The Instigator
Rasheed
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
Wandile
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points

Inherited Sin as taught by the Christian Church is False

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 3 votes the winner is...
Wandile
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2011 Category: Religion
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,252 times Debate No: 19599
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Rasheed

Pro

The concept that all men are sinful because of the disobedience of two people is false, and misrepresents the mercy of God. Further, no man can pay for the sins of others.

1. The burden of proof shall be shared

2. Any credible source can be used

3. First round is for acceptance and amend to rules only.
Wandile

Con

I accept your challenge.

I would just like to expand on rule two. The bible is the focal point of this argument , as this is the case the bible should be seen as authoritative and credible or else this debate would be futile. I just wanted to establish that and have you confirm it. Do you confirm my position as fair? ( all other credible sources, as you stated, may be used too)

Thanks and I look forward to another great and exciting debate.

Good luck ☺
Debate Round No. 1
Rasheed

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate, and I know we will have another titanic but enjoyable battle.

I agree that the Bible is the focal point of the argument but I intend to both question it's logic on the subject using other sources and use verses from it to show that inherited sin was not taught by the early church or Christian doctrine.

According to Christian theology all of humanity is sinful because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. For this reason we are all removed from the face of God except an intercession be made for us, which happened with the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, because sin requires a sacrifice.

The problem with this argument is that requiring one person to pay for the sins of another is unjust.

This doctrine teaches that we are all condemned to the most painful punishment (burning in Hell) for something that we did not do! Even children are guilty of a crime that they did not commit.

Justice is defined as:

jus·tice/ˈjəstis/Noun: 1.Just behavior or treatment.
2.The quality of being fair and reasonable. [1]

For the rest of this debate I ask the reader to constantly ask themselves if inherited sin is 'fair' or 'reasonable.'

A Just God

Suppose that you turned on the television and on the news you heard about a Judge condemning an innocent man to death because his great grandfather stole a banana, you the viewer would consider it a harsh miscarriage of justice, yet Christians would have us believe that inherited sin is the product of a righteous God.

The Bible describes God as just in many places;

"Shall not the judge of all the earth do right?" Genesis 18:25

"Ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he. They have corrupted themselves." Deuteronomy 32:3-5

Inherited Sin is unbiblical

The Bible says that man is guilty for his own sins and for his own sins alone. He is not guilty, and cannot be guilty, for the sin of Adam or any other man:

"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:20

"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Deuteronomy 24:16

"Far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked. That be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Genesis 18:25

"What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge? As I live, saith the Lord God, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel. Behold all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth it shall die…The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:2-4, 20

"He shall not die for the iniquity of his father, he shall surely live. As for his father, because he cruelly oppressed, spoiled his brother by violence, and did all that which is not good among his people, lo, even he shall die for his iniquity. Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father; neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him." Ezekiel 18:17-20

"But he slew not their children, but did as it is written in the law in the book of Moses, where the Lord commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin." II Chronicles 25:4

"Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?…Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal? Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, saith the Lord God. Repent and turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin." Ezekiel 18:25, 29-30

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die." Ezekiel 18:4

"I will judge every one according to his ways." Ezekiel 18:30

According to these verses God does not punish people for the mistake of someone else.

Neither Jesus Nor His Apostles Ever Spoke Of Being Born A Sinner

Neither Jesus nor his Apostles ever spoke of being born a sinner. They spoke of the agency of the devil to tempt and deceive and ruin men in sin. They knew that all sin came from freely and willfully giving in to temptation, and that the devil was the enemy of God who seeks to deceive and destroy man who is the special creation of God:"The thief cometh not but to steal and to kill, and to destroy, I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly." John 10:10

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth." John 8:44

"And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movest me against him, to destroy him without cause." Job 2:3

"Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour." I Peter 5:8

"Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places…taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked." Ephesians 6:11-12, 16

"The tares are the children of the wicked one; the enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world. The son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 13:38-42


Inherited sin is against the nature of God and Justice, and is a false teaching of the Christian Church.

I await my opponents response.


Reference:
1. http://www.beyondintractability.org...



Wandile

Con

I thank my opponent for his efforts to prove his case. As you (the reader) will see, It will become evident that he has not done his homework on this topic. Let us investigate :

1- What is the doctrine of Original sin ( Inherited sin) ?

My opponent puts forward this extremely incorrect definition of the doctrine :

"The doctrine teaches that we are all condemned to the most painful punishment ( burning in hell ) for something that we did not even do! Even children are guilty of a crime that they did not commit."

This is completely false. The doctrine of original/inherited sin is nothing like this at all.
This definition begs me to question if my opponent did any research on the topic at hand.

This is the correct definition of the doctrine of Original sin ( Inherited sin) as taught by the church :

Original sin may be taken to mean the sin that Adam committed, a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we a born with on account of our origin or descent from Adam. Original sin is the general condition of sinfulness, that is ( the absence of holiness and perfect charity ) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. Human beings do not bear any "original guilt" (condemnation) from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. Human beings bear no guilt/condemnation for the sin of Adam. ( www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)

It is vividly clear that my opponent has fatally misunderstood the doctrine of Original sin. His incorrect definition of the doctrine and the correct definition (as taught by the church) are completely contradictory. Consequently what my opponent perceives to be the doctrine of original sin is ,in fact, NOT the doctrine of original sin. As a result I will not address his arguments on the injustice of original sin because his arguments are focused on a doctrine that simply does not exist!

2- "Inherited sin is unbiblical"

Well...this is true for my opponents false understanding of the doctrine. However this is not true for the actual doctrine of original sin as taught by the church.

As is stated within the definition of the doctrine, the doctrine explicitly teaches that all human beings bear no guilt/condemnation of the sin of Adam. No human is condemned ( to hell ) for the sin of Adam, our father. A man bears the guilt of no one's sin but that of his own. Although original sin is hereditary, man is exclusively guilty of only his own sin.

The evidence of this is in the scriptures , ironically , that my opponent quoted :

The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. (Ezekiel 18:20)

Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin. (Deuteronomy 24:16)

Far be it from you to do such a thing- to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the judge of all earth do right? (Genesis 18:25)

And the various other scriptures that my opponent mentioned.

3- "Neither Jesus nor His apostles even spoke of being born a sinner."

My opponent states :

"Neither Jesus nor His apostles ever spoke of being born a sinner. They spoke of the agency of the devil to tempt and deceive and ruin men in sin. They knew all sin came freely and willfully giving into temptation, and that the devil was the enemy of God who seeks to deceive and destroy man who is the special creation of God."

This is true. My opponent however puts forward a whole argument and series of scriptural passages to argue against a doctrine (his definition of the doctrine of original sin) that does not exist.

The doctrine of original sin teaches that which my opponent was stating. Man is NOT born with sin. The doctrine stipulates that man is born with a sinful nature (in a condition of sinfulness) , however man is born sinless. Hence man is sinless at birth but through his sinful nature (inherited from Adam) , he will be prone to sin at least once in his life. We are as a result slaves to sin. It is in our nature. This is evident as no man is sinless. Only Jesus was sinless, who was the Son of God and did not bear the sin of Adam.

I will touch on Jesus more in the proceeding round.

As a result I still hold my position that the doctrine of Inherited sin ( original sin ) as taught by the church is true.

REFERENCES :

*www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin

*www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm
Debate Round No. 2
Rasheed

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for his efforts.

My opponent states that I do not understand the doctrine of Original Sin and uses wikipedia as a source, which is laughable. I stated that Original Sin" ...teaches that we are all condemned to the most painful punishment ( burning in hell ) for something that we did not even do! Even children are guilty of a crime that they did not commit."

Let us see if the Church Fathers agree with my understanding of this doctrine;

ST. IRENAEUS (c. 180 AD)
"....having become disobedient, [Eve] was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race....Thus, the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. ...But this man [of whom I have been speaking] is Adam, if truth be told, the first-formed man....WE, however, are all FROM him; and as WE are FROM him, WE have INHERITED his title [of sin]. ...Indeed, THROUGH the first Adam, WE offended God by not observing His command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death. For we were debtors to none other except to Him, whose commandment WE transgressed at the beginning." (Against Heresies 3:22:4; 3:23:2; 5:16:3) (
http://forums.canadiancontent.net...)

Now contrast this definition with the one from wikipedia, that my opponent supplies, and ask yourself which one is more of an authority on Original Sin;

"Original sin may be taken to mean the sin that Adam committed, a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we a born with on account of our origin or descent from Adam. Original sin is the general condition of sinfulness, that is ( the absence of holiness and perfect charity ) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. Human beings do not bear any "original guilt" (condemnation) from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. Human beings bear no guilt/condemnation for the sin of Adam. ( www.en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin)"

I have supplied more early Church Fathers writings about Original Sin for the reader to examine;

TERTULLIAN (c. 200 AD)
"Finally, in every instance of vexation, contempt, and abhorrence, you pronounce the name of Satan. He it is whom we call the angel of wickedness, the author of every error, the corrupter of the whole world, through whom MAN was deceived in the very beginning so that he transgressed the command of God. On ACCOUNT of his transgression MAN was given over to death; and the WHOLE HUMAN RACE, which was INFECTED by his SEED, was made the TRANSMITTER of condemnation. (The Testmiony of the Soul 3:2, c. 200 AD)"

ORIGEN (c. 244 AD)
"EVERY SOUL that is BORN into flesh is SOILED by the filth of wickedness and SIN....And if it should seem necessary to do so, there may be added to the aforementioned considerations [referring to previous Scriptures cited that we all sin] the fact that in the Church, Baptism is given FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS; and according to the usage of the Church, Baptism is given EVEN TO INFANTS. And indeed if there were nothing in infants which REQUIRED a remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of Baptism would seem SUPERFLUOUS. (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3)
The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism EVEN TO INFANTS. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the INNATE STAINS OF SIN, which must be WASHED AWAY through water and the Spirit [cf. John 3:5; Acts 2:38]. (Commentaries on Romans 5:9)"

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (c. 250 AD)
"If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the REMISSION OF THEIR SINS is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an INFANT not be held back, who, having but recently been BORN, has done no sin [committed no personal sin], EXCEPT THAT, BORN OF THE FLESH ACCORDING TO ADAM, HE HAS CONTRACTED THE CONTAGION OF THAT OLD DEATH FROM HIS FIRST BEING BORN. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the REMISSION OF SINS: because the SINS FORGIVEN HIM are NOT his OWN but THOSE OF ANOTHER [i.e. inherited from Adam]. (Letters 64:5 of Cyprian and his 66 colleagues in Council to Fidus)"
http://forums.canadiancontent.net...)

It seems that my esteemed opponent does not know the tenents of his own faith, as the Catholic catechism is very clear on the matter;

"Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds [see n.464]."

"The souls of those who die in mortal sin, or with original sin only [e.g. infants], however, immediately descend to hell, yet to be punished with different punishments." (Council of Lyons II, Denzinger #464) [Note: Infants who die in the state of Original Sin only (that is, unbaptized infants), are traditionally believed to descend to the "upper regions of hell" where - although not suffering physical torments and are in a state of 'natural happiness' - are pained by being deprived by the loss of the Beatific Vision. Never has the Church recognized another means of salvation for such infants besides Baptism.]"

"It (the Roman Church) teaches...that the souls...of those who die in mortal sin, or with only original sin [e.g. infants] descend immediately into hell; however, to be punished with different penalties and in different places." (Pope John XXII, Denzinger #493a). http://www.mycatholicsource.com...

So I repeat my contention that Original Sin stands against the law of Justice and God, and I would invite my opponent to become better equiped with the knowledge of the faith that he professes.

I await his response.
Wandile

Con

I thank my honorable opponent for his well constructed rebuttal. Although his arguments are based on misunderstandings (due to me not explaining my position properly) as well as they contain some errors.

1- Original sin definition

The definition I had supplied was indeed form Wikipedia however, Wikipedia attained the definition(word for word) from two credible sources. The first section of the definition is form the Catholic encyclopedia. The second is from Orthodoxwiki (written by the Orthodox themselves). I ,as you already know, do not profess a belief in the orthodox definition and hence I used it in the light of Roman catholicism.

So what did I mean when I said "Humans bear no guilt"? Remember I am using this sentence not in the orthodox, but in the light of Roman catholicism. "Humans bear no guilt" simply means man is not guilty of actually COMMITTING the sin (eating the apple form the tree). This is obvious as only Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

So what did the Catholic Church mean when it stated that :

"The guilt of Adam's sin is transmitted to all of his posterity- each of us is conceived with the guilt of Adam as one's own.

Each of us is justly punished in body and soul for Adam's sin, the guilt of which we have as our own

Each of us is due eternal punishment for that sin in the fires of hell- we bear guilt of Adam's actual sin which, given the state of Adam, merits such sufferings."
(www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/original-sin-pelagianism.htm)

What first needs to be determined is what of Adam's sin is man guilty of. Man is guilty of having a sinful nature. Now one would argue that having a sinful nature is not the original sin which is inherited, but only a ramification of the sin. This position is false as the sinful nature is so synchronized with the actual committed sin that it is impossible to separate the original sin from the sinful nature. Hence even the Roman Catholic Church, like the Orthodox Church teaches , as in the definition, that "original sin is the general condition of sinfulness (sinful nature)". As a result the inherited sinful nature is as much the original sin as the actual committed sin. The sinful nature is thus the very stain on man's soul at birth causing imperfection and a natural state of rebellion against God.

So what was truly meant by the Church in the question initially posed was :

" The guilt of Adam's sin is transmitted (through the inheritance of the sinful nature) to all of his posterity- each of us is conceived with the guilt of Adam (through the inheritance of the sinful nature) as our own.

Each of us is justly punished in body and soul for Adam's sin ( through inheritance of the sinful nature), the guilt of which we have as our own.

Each of us is due eternal punishment for that sin (through our inherited sinful nature) in the fires of hell- we bear guilt of Adam's actual sin ( through our inherited sinful nature) which, given the state of adam, merits such sufferings."

This theology is deeply rooted in and supported by Romans 5:12 which reads, "by one man sin entered the world in whom all have sinned".

2- Quotations of the Church fathers

My opponent quotes the early Church fathers to discredit the definition I supplied and my arguments.( I already explained the definition I supplied and the Catholic understanding of original sin above)

My honorable opponent first attempts use St Irenaeus against my arguments. He quotes "... and we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]... Indeed, through the first Adam, we offended God by not observing His command"

What was God's command?

His command was , " you must not eat from the tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil or most assuredly you will die!"(Genesis 2:17). God said this because to eat from the tree would be to sin against God because death will be brought into the world. Eating from the tree was sin not only because it was in disobedience of God's command, but also because it brought death , the complete opposite of God who is life, into the world. So in simple terms God's command was essentially "Do not sin against me!". Truly through Adam whom which we inherited the original sin (sinful nature), at birth man is a sinner which is an offense against the command of God. Thus through Adam, man offended God by not observing His command, by being in nature sinners from birth.

In effect original sin has made man rebellious/sinners against God from birth. Through original sin (sinful nature) man is enslaved to sin. Only by Christ Jesus, through baptism for the remission of sins in the name of the Holy Trinity (Mathew 28:19) can man's sinful nature (enslavement to sin) be atoned for. Only through Christ via baptism can man be freed from sin (Romans 6:18)

Consequently if the theology I have provided in this round is applied when reading the quotations of the early church fathers ( Irenaeus, Turtullian, Origen etc ), it will become blatantly evident that the church fathers and I are in complete agreement. Simply because of the fact that the church fathers and I all stem from the same theological institution. Hence I strongly advise my opponent to retire this weak argument (the church fathers...) Simply because you cannot try to use Roman Catholic theologians to refute Roman Catholic theology.

3- Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)

Denzinger #464

" The souls of those who die in mortal sin or original sin only (infants), descend immediately into hell but undergo punishments of different kinds"

My opponent correctly asserts that " infants who die in the state of original sin only (that is unbaptized babies), are traditionally believed to descend to the "upper regions of hell" where - although not suffering physical torments and are in a state of natural happiness - are pained by being deprived by the loss of the Beatific Vision".

This "upper region of hell" is known as Limbo. Limbo or limbus (latin) means edge or on the edge of hell. The Limbo referred to in Denzinger #464 and my opponents quotation is actually 'limbus infantium' (limbo of infants) .

Now limbus patrum (limbo of the patriarchs) is supported by scripture as the gospels make reference to it by calling it Abraham's bosom in Luke 16:22 as well as 'paradise' in Luke 23:43. However limbus infantium is unbiblical hence it is not biblical doctrine but rather it is purely theological doctrine. Thus such a doctrine is in a place of uncertainty and open for revision and change. Such doctrines have been taught by the Church as convincing hypothesis'.

Let us examine the history of Denzinger #464 in respect to those who die in "original sin only" (unbaptized infants) as well as the "upper regions of heel" (limbus infantium). Note : these two topics are not dealt with in the bible.

Denzinger #464 is based on the theology of two people; St Augustine of Lippo and St Thomas Aquinas :

St Augustine (354AD - 430AD)

St Augustine taught the concept of limbo (limbus infantium) but with a harder edge. He held that unbaptized infants suffer some pain of sense. The Agustinian view held sway for centuries but was eventually revised and overcome by St Thomas Aquinas (1225AD-1274AD), who argued along the lines of St Gregory Nazianzus, that " the souls in limbo do not suffer pain, and have, in fact, full natural happiness" but without the Beatific Vision.

St Thomas' reasonable teaching was prevalent to the present day. Hence at the Council of Florence ( 1438-1445) Denzinger #464 was established on the principles of limbo.

Though today limbo has been practically abolished and Denzinger #464 is practically useless today as Pope Benedict XVI had this to say on limbo (limbus infantium more specifically) :

"Limbo was never a defined truth of faith. Personally- and here I am speaking more as a theologian and not as a prefect of the congregation- I would abandon it, since it was only a theological hypothesis."

" It formed part of a secondary thesis in support of a truth which is absolutely of first significance for faith, namely, the importance of baptism."

Father Kelly said :
" The existence of original grace does not justify resignation, but does justify hope beyond hope that those who die without having had the opportunity to be baptized will be saved."

Hence as a result , today the Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say on the issue of those that die without being baptized.

CCC 1257 :
The Lord Himself affirms that baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands His disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit". God has bound salvation to the sacrament of baptism, but He Himself is not bound by His sacrament.

CCC 1261 :
As regards to children without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, caused Him to say : " let the children come to me, do not hinder them" allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church's call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of Holy Baptism.

Evidently very tiny infants not yet capable of desiring heaven or baptism are entrusted by the Church to the divine mercy of God. God recognizes that they do not have the capacity to desire Him, and does not condemn them for this. For those little ones who die unbaptized, we are reminded that God created sacraments for the sake of men,but God is not subject to the whims of men who deny the sacraments to the innocent either out of malice or ignorance. This is completely consistent with God's ruling in the book of Deuteronomy :

Deut 24:16 " The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for the fathers; every man shall be put to death for his own sin."

Remarkably ,however, very small children are capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong, that God is good, and thus desire to be with God. For little children such as these, a baptism of desire (as in CCC 1258 and CCC 1259) could be advanced. The church has now evidently removed the idea of Limbo (limbus infantium/ hell with different or no punishments) and believes in the salvation of unbaptized infants entrusted in the mercy of God

In conclusion my opponent still has not provided any arguments as to WHY or HOW inherited sin is false. He has only displayed his disagreement with the doctrine and argued with me about definitions. All I have to do is prove that it is taught in the bible and thus it is true (since the bible is the focal authoritative source on the truth of original sin) which I have begun to do but will fully expand next round.

As a result Inherited sin is true and just.

I look forward to my opponents final arguments.
Debate Round No. 3
Rasheed

Pro

I thank my opponent for his rebuttal.

In my opponents intial argument he said that I did not understand the definition of Original Sin and he used wikipedia as his source. He then agreed with me that the Bible does not teach Original Sin as I explained it. I responded with the Church Fathers and Catholic Churches definition of Original Sin and repeated my first argument that infants being punished for a crime they did not commit is unjust. My opponent has not provided any compelling argument that my statements are false.

I here provide another quote from the Catholic teaching about Original Sin;

Council of Trent 1545-1563: "Adam's first sin has been transmitted to all his descendants". Questions of Catholics Answered by W. Hebst: "Yes, every child born into this world has the guilt of original sin upon his soul. Original sin is the sin that we inherit from our first parents. Original sin excludes us from heaven unless forgiven. It is forgiven only by baptism, hence when an unbaptized baby dies, it can not enter the kingdom of God." (http://www.bible.ca...)

Notice that my honorable opponent does not provide any Catholic source that is contrary to the definition of Original Sin that I have put forth, he merely quotes scripture that advances my argument, further proving my contentions to be factual.

In conclusion I say again that the concept that all mankind is punished because of the actions of two people is unjust and is unbiblical. There is no need for a so called perfect man to die for the sins of the world because all men are responsible for their own sins. Original Sin is a false teaching.
Wandile

Con

I thank my opponent for participating in this debate and I am honored to have debated with him. I again thank him for his final argument but as you will see, he again makes some mistakes.

1- My opponent still claims the theological correctness of his definition of original sin.

His definition was :

"The doctrine teaches that we are all condemned to the most painful punishment (burning in Hell) for something we did not do! Even children are guilty of a crime that they did not commit"

The problem with this definition is that it is so plagued by logical fallacy, so much so as to be comic. It is almost inexplicable as to how my opponent could present such an illogical and self-contradictory definition.

The definition is solely based upon the idea that man is guilty of a crime that he did not commit. To be guilty of this particular crime would mean man ,in essence, committed the crime itself (eating from the Tree of knowledge of Good and Evil). The problem lies at one point - Claiming man is guilty of this crime would be false because only Adam and Eve ate from the tree. So for my opponent to state that the Church teaches that man is guilty of this crime/sin is to say that all men have eaten from the tree! This would be a lie and the Church knows this. The Church knows that to teach that man is guilty of a sin that he did not commit would in essence, be saying :

"Man committed a committed sin that he did not commit."

Can you see the blatant contradiction?! This whole definition is solely based upon this very contradiction. The Church does NOT teach such absurdity!

In the preceding round I explained (through Roman Catholic theology) that man is NOT guilty of the COMMITTED sin but, rather the other aspect of the original sin which was the loss of sanctifying grace (inheritance of the sinful nature). NOTE - Read the previous round with the Catholic theological explanation of the doctrine for better understanding of this.
(www.avantnews.com/news/587165-limbo-eliminated-status-of-purgatory-in-state-of-limbo
)

So yes my opponents version of original sin is truly unjust but, the version as taught by the Church (the definitions I provided in rounds 2 and 3) is just. The justice can be seen in the explanation of the doctrine I provided in the previous round. Hence I shall not go any further with this topic as it has already been dealt with.

2- Council of Trent (1545-1563)

My opponent quotes the findings of this council in an attempt to discredit my arguments. This is a very weak argument. the problem with quoting this particular council is that the position that the Church held concerning the fate of dead unbaptized infants has been abrogated. The Church NO LONGER holds the position held at the Council of Trent. Rather it now believes that since God is not bound to his sacraments (which were made for men) which includes baptism, He will use his infinite power and mercy to cleanse the original sin of the unbaptized infants. I already showed that this position is now present in TODAY'S Catechism of the Catholic Church (more specifically CCC 1257,1258,1259 and 1261)

3- Debate topic : "Inherited sin as taught by the Church is false"

I want the reader to notice that my opponent has spent all three rebuttal rounds arguing about the definition of original sin and he displays his disagreement of the doctrine ( this argument from opinion ). However not ONCE does he EVER attempt to prove HOW the doctrine is false. My opponent merely makes opinionated claims that the doctrine is false at the end of each of his rebuttal. He never attempts to prove how it is false, he only shows why he BELIVES it is false.

The plain truth is that the bible is the focal authoritative source of this debate on christian doctrine. Consequently the only way to prove the doctrine false or true would be to show that the bible either teaches or does not teach original sin.

The sad truth for my opponent is that the doctrine of original sin if firmly rooted in the bible and here is the evidence :

"For just as through the disobedience of ONE man the MANY were made sinners" (Romans 5:19)

"Surely I was sinful AT BIRTH, sinful from the time my mother CONCEIVED me." (Psalm 51:5)

"The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil FROM CHILDHOOD." (Genesis 8:21)

" All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the carvings of our SINFUL NATURE and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were BY NATURE objects of wrath." (Ephesians 2:3)

"Therefore, just as sin entered the world through ONE MAN, and death through sin, an in this way death came to ALL MEN, because ALL sinned - for before the law was given, sin was in the world." (Romans 5:12)

It is blatantly evident that the bible teaches original sin. Thus, original sin is true. The argument rests at this final point.

I once again thanks my opponent for inviting me to debate him and I am deeply honored. I hope to debate him again in the future.

PLEASE VOTE CON! PLEASE VOTE CON! PLEASE VOTE CON!

References :

*www.tanbooks.com/doct/convert_catechism.htm

*www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

*www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

*www.catholicplanet.com/

*www.essentialchristianity.com/pages.asp?pageid=31701

*www.religioustolerance.org/limbo2.htm
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
Pro showed punishment for another's sin is unjust and unbiblical.

So Con agreed, and said the Church doesn't teach that it happens.

Pro proved that such teaching does happen.

So Con reversed himself, saying it happens and it is good and is not unfair or unbiblical. But Pro's first second post had already refuted that.

At best, Con has shown that _some_ Christians don't believe in original sin as portrayed by Pro.

Pro's never claimed, though, that _all_ Christians teach the false version of original sin. And Con never defended that any part of the Church other than Catholicism has reformed from the false teaching.

Pro doesn't claim that all Christians are confused, so his claim can be phrased this way: To the extent (a nonzero extent) that the Church teaches that we are punished for someone else's sin, it is wrong and unbiblical.

Con stipulated that that belief is wrong and unbiblical. He never showed that the Church doesn't teach it.
Posted by Invictus5 5 years ago
Invictus5
It seems that con had the much more difficult position to defend yet, in my opinion, he won. All the pro had to do was prove that if a person was born, did not commit any blatant good or evil acts, just ate, slept and died, said person would not go to heaven. There are apparent flaws, but the question becomes: does "not good" equate to evil?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by wiploc 5 years ago
wiploc
RasheedWandileTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 5 years ago
Buckethead31594
RasheedWandileTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 demonstrated a lack of knowledge regarding the doctrine of sin. Con succesfully rebuked Pro's arguments. Con had better conduct than Pro; it seemed that Pro tried to "raise his voice" to make his arguments hold more water.
Vote Placed by logicrules 5 years ago
logicrules
RasheedWandileTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed miserably to prove the actual Doctrine false. He established that his understanding of the doctrine was false, but not the actual teaching.