to prove that Christians, by partaking of the Lord's Supper, are solemnly set apart to the service of the Lord Jesus; that they acknowledge Him as their Lord, and dedicate themselves to him, and that as they could not and ought not to be devoted to idols and to the Lord Jesus at the same time, so they ought not to participate in the feasts in honor of idols, or in the celebrations in which idolaters would be engaged; see 1 Corinthians 10:21. "[3] Paul has just been referencing the idolatry that the Israelites who partook of the heavenly bread in the wilderness sinned in doing. The drift of Paul"s words seem to be that one who drinks the symbolic blood of Christ and eats the symbolic body of Christ is engaging in a ceremony of remembrance and that those who eat and drink together are (or should be) the church Body of Christ. Viewing this "sacrament" as a means by which we gain favor with God and possibly entrance into heaven is quite unreasonable. " MY RESPONSE: Again we see Con claiming the body and blood of Christ referred to in the passage as symbolic. But again, this leaves me with a question for Con. In verse 11:27, while referring to the same "body and blood", Paul says "So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. " So my question is: How does someone sin against a symbol? If someone takes a picture of me, that's a symbol of me. Can someone sin against my picture? Or can someone only sin against me (the real person)? NEW ARGUMENTS (penance and confirmation) BIBLICAL SUPPORT Penance: "This sacrament is rooted in the mission God gave to Christ in his capacity as the Son of man on earth to go and forgive sins (cf. Matt. 9:6). Thus, the crowds who witnessed this new power "glorified God, who had given such authority to men" (Matt. 9:8; note the plural "men"). After his resurrection, Jesus passed on his mission to forgive sins to his ministers, telling them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21"23). " Testimony of the early Church: "The Didache "Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord"s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure" (Didache 4:14, 14:1 [A. D. 70]). The Letter of Barnabas "You shall judge righteously. You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A. D. 74]). Ignatius of Antioch "For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3 [A. D. 110]). " [3] Confirmation "The sacrament of confirmation is found in Bible passages such as Acts 8:14"17, 9:17, 19:6, and Hebrews 6:2, which speak of a laying on of hands for the purpose of bestowing the Holy Spirit. Hebrews 6:2 is especially important because it is not a narrative account of how confirmation was given and, thus, cannot be dismissed by those who reject the sacrament as something unique to the apostolic age. In fact, the passage refers to confirmation as one of Christianity"s basic teachings, which is to be expected since confirmation, like baptism, is a sacrament of initiation into the Christian life. We read: "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment" (Heb. 6:1"2) . " "Hippolytus "The bishop, imposing his hand on them, shall make an invocation, saying, "O Lord God, who made them worthy of the remission of sins through the Holy Spirit"s washing unto rebirth, send into them your grace so that they may serve you according to your will, for there is glory to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen. " Then, pouring the consecrated oil into his hand and imposing it on the head of the baptized, he shall say, "I anoint you with holy oil in the Lord, the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus and the Holy Spirit. " Signing them on the forehead, he shall kiss them and say, "The Lord be with you. " He that has been signed shall say, "And with your spirit. " Thus shall he do to each" (The Apostolic Tradition 21"22 [A. D. 215]). Cyprian of Carthage "It is necessary for him that has been baptized also to be anointed, so that by his having received chrism, that is, the anointing, he can be the anointed of God and have in him the grace of Christ" (Letters 7:2 [A. D. 253]). " [4] Sources: 1. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(policy_debate) 2. . http://en.m.wikipedia.org... 3. . http://www.catholic.com... 4. . http://www.catholic.com...