Roman Catholicism is in Opposition to the Bible

This debate is contending the issue of whether or not Roman Catholicism is in opposition to the Bible. Pro's position states that Roman Catholicism is not completely Biblical and Con's position states Roman Catholicism is biblical. This debate centers around the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church found within the institutions' traditions. Refer to the second rule for the primary point of this debate. While there are many groups who claim to be biblical such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, they are not despite that they adhere to some of the bible. It is not a matter of what they agree upon, but the severity of the contraditions found in their teachings. To be biblical is to line up with all of the bible. In this statement, I not only assert that there are contradicitons between the Roman Catholic Church's traditions and the Bible, but that those contradictions are servere in their implications. Please read the rules cafefully before accepting this debate. Rules: (1) Evidence should primarily be from the Bible (Old and New Testament) as we are debating a biblical issue. All theological issues should be grounded in the Bible. The Bible is defined as the traditional protestant canon established in the London Baptist Confession of Faith. You may use any translation you desire, and you may use multiple translations in your arguments with the simple rule that you cite the translation you are using. (2) This debate is not discussing canonization itself. It is dicussing the traditions of the Catholic church and how they line up with scripture. This debate is not to discuss the view that the Catholic traditions are authoritative, but rather whether or not the traditions contradict teachings found in scripture. This debate’s goal is to strip away presupposed authority of Roman Catholic Tradition and compare it with the teachings of the Bible. While there will be some teachings of the Catholic Church that are biblical, the debate focuses on whether or not all of their teachings (most of which are well known) are biblical, which is of great importance. (3) No personal attacks on individuals, or any games that will reduce this debate to anything less than what it is intended to be, which is a serious debate. (4) There are four rounds: (a) The first round is acceptance and recognition that the rules are understood and will be followed. (b) The second round will be initial arguments or refutations. (c) The third round will be rebuttals or a furthering of one's case (d) The fourth round will be final arguments, summaries, and conclusions. (5) All definitions will firstly be valid in accordance to orthodox biblical theological terms. If there is any reason to define a term it will firstly be in accordance with the theological definition. All secondary definitions will be based on definitions provided by dictonary.com. While this should be a non-issue as we are discussing the Roman Catholic Church's traditions and not theological matters perse, it should be noted. Conclusion: I only ask that the person who ends up partaking in this challenge will take it seriously. I hope to have fun in this endeavor. I will most likely re-issue this debate afterwards with the same argument for future challenges.God bless you all and I look forward to the challenge.