Essay contest: Original Sin and Infant Baptism without Limbus Infantium

[Origen]

Essay contest: Original Sin and Infant Baptism without Limbus Infantium

As a result of an interesting discussion in the Methodist board, I'd like to invite other mainliners to articulate a challenging point of understanding concerning Original Sin and Infant Baptism without Limbus Infantium.

In lay language and in between 250 and 500 words, articulate and reconcile 1) the doctrine of Original Sin and 2) the practice of infant baptism, with 3) a belief that "those souls who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt [e.g., unbaptized infants] enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness", without 4) resorting to limbus infantium. Anticipate and answer the question, Why baptize infants if their place in heaven is assured.

Contest open to Lutherans, Anglicans/Episcopalians, and Methodists (and others who hold to Original Sin and infant baptism but not limbus infantium).

Post your entry between midnight Wednesday 8/25/04 and midnight Thursday 8/26/04. The winner, if any, will be chosen by consensus of those entering the contest.

The prize: The sense of well-being that comes with knowing that you have helped and will help those struggling to reconcile faith and understanding.

For background, see this post in this thread.

Please post any questions on the essay contest in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t747833.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

"those souls who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt [e.g., unbaptized infants] enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness"

They do?





"God can, to be sure, save without baptism, as we believe that the little children who at times because of an oversight of the parents or some other chance did not receive baptism are not damned on that account. However, in the church we are to teach and judge according to the ordained order of God, namely, that without the rite of baptism no one can be saved." - Luther

 

[Origen]

"those souls who die in original sin without being burdened with grievous personal guilt [e.g., unbaptized infants] enjoy and will eternally enjoy a state of perfect natural happiness"

They do?

"God can, to be sure, save without baptism, as we believe that the little children who at times because of an oversight of the parents or some other chance did not receive baptism are not damned on that account. However, in the church we are to teach and judge according to the ordained order of God, namely, that without the rite of baptism no one can be saved." - Luther

Luther would seem to be agreeing that unbaptized infants are not, or at least may not, be damned. "Why not, if you believe in Original or Birth Sin?" or "Why baptize infants if their place in heaven is assured" are questions mainline Protestants are asked.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to enter into a debate on your board, as Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists are mostly in agreement on these points, as the Anglican and Methodist Articles of Religion are in part (largely?) derived from the Augsburg Confession.

The point of the exercise is to articulate from our shared belief as mainline Protestants a full, yet concise and accessible, reconciliation of i) the doctrine of Original Sin and ii) the practice of infant baptism yet iii) understand that "God can, to be sure, save without baptism, as we believe that the little children who at times because of an oversight of the parents or some other chance did not receive baptism are not damned on that account" without iv) resorting to limbus infantium.

We've got some smart and articulate theology geeks around here, and it would be interesting and useful (I think, as the question seems to come up frequently) to read their thoughts on the intersection of these concepts.

For some a bald appeal to authority ("because Luther said so" or "because God is good) is sufficient, but we've got some inquisitive folks who'd like to read a fuller, more reasoned presentation. If this is of interest to anyone here, I'd invite you to post your thoughts here.

 

[Rechtgläubig]

I think the point he was making, was that God can do as He wishes. We, however, are bound by His revealed Word, which states that sin=failure to meet the requirement for heaven=hell. That includes man of all ages.

Sorry, I guess I was not very clear at all myself, my opinion is that it is unwise to speculate on stuff like this, so I will have to decline your offer Origen.

 

[Lotar]

#3 is a problem for us. We do not believe there is such a thing as a person who has original sin and not actual sin, not even infants.

We do not say that an infant's salvation is assured.

 

[SPALATIN]

I am with Lotar on this. We are giving the child forgiveness of sins and bringing them into the fold. They still have the power later on if so convinced to reject the gift that Christ gave them.

 

[nyj]

Origen,

You do realize that "limbus infantium" is not something taught as dogma by the Catholic Church... right? The whole essay would be against an argument that the Catholic Church doesn't even make mention of in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Doesn't that make it a bit of a waste of time?

 

[Lotar]

It is a belief held by most anabaptist sects.

 

[JVAC]

It is a belief held by most anabaptist sects.

Ha ha hah ahh ahah hah

Lotar said sects!!! Hah hah ah hah ahh

Funny Lotar, I hope a mod doesn't delete this

Sects LOL

-James

 

[Origen]

Origen,

You do realize that "limbus infantium" is not something taught as dogma by the Catholic Church... right? The whole essay would be against an argument that the Catholic Church doesn't even make mention of in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Doesn't that make it a bit of a waste of time?

Refuting "limbus infantium" isn't the point; you can even re-phrase the real question without mention to it:

The point of the exercise is to articulate from our shared belief as mainline Protestants a full, yet concise and accessible, reconciliation of i) the doctrine of Original Sin and ii) the practice of infant baptism yet iii) understand that "God can, to be sure, save without baptism, as we believe that the little children who at times because of an oversight of the parents or some other chance did not receive baptism are not damned on that account".

I only mentioned the fourth criteria, "without 4) resorting to limbus infantium," because I'm not interested in it.

What I'd find interesting is in hearing Luther's reasoning behind his claim that "God can, to be sure, save without baptism, as we believe that the little children who at times because of an oversight of the parents or some other chance did not receive baptism are not damned on that account" with respect to a reconciliation of i) the doctrine of Original Sin and ii) the practice of infant baptism. As I mentioned, for some a bald appeal to authority ("because Luther said so" or "because God is good) is sufficient, but we've got some inquisitive folks who'd like to read a fuller, more reasoned presentation.

Sorry I didn't make that clear at first. And thanks for helping me clarify the point of interest.

 

[JVAC]

Refuting "limbus infantium" isn't the point; you can even re-phrase the real question without mention to it:

The point of the exercise is to articulate from our shared belief as mainline Protestants a full, yet concise and accessible, reconciliation of i) the doctrine of Original Sin and ii) the practice of infant baptism yet iii) understand that "God can, to be sure, save without baptism, as we believe that the little children who at times because of an oversight of the parents or some other chance did not receive baptism are not damned on that account".

I only mentioned the fourth criteria, "without 4) resorting to limbus infantium," because I'm not interested in it.

What I'd find interesting is in hearing Luther's reasoning behind his claim that "God can, to be sure, save without baptism, as we believe that the little children who at times because of an oversight of the parents or some other chance did not receive baptism are not damned on that account" with respect to a reconciliation of i) the doctrine of Original Sin and ii) the practice of infant baptism. As I mentioned, for some a bald appeal to authority ("because Luther said so" or "because God is good) is sufficient, but we've got some inquisitive folks who'd like to read a fuller, more reasoned presentation.

Sorry I didn't make that clear at first. And thanks for helping me clarify the point of interest.

How does one submit an answer to this contest?

-James

 

[JVAC]

never mind I am stupid, and am going to bed!!!

-James