Instigator / Pro
21
1500
rating
8
debates
56.25%
won
Topic
#4748
According to Christianity, unbaptized Infants going to Hell is possible
Status
Finished
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
Winner & statistics
Better arguments
9
0
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
1
After 3 votes and with 11 points ahead, the winner is...
Pevensie
Tags
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Contender / Con
10
1472
rating
32
debates
48.44%
won
Description
No information
Round 1
Pro
#1
Definitions:
Christianity is defined as a "major religion stemming from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ, or the Anointed One of God)"[1]
Possible is defined as "being what may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature, custom, or manners"[2]
The Catholic Church
The Catholic Church has more members that all other Christian denominations combined.[3] Therefore, its theological claims should be taken seriously.
According to the Catholic Church:
It is clear that the traditional teaching on this topic has concentrated on the theory of limbo, understood as a state which includes the souls of infants who die subject to original sin and without baptism, and who, therefore, neither merit the beatific vision, nor yet are subjected to any punishment, because they are not guilty of any personal sin...It remains therefore a possible theological hypothesis.[4]
Limbo refers to the limit or edge of Hell.[5] It is part of Hell, although it lacks some of the unpleasant qualities, such as pain infliction. Limbo, like all of Hell, institutes complete separation from the beatific vision. Since the Church that represents the majority of Christians has stated that my opposition is "a possible theological hypothesis" I believe my position has been established as correct.
St. Augustine
Augustine of Hippo, a Doctor of the Church, has argued that "infants who die without Baptism are consigned to hell."[6] St. Augustine does not only affirm that my position is possible, he does further and states that it is certain.
Ecumenical Councils
In 1442, the Ecumenical Council of Florence stated:
With regard to children, since the danger of death is often present and the only remedy available to them is the sacrament of baptism by which they are snatched away from the dominion of the devil and adopted as children of God...[7]
This seems to agree with the position of St. Augustine and, therefore, my position that it is merely possible has been strengthened.
Additionally, the Ecumenical Council of Trent, which lasted from 1545 to 1563, states that beyond baptism there is no means of salvation for infants.[8]
Conclusion:
As Pro, I merely have to prove that unbaptized infants going to Hell is possible. Of course, there are other possible theories presented by the Catholic Church and other Christians churches as well. Their existence and possibility does not threaten the fact that my position is, at least, possible.
Con
#2
Firstly, I would like to thank my opponent for creating this debate.
So, first off, I do have a problem, and I am also a bit confused about how and why you defined Christianity.
You have to first understand that there are denominations in Christianity.
Opponent:
Now, I don't disagree with the definition, but the basis of your argument on top of this definition is quite confusing to me.
Catholicism is not a part of Christianity perse.
Catholics worship Mary, which breaks them off of Christianity, since Christianity claims that we must only worship one God.
So, you are basing your argument off of Catholic theology, not Christian theology.
Therefore, your statement/claim is proven to be false.
Round 2
Pro
#3
First, I am very excited that my opponent suggests that if Catholicism is a Christian denomination, then he agrees with my stated position. There are many denominations within Christianity and they all disagree to some extant on theology. Do not doubt that some Christians would claim that Catholicism is not a ligament denomination, although they are biased. My opponent states that Catholicism is not a Christian denomination because Catholics worship Mary. According to DynamicCatholic.com:
Catholics don’t worship Mary. We pray to Mary, but not in the same way we pray to God—and not to worship her as a god.[1]
Therefore, my opponent's argument concerning Mary is not valid.
As I previously stated:
Christianity is defined as a "major religion stemming from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ, or the Anointed One of God)
My opponent is okey with the definition:
Now, I don't disagree with the definition,
The Catholic Church believes the four Gospels, which contains "the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of Nazareth," to be divinely inspired.[2] The Pope claims to be the Vicar of Jesus Christ.[3] Therefore, Catholicism is a form of Christianity according to the definition provided.
My opponent states:
Christianity claims that we must only worship one God.
This statement is very vague and I do not know what my opponent is arguing. I think he is arguing that Christianity is monotheistic. Catholicism is monotheistic.[4] Therefore, Catholicism only worships one God.
Therefore, Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity and its theology is possible.
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
FF, 2/3 rounds
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
haha ff go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Bop was mostly on con, as he had to prove that unbaptized infants going to hell is impossible, whereas pro just had to prove that it could be possible. Pro gave arguments for his stance, but con gave none and ended up agreeing with pro after trying to argue about an unrelated subject. Con also forfeited.
Got busy.
My apologies.
I think evangelicals would generally disagree with this idea.
'Nothing's' impossible with Christianity and without it being comfirmed, of course it is possible.