The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 592 times Debate No: 71828
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




Hello everyone and thank you for viewing this debate. Who ever does choose to accept will be entering an arguement already lost. so i wish the best of luck to you! lets keep this clean.

Salvation, in Roman Catholicism, is a process with many steps: Actual Grace, Faith, Good Works, Baptism, Participation in the Sacraments, Penance, Indulgences, and Keeping the Commandments. Basically, salvation is attained through baptism and good works. It is maintained by good works and participation in the sacraments. If lost, it is regained through the sacrament of Penance which only a Roman Catholic priest can administer. Add to this purgatorial cleansing after a person dies, and you can see that salvation is an arduous process.

In Catholicism, a person can gain salvation and lose it many times depending on the number of sins committed, their severity, and how much of the sacraments that they participate in--in order to regain grace which enables them to do good works by which they are justified. Furthermore, justifying grace is infused into the Catholic upon baptism and via the sacraments. This grace can be gradually lost through venial sins or forfeited all together with mortal sins. -Matt Simms
If you believe you can prove this false doctrine to be correct then best wishes. (;



I would like to thank shipman for creating this debate. This should be


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.


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.


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]


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....


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.





Debate Round No. 1


shipman37 forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited this round. I ask the voters to consider this when voting on conduct. Since he has given me nothing to refute, I shall await his opening argument.
Debate Round No. 2


shipman37 forfeited this round.


Again, as my opponent is Pro, I am awaiting his opening argument. His round one comments made a series of claims, but he made no attempt to justify them. As he has the burden of proof, if he makes no arguments, I win automatically.
Debate Round No. 3


shipman37 forfeited this round.


I extend my comments from the last round.
Debate Round No. 4


shipman37 forfeited this round.


This debate is over. My opponent has failed to offer an argument despite having the full burden of proof. With this in mind, I have won by default. I was really looking forward to refuting my opponent's claims, but he has left me with nothing to refute. With this in mind, just for fun, I will offer an affirmative case:

John 20:21 Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone"s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

The fact that sins could not be forgiven requires actual knowledge of the sin. This implies confession.

Therefore, the resolution is negated.

Summary of the debate:

Conduct: I should get this point due to Pro's forfeiting of rounds.

S and G: Tied.

Arguments: I am the only one who has offered an argument.

Sources: I am the only one who had a source.

Six points for me!


Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
I also would like to extend to you my warmest regards!
Posted by shipman37 2 years ago
this should be interesting i can see you are well experienced in this topic. Best of luck to you my friend.
Posted by shipman37 2 years ago
yes confession and repentance. i was just clarifying the doctrine for detail purposes.
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
So, to be clear, we'd only be debating the doctrine of confession, right? We wouldn't be debating all the other topics you brought up in your round one, right?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
Vote Placed by Kozu 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro FF all rounds. Con was even courteous enough to explain how the interpretation of the bible may have lead to misconceptions within catholic doctrine. On this, Pro is silent.