On Man’s Capacity of Righteousness: The Pelagian vs Augustine Debate

INTRODUCTION
Good Day everyone and for those who are watching. Today we will have a debate concerning
one of the most controversial topics in the history of the Catholic Church concerning Man’s
Capacity of Righteousness. We have 2 teams composed of two members each. One team from the
Augustinian side and one team from the Pelagian side. One member, the leader will open the
debate by first introducing their side and his member together with his arguments for 7 mins.
The second group will follow and will do the same thing. Then his members will proceed on their
further arguments with 7 mins each. The second round will be the rebuttal where each member
from both teams will have their speech defending their arguments against the opposite team.
Each representative will have 5 mins. The last part will be the q and a where the chosen
members will have the opportunity to ask questions to be answered by the opposite team. They
will have 5 mins to do that.
Some rules, there will be a bell which will signal the start of the debate. It will be also the signal
that the speech is done or will be exceeding the time given to them. Microphones are also to be
muted if it is not your turn to speak. That’s all and good luck to everybody.

Augustine Side: Bro. Russel Gumobal, ESHT

On Man’s Capacity for Righteousness:
Augustine’s Position: Man cannot not sin

In the beginning, God created man in His image and in His likeness thus, man’s origin is
from absolute good. Due to the disobedience of Adam and Eve on the commandment of God—
humanity is lost from His grace and we inherited original sin also. In this fall, man lost the grace
of God and gave sin its place in humanity. Further, in the fall, man is banished from paradise and
wandered throughout the world struggling to survive. The man has struggled to survive as their
daily life. And due to the fall, the man is subject to corruption and death.
In this regard, man’s state in Augustine’s understanding in relation to sin are classified
into (1) able to sin, able not to sin (posse peccare, posse non peccare); (2) not able not to sin
(non posse non peccare). The first state corresponds to the state of man in innocence—before the
fall; the second corresponds, to the natural state of man—after the fall. Hence, in the second
state, the man now in his fallen nature is not capable of not committing sin. The man now is
subject to corruption and death due to their fallen nature.
As we can see in his book, The Confessions, Augustine showed sin as an irresistible
desire or an urge in man’s daily life. Even the baby themselves commit sin without knowing
what is wrong or right at their tender age. For this instance, the baby commits a sin for crying
greedily for the breasts of a mother. The baby commits a sin for being selfish in that manner, as
he/she greedily cry and long for that breasts that satisfy his/her necessity.
 Even Augustine himself struggling in committing sin again and again throughout his
whole life. One particular example of Augustine’s sin is when he and his friends stole the pear
fruits of their neighbor. There was a pear-tree close to our vineyard, heavily laden with fruit,
which was tempting neither for its color nor its flavor. To shake and rob this some of us wanton
young fellows went, late one night (having, according to our disgraceful habit, prolonged our
games in the streets until then), and carried away great loads, not to eat ourselves, but to fling to
the very swine, having only eaten some of them; and to do this pleased us all the more because it
was not permitted. (Confessions2,4,9). In this experience of him, Augustine sees sin as an
overwhelming desire within us that leads us to act immorally in our life. It is an overwhelming
desire that moves us to commit immoral actions in the midst of temptations and dire situations.
Lastly, his famous quote “Lord make me chaste—but not yet” showed that man cannot restrain
to commit sin. And even in his old age, Augustine struggled to control his lust for the flesh or
women.
Our position in this debate is about Augustine’s claimed that ‘man cannot not sin’ in
relation ‘on man’s capacity for righteousness. After the fall, man’s nature is distorted: their free
will and their decision as they lived their life as wanderers of this so-called earth. Man commits
the sin again and again as part of their struggles and punishment from their disobedience.
Moreover, with the distortion of their free will man’s action now are subject to commit sin. The
fallen man’s will is free from pressure, yes, but not free from necessity (man commit sin from
necessity due to the corruption of their nature).

Pelagian Side: Fray Harvey Kent Solatorio, OSA

(Introduction of Members)
Good morning everyone. First of all, I am going to introduce our side. I am Harvey Kent
Solatorio. I am one of the many scholars on morality who are seeking to revive the doctrines of
Pelagius. My colleague is James Esplanada. He is also a scholar from the University of St.
Ezekiel Moreno. We want to establish the doctrines of Pelagius once again. We believe that the
doctrines of Pelagius are becoming more and more relevant today. We are faced with many ideas
of human nature. The Catholic belief, following St. Augustine and other earlier Fathers,
possesses a pessimistic view. We want to re-assert optimism regarding the view of the human
nature.
(First Statement)
Pelagius lived with a strict moral sense. He believed that humans were born into the
world with innate goodness, as we, as part of God’s creation, were created as good. And so, we
live good lives based on the choices that we make. The choices that we make are good, too. Our
contention, therefore, is that humans are capable of not sinning.
We believe that there are three features in every action: power, will and realization –
power belongs to God, while the other two were bestowed to us by God. We use our will in order
to realize the action. But the source of these faculties is God. He also sets for us moral standards
by which we align our wills. These aid us in realizing our possibility to live good lives.
Therefore, our actions are always geared towards the good, not only for us but for God, too. We
always have the choice to avoid going against God’s instructions, but we do not always fall to
that. We choose the good with utmost freedom.
We do not say, however, that we are equal to God in terms of goodness. We are bestowed
of the possibility of goodness. We are, after all, the image and likeness of God (Gen. 1:26).
When Adam sinned, he did not soil his being the image and likeness of God. His action was the
first concrete example of a sinful human action. He exercised his freedom to will and realize
what he wills. Sadly, many have followed his example. Those who followed in his example
slowly deteriorated the image of God inside them. God, in order to direct them back to him, gave
to them the Law, the moral standards by which humans are to direct their wills upon. Later on,
when others still continued to follow Adam’s example, God sent his own Son to set a new
example of goodness. However, I would distance myself from this. This would be a discussion
for another day.
We also believe that Adam’s sin was not inherited by the generations that followed him.
As I have said earlier, Adam’s defiance was just an example of a sinful action. Nothing more.
Believing that the sin of Adam was passed on to the next generation through the seed would be a
heresy. The soul is created immediately by God, and therefore, is good and devoid of any stain of
some generational sin. There is no congenital fault in man upon his birth. We also believe that
baptism does not give any cleansing of the soul. It only confirms that we have been adopted
children of God and heirs to the kingdom of Heaven.
Why should we possess such pessimistic views of human nature? We should start
realizing and appreciating the goodness that God implanted into us as His own image and
likeness. This ends my sharing of my opinions.

Augustine Side: Fray Mark Joseph Quirante, OAR

(Second Statement)
… with regards to the first argument..

“original sin,” for St Augustine, original sin is not limited to part of humanity but is
universal in its reach. Nor did original sin only affect part of man, but its poison has spread to
every aspect of man. No part of man’s nature has escaped. And that means man’s will, too, falls
under sin’s curse.

How could this be?...

Prior to the fall, man’s will was not in slavery to sin. It was capable of choosing that which was
good. Sin was merely a possibility.
Man, in his innocence, has no stain or influence of sin in every aspect of his being, even
in his “free will.” Man’s only will is free to sin.
We could see in the book of Genesis, chapter 2 verse 16 when God said that, man is free
to eat any of the trees of the garden except of the tree of knowledge of good and bad. But, on the
latter disobeyed, when his wife Eve gave him some of it to eat. Then, sin came and was not
merely a possibility anymore but actuality. It was the sin of disobedience and “the awareness of
good and bad,” from eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge, that made man’s will enslaved to
sin.
Thus, after the fall, man’s will changed. Polluted by sin, what was merely a possibility now
became a necessity.
Here, Augustine meant by “necessity” is the inevitability of man to commit sin. As what
Augustine said, man possess a captive free will (liberum arbitrium captivatum). Now, Augustine
come up to a solution that is, only by God’s grace that man possesses a liberated free will
(liberum arbitrium liberatum).

Moving on…
Now, our 2ND ARGUMENT would deal about the “necessity of grace.” Augustine claimed,
“needed, then, is a grace so powerful and effective that it can set free a will enslaved to sin.
Grace is necessary, and not just any grace but a grace that can set the enslaved will free:” a grace
that does not merely enlighten but regenerates, a grace that works within the depraved sinner to
bring about a new nature.
Augustine prove these statements citing the Gospel of John 6:45, “everyone who has
learned from the Father not only has the possibility of coming, but actually comes!” (On Rebuke
and Grace). The Father calls his elect to his Son and it is a call that is both particular and
efficacious. Anything short of gratia irresistibilis (irresistible grace) will fail to liberate the will
whose master is sin, the world, and the devil.
Thus, this biblical passage, prove Augustine’s statement about the necessity of grace, and
that, man cannot obey the will of God by reason and free will alone but with the help of His
grace man can do so.

Augustine Side: Fray James Esplanada, OAR

(Second Argument)
How can we inherit sin or rather this original sin? Maybe we could discuss that by
answering the question of where souls come from? If we say to inherit, according to Merriam
Webster, it is “to receive from an ancestor or in this case parent by genetic transmission”. Now
the affirmative side believes that we indeed inherit original sin way back from our first parents
written in Gen 3 in the account of creation, deception, and expulsion of Adam and Eve from the
garden of Eden. Does it mean that our souls came from them?
We have three good explanations to answer the question of the soul's origin. First, we
have Origen, a theologian. He states that souls pre-exist somewhere and then later fused in the
body after the parents produced the body and simply not the answer. In the creationists’ view,
they believe that during the time of conception God creates souls individually and gets fused
with the body. We also have the traducianists’ view where they believe that souls are transmitted
from parents to the child during the time of conception.
Now, Augustine supports the idea of Traducianism. It says there that both body and soul
were created at the same time and that gave birth to support the argument of the possibility of
original sin. It also includes the inheritance of the guilt that Adam felt. Meaning, if we analyze
this, we can say that this original sin binds in the soul and was passed to us. The soul is
indivisible. It cannot produce like itself.
Clearly, souls were created “immediately” by God. If original sin is true and is existing
which is in our souls and the One who created the soul is God, how can He possibly create
something which has evil in it? He cannot do that. If the soul is spiritual, it means to say that it is
indivisible because obviously, they are not like corporeal bodies which are capable of division. It
is indeed immaterial and cannot be transmitted through generation.
Another, if we say that souls are transmitted through generation, it would give a picture
of a God functioning only as a “manager of creation”. It is like God only created the souls of
Adam and Eve. He just let them procreate and then original sin was made possible. It will
contradict God’s sustainability in His creation and would oppose the teachings of the Church.
One of the supporters of creationism, is St. Ambrose, a very important character in
Augustine’s conversion. He do believe and supports Clement of Alexandria who laid the
foundation of the birth of creationism which coincides with the Church’s teaching that souls do
really came from God “immediately”. Ambrose would cite Genesis 2:22 which read:
22 
The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought
her to the man, 23 the man said:

“This one, at last, is bone of my bones

    and flesh of my flesh;
This one shall be called ‘woman,’
    for out of man this one has been taken.”

Again, “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” not “soul of my soul”. It is clear in the
Bible that this generation of souls is impossible and that Adam and Eve’s souls were created
separately and independently from each other. This creationism favors the idea of the Church on
the reality of the soul’s origin.
We are capable of choosing what is right and everybody agrees with that. That is made
possible by our won freewill. Adam chooses to sin and that choice did not affect our generation.
We do not will or choose to sin and why is it we are damned with the sin that our first parents
had made?
Rebuttal Round

Pelagian Side: Fray Harvey Kent Solatorio, OSA

Before all else, I commend you for your good arguments. I admit that they are strong and
sound. I see that both of you are focusing on the situation of Adam and Eve. You do agree that
before the fall, they had the capacity of not sinning. You also agree that man is originally good
because he was created as good by God.
However, I disagree with your statement regarding the change in man's will. How can
man's willing be changed immediately after committing the sin of disobedience. I cannot imagine
how quick it changed. I disagree because man's will will always be the same, as he was created
by God as a complete being. Such a sudden change would be unimaginable. Perhaps, you are
thinking that, as they were expelled from the paradise, they lost everything that was given by
God. No, they did not. God was with them all the way, providing them grace that would aid them
in their journey in the world. And this was manifested when God formally gave them the Law
and in sending the Prophets to remind them to always be choosing the good. Thus, they will
always tend to choose the good because of the Law and the Prophets.
I also would disagree on the usage of the image of a child who is greedy towards the
mother's milk. I think you got this from Augustine. I disagree with this because I believe that it is
but natural for us to be greedy towards the mother's milk. It is part of our survival instincts. We
need to get all the nourishment that we need in order to survive. That is why, as infants, we do
not want to share the nourishment to others in order for us to grow. To be honest, you are
overthinking the situation of the infant.
Also, with regards to the pear theft, you are doing the same. A teenage prank does not
have anything to do with sinning. It is natural for adolescents, who have just grown up from
childhood, to be playful. They are to be ruled out on the grounds that their moral sense is not as
mature as those of adults. Blaming them would be a kind of injustice to them. And why would
we be preoccupied with these little pranks, if there are greater crimes committed by adults that
we should focus on?
To end my speech, I would like to reiterate that sin is not passed on to another generation.
We believe, instead, that when we commit any wrongdoing, we are just following the example of
Adam. That is why we should always put in mind that before doing any action, let us think if our
action is in line with God's commandments, in order to avoid sin. We can always not sin. 

Augustine Side: Bro. Russel Gumobal, ESHT

To summarize your point of view, On Man’s Capacity for Righteousness based on
Pelagius’s claimed “man on his own is capable of not sinning.” A position that holds that the
original sin did not stain our nature as humans: the image and likeness of God are not distorted
after the fall it remains intact. And that humans with their free will, with their power, and by
their acts alone can achieve human perfection without God’s providence or His divine grace.
 Further, you mention in your argument that Adam’s sin was not inherited by the
generations that followed him. The sin of Adam and Eve is only for them, for their disobedience
to God’s command ‘to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge.’ As I understood it, our human
nature remained intact and unblemished. The original sin in this regard is not inherited in our
human nature after the fall. Hence, sin now is our free choice in regards to acting and
committing. Thus, the infants, in the sense, are born in this world without inheriting the original
sin.
With these claims of your group, following the position of Augustine, we assert that
human beings cannot attain their perfection by their own efforts and will. Rather human
perfections are totally dependent upon the grace of God. We maintain, humans due to their fallen
nature has no power to restore his perfection as God’s image and likeness. Man in this sense, are
powerless without the help of His divine providence or grace. As a mere creature of God, man is
powerless when it comes to infinite things or salvation in particular. For how can man by his
finite being achieve his infinite being or perfection without the grace of God. It seems impossible
for man this so-called human perfection by his own power or will.
Augustine claimed that everyone is born sinful, hence, original sin is in us the day we are
born. The original sin is the one inside us that moves us to commit evil and defy God’s will. Due
to this fallen nature of ours, we are inclined to commit the sin again and again—sin is inevitable
as our life here on earth is a concern. For original sin is not just a defect in our nature but also
our condemnation in lieu of the fall.
Thus, after the fall, man’s will changed and distorted. Polluted by sin, what was merely a
possibility now became a necessity. Here, Augustine meant by ‘necessity is the inevitability of
man to commit sin. As Augustine said, man possesses a captive free will. Now, Augustine comes
up with a solution that is, only by God’s grace that man obtain a liberated free will. For only the
grace of God can move man to not commit sin again. For by grace, you have been saved through
faith, which is a gift from God, so that no man can boast (Eph. 2:8-9).
Question and Answer Round

Pelagian Side: Fray James Esplanada, OAR

Answered by: Augustine Side: Fray Mark Joseph Quirante, OAR

1. Let us just say that the original sin is true. And we have a baptism that would erase that
original sin. Now, if the mother and the father were baptized Catholics, what would happen
to their children? Would they inherit original sin?
2. We all know that Augustine has this notion of predestination which affected his notion of
original sin. This idea of his tells us that there are already “elects” who would be damn to
hell and those who will go to heaven. And here is this original sin that is inevitable. If this
is the case regarding sin, are we all predestined to be in hell someday? What is the use of
grace? What is the use of free will if we will just later sin?
3. In the case of Mary, surely a descendant of Adam, 100% man, who is full of Grace as you
say, is she exempted of this original sin? If she is, then can we say that God would be
unjust to all other humans?

Augustine Side: Fray Mark Joseph Quirante, OAR

Answered by: Pelagian Side: Fray James Esplanada, OAR

1. You said, in the second paragraph, ‘man’s will will always be the same, as you added, he
is created by God who is the Supreme Good.’ Therefore, the total reality of man has no
stain of sin or evil and his free will is always and solely gearing toward on what is good –
that is, God himself – since he is created by God, who is the Supreme Good. And so, why
and how Sin comes to exist?

Sources of Sin

1. Temptation. The incitement acting upon a person to do evil. It is the attraction by a

good which in the larger context constitutes evil. No involvement of other person
2. Seduction. The deliberate effort to lead others to sin. It presupposes that the seduced
person is led to an action that stands in contradiction to his her original personal
intention in mind.

Sin was made possible because of the disobedience of Adam when he was tempted by a
cunning serpent, the devil. He ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of Good and evil as
we can read in Genesis.
 God the Supreme Good, obviously, did not created sin. Sin as we define it “an utterance,
a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law”. It is an act, a human act made by adam.
(done willingly, knowingly, voluntarily)

2. You are correct if you say, Disobedience and man’s desires to what is good and
beneficial to himself (as he acquired the knowledge of good and bad and becomes aware
of it) is what caused sin or evil to exist; and this occurrence, is in the book of Genesis
chapter 3. Now, does this tragedy (reality) proves the fact that man’s will is no longer
purely good and thus stained and enslaved by sin? If no, why and how?

 No, why? Because of the impossibility that it can be transmitted through

generation. Like in our argument, we stated that souls come from God
“immediately” very unique. You cannot give what you do not have. God can't
place the sin of Adam to created souls. The transmission would only be possible if
the soul of Adam was also shared in the generation of mankind. But as I said, it is
impossible. The soul is divisible and also we cannot say that sin is inherited
through our genes. We all have the capacity not to sin. We cannot deny the fact
that Adam did sin. How can we share sin? Adam becomes an example for us that
we must choose good rather than evil. We saw how our first parents were
punished by God. Now with that example, we can exercise correctly our own free
will by choosing good and what is pleasing to God.

3. The slavery of man’s will to sin is proven and could be seen in the succeeding chapters in
the book of genesis after ‘the fall,’ particularly in the story of ‘Cain and Abel.’ It does not
stop with them, but, continuously happening up to the New Testament, as how we see
people, in the Bible, commit crimes and all sorts of evil deeds. With regard to these,
could we say that “our” will is different from the first persons and their sin is only theirs
not ours or inherited by us? If we are doomed to die and will experience all sort of
hardships and pain as how God condemned the first persons (Gen 3:15-19), and, as a
consequence of their sin, how can you say that their sin is not ours if we experience the
same thing (condemnation)?
 Every person is unique. we all have free will. Cain killed Abel because he has
willfully done it. That was the first recorded murder in human history I believe.
Where did he get that thought of killing? Nobody told him. Did he learn that from
his parents? No. He chose that because of jealousy that God favored Abel more
than him. Sin continued because we continue to disobey God. We continue to
choose sin rather than GOD. They have separated soul.. separated free will.

ENDING
Before we end let us give them a big round of applause for debaters for today. The result of the
debate will be in the hands of our beloved professor. For those who watched the debate, which
team has better arguments, which team will win. Comment down below.