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

Is The Augustinan-Calvinistic doctrine of "original sin" a false doctrine?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/2/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,553 times Debate No: 21655
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Wow, this is certainly an interesting topic, you gave a lot of material for me to discuss. Thankfully I agree with most of it. Your (or rather you reference's) definition of sin and its consequences are absolutely right. I also agree that Christ is the only One by whom we can be freed from our bondage to sin.

The one thing we disagree upon is whether humans are sinful from birth.

To start I will spend a bit of time on each of the articles you gave since these seem to be you opening argument.

Concerning the first and second articles you cited, I agree that there are some parts of the Bible which are used metaphorically. These passages are irrelevant to the debate because they are discussing humans being sinful

I completely agree with the third article concerning the biblical position on sin, it's origin and it's effects.

We are also agreed concerning the fourth article. Jesus Christ was the only Being, having the sin nature who lived a sinless life (cf. Isaiah 53:9; 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 John 3:5, Heb 7:26). Everyone else has sinned (Romans 3:10-11, 23; 5:12 et al.)

I fail to see the pertinence of the fifth article to the issue at hand. Obviously Christ did not sin. The bible clearly states that He was innocent of sin from birth onwards.

However I do think you might be interested to read MacArthur's commentary on the Romans 6: (since you posted 5 links to start the debate I don't feel too bad quoting someone else here):

"An extremely important truth in verse 10 should be emphasized. The first is that Christ died to sin. Having lived a perfectly sinless life during His incarnation, Christ obviously never had the same relationship to sin that every other human being has. He not only was never mastered by sin but never committed a sin of the least sort. How then, we wonder, could He have died to sin? Yet it is clear from this verse that in whatever way Christ died to sin, believers also have died to sin.
Some suggest that believers have died to sin in the sense of no longer being sensitive to the allurements of sin. But that view is not borne out by Christian experience, and it obviously could not apply to Christ, who was never, in the first place, sensitive to sin's allurements. Others suggest that Paul is teaching that believers ought to die to sin. But again, such an interpretation could not apply to Christ. Nor could it mean that Christ died to sin by becoming perfect, because He was always perfect.
It seems that Paul means two things in declaring that Christ died to sin. First, He died to the penalty of sin by taking upon Himself the sins of the whole world. He met sin's legal demand for all mankind who would trust in Him. By their faith in Him, empowered by His divine and limitless grace, believers have forensically died to sin. Second, Christ died to the power of sin, forever breaking its power over those who belong to God through their faith in His Son. Paul assured even the immature and sin-prone believers in Corinth that God "made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21)."

Refutation of article 1 principle 1:
This refers to receiving the penalty of sin from our parents: In other words, if your dad murdered somebody you shouldn't have to go to jail for it.

Refutation of article 1 principle 2: I am somewhat surprised that having demonstrated that being sinful "from the womb" is metaphorical that here he tries to show that similar verses say that sin starts at youth. Why aren't these verses metaphorical too? Does youth mean 2-18? In fact it is worth noting that the hebrew word "youth" used in both the texts he cites is the same word for youth used in Job 31:18 (But from my youth I reared him as a father, And from my mother's womb I guided the widow). Needless to say, both uses are metaphorical.

The argument concerning the age of accountability (article 1 principle #3) does not concern when a person becomes a sinner rather it is about giving people a chance to accept Christ. For example if a one year old baby dies, it dies a sinner, but God out of his mercy considers him to be covered by Christ's death because he did not have the opportunity to make a decision for himself.

Refutation of article 1, principle 4: God commands Christians to be like little children in their faith not in every aspect! Consider 1Corinthians 14:20 "Brethren, do not be children in understanding; however, in malice be babes, but in understanding be mature." Also 1Peter 2:2 "as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby," (here Peter mentions another way in which it is desirable to become as a baby).

Refutation of article 1 principle 5: We do receive our spirit from God but it is corrupted by sin nature. Please provide more defense of your point here.

Concerning my position on original sin I will make several arguments:

In Christian theology, original sin refers both to the sin of Adam and Eve by which humankind fell from divine grace and to the state of sin into which humans since the fall have been born. Biblically original sin refers to the fact that all humans are bent (predisposed) towards sin. We are all sinners (by our very nature) from birth.

Further the bible teaches that death is the result sin (Rom. 5:12, 6:23) If babies are born sinless why can they die before they are even born?

Finally if people are born sinless why hasn't anybody just overcome their nature and never sinned?
Debate Round No. 1


fishing_007 forfeited this round.


It looks my opponent's account has been closed so he will not be able to participate in the debate. If someone else wants to debate this with me I would be glad to take them on. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 2


fishing_007 forfeited this round.


Arguments extended, vote Con!
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by SuburbiaSurvivor 6 years ago
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF