Inherited Sin as taught by the Christian Church is False

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.