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

Capitalization for emphasis only. DROP, DROP, DROP Simply saying something "is not enough" is not a valid rebuttal. If it were, instead of this debate being Cons longest debate it could be his shortest. We both could simply say: " What you offered is not enough.", 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. But Con did not do that, so everything he ignored is considered true. WHAT WE'RE DEBATING Con says we should ONLY discuss the Bible, but apparently he has forgotten the debate resolution we are debating. The resolution is: "The belief that the sacraments convey grace is reasonable based on the Bible AND historical evidence." So there are two pieces of evidence we are considering, not one. We both agreed on this resolution before the debate. It's too late for Con to change his mind just because he doesn't feel like it. IRRELEVANT SIDE ISSUES 1. Whether or not the.sacraments are necessary for salvation. Although I have been willing to discuss this interesting question, for the purpose of this debate, it's irrelevant. If they are necessary, they must convey grace, but even if their not necessary, (as my opponent and I AGREE), that doesn't prove whether or not they give us grace. But just for fun, I will continue to discuss this side issue showing that my opponent is mistaken: CON'S CONFUSION: He said: "Pro believes I misinterpreted Catholic.com. He believes that saying something is "normative[ly]" necessary for salvation basically means it isn"t necessary for salvation. This is obviously not the case. If something is usually (normatively) required, it is usually required. That means that it is required for most people. Do not be fooled by Pro"s word games. Read the article. http://www.catholic.com...; MY RESPONSE If it's (as Con says) required for MOST, then not everyone has to do it. Therefore, it's not necessary. If it were necessary, then EVERYONE (not most everyone) would have to do it. CON MISUNDERSTANDS THE CATECHISM: Con said: "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)." MY RESPONSE Again notice, only a specific group of people are expected to partake (for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament ) "[Pro WAS trying to prove baptism was necessary for salvation." NO I WASN'T. CON MISUNDERSTANDS ME It's is true that I said baptism washes away sins, but it's not the ONLY way.this can happen. As I have said OVER AND OVER in this debate, the sacraments are ONE way this can happen. No the only way. If there are other ways, then baptism, and the others, are not NECESSARY. DO PROTESTANTS EARN GRACE? Last round, Con asked if Catholics are trying to "earn" grace because we receive it by doing something. But despite his claim to the contrary, Con admitted that Protestants do something in order to receive the grace of salvation. I asked him if we need to confess in order to be saved. His response? "...whoever confesses his sins will be forgiven by God." So Com says we must DO SOMETHING to be saved (confess). So if Protestants 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 earning when we do it. Con ADMITS we must do some works: " Whatever the interpretation, it is obvious that "good works" are important for a Christian." 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? NO SHORTCUTS I never said the sacraments replace faith. Faith is involved I everyone of the sacraments. I.the non believer example, it was assumed he/she would receive have faith that ONE WAY God gives us grace is through the sacraments. CONCERNING THE EUCHARIST, CON SAYS "The blood of Christ on the cross, yes. As Pro admitted, Christ saved us once for all on the cross. His sacrifice is already completed; no further bleeding is necessary." MY RESPONSE Clearly Con doesn't really understand what Catholics believe about the Eucharist. I say that because he seems to think we believe Christ bleeds again in the Eucharist. We don't. As I've said before in this debate, the only way we can have a fruitful discussion is if we stick to what we ACTUALLY BELIEVE. Straw man arguments don get us anywhere. PENANCE: Com says: "How does God forgive sins? Directly. As God, He can obviously forgive sins without human help." MY RESPONSE Sure He COULD, but He chooses not to. John 20:23 makes it clear: Talking to the Apostles, Jesus said "If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." Matthew 18:18 provides further insight: Jesus said: "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Clearly Jesus gave His first priests His authority. And even Jesus wouldn't forgive you if you confessed but weren't really sorry. MORE STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS BY CON "Grace, through repentant faith, is needed. Requiring confession for salvation, however, is, firstly, impossible as some people can"t remember even all their mortal sins, ... " We don't require people to remember them all. [15] Let's make sure we stick to what each of us ACTUALLY believe. MATRIMONY Proverbs 18:22: "He who finds a wife finds what is good and receives favor 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 of a basis for a sacrament. " MY RESPONSE Again, the married couple isn't earning grace. God is simply deciding, on His own, to bless the couple with His grace/favor. As for the number 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 mention grace, just peace." MY RESPONSE If we have His peace, we have His grace. HOLY ORDERS 2 Timothy 1:8 Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel in the power of God, 9 who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of his own purpose and the grace which he gave us in Christ Jesus ages ago, 10 and now has manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. 11 For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, 12 and therefore I suffer as I do. So here we have grace and appointment to the ministry. Hyppolytus "Over a deacon, then, let the bishop speak thus: "O God, who have created all things and have set them in order through your Word; Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, whom you sent to minister to your will and to make clear to us your desires, grant the Holy Spirit of grace and care and diligence to this your servant, whom you have chosen to serve the Church and to offer in your holy places the gifts which are offered to you by your chosen high priests, so that he may serve with a pure heart and without blame, and that, ever giving praise to you, he may be accounted by your good will as worthy of this high office: through your Son Jesus Christ, through whom be glory and honor to you, to the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy Church, both now and through the ages of ages. Amen"" (The Apostolic Tradition 9 [A.D. 215]). Sources: 15.http://christianity.stackexchange.com... 16.http://www.catholic.com...