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.
====== EDITED TO INCLUDE ======
This probably goes without saying, but this is not an invitation to debate, as Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists are mostly in agreement on these points, as the Anglican and Methodist Articles of Religion are in part 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 you, I'd invite you to post your thoughts here.
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.
====== EDITED TO INCLUDE ======
This probably goes without saying, but this is not an invitation to debate, as Lutherans, Anglicans, and Methodists are mostly in agreement on these points, as the Anglican and Methodist Articles of Religion are in part 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 you, I'd invite you to post your thoughts here.
