The Catholic Doctrine saying you must repent and confess for salvation is completely Unbiblical.

This should be fun! BURDEN OF PROOF As my opponent is the instigator, and the one who is making the positive claim, he has the full burden of proof. In order to win this debate, all I have to do is negate his case. I don't have to make my own positive case. Having said that, because we have so many characters to work with, I reserve the right to do so. DEFINITIONS Since my opponent didn't define any specific terms within the resolution, I am happy to do so. As many of you are aware, the first person to define a term is the one who gets to define a word for the purpose of the debate. [1] With this in mind, I will now set the definition for "unbiblical": Unbiblical: "not in accord with or sanctioned by biblical teaching. " [2] So, for my opponent to win, he must show that the doctrine of confession is not allowed (sanctioned) by the Bible. It won't be enough for him to say he can't find any specific examples of priestly confession in the Bible. That would be a logical fallacy known as "argument from silence". [4] Such an argument would be invalid. Again, Pro needs to show where the doctrine is not allowed/sanctioned by the Bible. WHAT WE'RE NOT DEBATING Since the Catholic Church teaches that it's possible to have your sins forgiven by God without going to confession, we're not debating if it's possible for God to forgive sins without confessing to a priest. What we're debating is if the Bible teaches that we CAN have our sins foriven in that manner. We're also ONLY debating the issue of confession, and not any other doctrine Pro may have mentioned in round one. This is something He and I agreed upon in the debate comments. If anyone doubts this, may I quote from the Council of Trent: "The Council further teaches that, though contrition may sometimes be made perfect by charity and may reconcile men to God before the actual reception of this sacrament,. ." [3] INTERPRETING THE BIBLE I wanted to give the voters a couple things to think about before casting their votes. Both my opponent and I are going to be offering many Bible verses (sometimes maybe the same ones). And both of us will be suggesting ways to interpret these verses. The key, I believe, is which interpretations coincide with what the early Christians believed. .. . I NEVER SAID YOU STOLE MONEY To better illustrate this, I am going to share something I heard Catholic apologist, Patrick Madrid say once: Let's say you are at a garage sale and you come across a 100 year old book. It looks interesting, so you buy it. You take it home and begin to read it, but find it difficult to understand. Now let's say that the author has passed away, but you still have access to his son, who was in the room when the book was written? All things being equal, wouldn't you trust him over someone born 80 years later who didn't know anyone even remotely connected to the author? Especially when trying to interpret the following phrase: I never said you stole money. Now, at first glance, this may seem easy to understand, but there may be more than one way to I interpret it. What if the person who wrote that meant I never said you stole money. .. He said it. Or. .. I never SAID you stole money. .. But I sure thought it. Or. .. I never said YOU stole money. .. I said she stole it. Or. .. I never said you STOLE money. .. I said you borrowed it. Or. .. I never said you stole MONEY. You stole a car. Now take that verse, multiply it by 10,000, and you have the Bible. You have dozens of different books, written by different authors, for different audiences, for different reasons, in different languages, at different times. So you tell me whose interpretations you can count on to be most authentic? Those who knew the authors personally, or someone doing their best, 2,000 years later? Development of doctrine. Now of course, over time, we can understand better some of the implications of a particular teaching. This is something all Christians recognize. The doctrine of the Trinity didn't become crystallized until some 300 years after the death of Christ. The key to determining the difference between development versus departure is this. .. Is the teaching in line with what the original Christians believed? No one expects an elderly man to look like his baby picture. He's much taller and has gray or white hair. You expect to see this. What you don't expect is to see a third eye, or a foot growing from his hip. Development versus departure. Now that I've defined some terms and have set up a framework from which I will be debating, I turn it back to my opponent. Since he is Pro, it is customary for him to be the first one to make his case. I look forward to reading what he has to say. Sources: 1. . http://www.debate.org... 2. . http://dictionary.reference.com... 3. . http://www.catholic.com... 4. . https://www.umass.edu...