Zwingli was also a murderer

Zwingli and Zurich - 1523

Zwingli apparently worked out his doctrinal view independently of Luther.

Both Zwingli and Luther wanted reform by realignment with the Bible, and held that the church had no authority other than the Bible. But Zwingli was closer to Erasmus in his ideas of education and moral reform. Zwingli claimed the Bible could interpret itself in all important matters. But like Erasmus, he insisted on appeal to the original languages and the assistance of knowledge of grammar, literary forms, dictionaries etc.

Zwingli and Luther parted ways over the interpretation of the Eucharist (the meaning of the bread-sharing ritual). Luther, although distancing himself from Roman Catholic doctrine on other things, continued to believe in the bodily presence of Jesus at the "mass", retaining its magical, almost superstitious content.
Luther was crudely literal: although rejecting medieval 'transustantiation' as Aristotelian, he believed Christ was indeed 'present' in the Eucharist. He believed that Christ's words at the Last Supper must be interpreted literally: "this is my body" (Matt. 26:26). For if not, according to Luther, then the Bible could not be interpreted reliably.

Zwingli allowed other interpretations: The Bible was full of statements that superficially suggested one thing, but on closer inspection meant another. For him "this is my body" did not mean the bread was identical with Christ, rather it pointed to Christ's sacrifice, as a symbol, a remembrance.

The question was, did the Protestant position have the means to resolve the problem of Biblical interpretation?

If the Bible was the ultimate authority, who had the right to interpret it? Some rule or principle had to stand above the printed word itself (a paradox repugnant to simple Biblical authority).
Who would interpret the Bible for all? The Pope? An ecumenical council?
Zwingli's and Zurich's solution was the city council.
They decided first that the city was bound to be obedient to the "word of God". Now the council, duly elected representatives of Zurich's Christians, claimed the right of interpretation. Authority was transfered from Pope and bishops to elected representatives.
The danger of interpretation based on politics rather than its own merits was ignored by Zwingli.

Luther tolerated images and icons, while Zwingli held that the O.T. ban on images was binding on all Christians. In 1524 Zurich city banned all religious imagery, and iconoclastic riots spread throughout the region.

Inevitably power corrupts, and when confruntoed with a growing threat from more radical reformers, Zwingli got personally involved in their suppression and execution, including the 1527 public execution of Felix Manz, formerly an ally, but who held there was no warrant for infant baptism. Refusing to recant his views, he was tied up and drowned in the river Limmat.

Shortly afterward, internal threats to Zwingli's platform were rendered insignificant by external threats. The five Catholic cantons of Switzerland, alarmed at the rise of Protestantism, declared war on Zurich in Oct. 1531. The other Protestant cantons acted like cowards, or were frozen by divisions over doctrine, and in the unfortunate battle of Kappel, Zwingli was mortally wounded.

Zurich's experiment abruptly collapsed into confusion and obscurity.

Thus in the history, a correlation has apparently been maintained between stepping way over the line in terms of arrogant authority, and turning the Gospel inside out, persecuting others and approving of murder and torture, and ultimate humiliating downfall.

Luther was not in the Spirit of Christ when he ultimately denigrated the authority of Holy Scripture, and began to maliciously persecute the Jewish people, publishing nasty tracts and pamphlets, and contributing hugely in fanning the flames of bigotry, ignorance and anti-Semitism. Nor was Luther able ultimately to shake of Roman errors. Finally, Luther's philosophy of taking sin lightly, even embracing it so that grace and salvation might abound and be more certain, was directly opposed to Paul's real teaching in Romans.

Zwingli was not in the Spirit of Christ when he hounded and persecuted his theological opponents, right or wrong, and ended up murdering them. Nor was he right in the idea that a council could dictate the meaning of Holy Scripture for men. Nor was it right that a city council should impose death and torture on opponents and conscientious dissenters. Nor was Zwingli right in opposing the simple Baptist Felix Manz, and having him murdered.

Calvin was not in the Spirit of Christ when he too angrily pursued his opponent Servetus over the Trinity, and was instrumental in his being horribly burned alive. Nor was he teaching sound doctrine when he embraced a philosophy of predestination which ultimately turned the true Gospel upside down and made it a cartoon caricature of itself.

Each of these Religious leaders had some points, and may have started out sincerely enough, but each, through corrupting power and human arrogance went wildly astray, abandoning the simple Gospel of Christ.

None of these Religious leaders was guided by the Holy Spirit, but instead they were guided by what Paul calls "the natural man", and were incapable of truly grasping the Spiritual truth of the simple Gospel.

 

Saul was most certainly a murderer.

Saul was forcibly taken out of the battle by the Lord,
and put to work on the right side.

Because of his former behaviour,
God planned an especially difficult time for him as a repentant Christian,
and he had to endure quite a lot of hardship without complaint.

Saul was born again as Paul, but this did not get him off the hook.
As the Torah states, a thief must payback 2fold, or 4fold, if he confesses and comes forward.
Proverbs discusses a rule of 7fold for those who don't.

Paul's walk as Christian witness and preacher did not involve him accumulating wealth and comfort.
Rather he paid his own way to avoid being a burden,
established a work-rule in all the churches he founded, even for widows and orphans,
and made journeys for the relief of the poor in distant lands.

Paul understood that God is not mocked, and what a man sows he reaps.
Paul understood that it was not time to "build bigger barns".

When all is said and done, Paul stepped up to the plate and became the greatest of the Apostles.

While Calvin and Zwingli were also murderers like Saul, that obviously doesn't automatically make them Apostles, great teachers, wise interpreters, or even good Christians.

Christ advised us that "by their fruits ye shall know them".

Calvin had no encounter with Christ, or he would have said so,
for Christ would not have done a miracle without giving glory to God the Father.

Zwingli had no encounter with Christ, or he would have witnessed to God's miracle,
and abandoned ruling a city for the life of wandering preacher like Paul.

Luther had no encounter with Christ, or he would not have fanatically pursued
a course of persecuting Jews in Europe.
He simply did not follow the example of Jesus, or that of any disciple.

All of these were blind men, still awaiting sight.

Luther interpreted the Gospel in his own image: that of an unrepentant sinner still living in sin, and dying in it. Rightly did Jesus characterize people like Luther: "For if they do not believe Moses, nor will they believe though one rose from the dead."

Calvin built his own system around assuring himself of salvation through predestination. But he had no authority to do so. Jesus did not preach that men were predestined to damnation, but that they were destined to damnation by their choices. The Bible teaches that some things are predestined, not all things. Rightly did Jesus say of men like Calvin, "Ye search the scriptures: for in them you THINK you have eternal life - but they are the things that testify of ME."

Zwingli imposed his own will and opinion upon others, and even persecuted and killed them for disagreeing with him. Thus he began by lording it over others instead of heeding Christ, and ended dying in violence, which he had reaped upon himself. As it happens, he also was wrong about the very doctrine he had killed someone for. Jesus had said, "The Gentiles lord it over one another: but not so you. He who would be greatest should be least." Zwingli did not follow Jesus.

None of these carnal fools living in darkness and error resembles Paul in any way,
nor should they be honored or accepted as teachers or guides in Bible truth.

We are better off just admitting they were sinners groping blindly about like King Saul,
used by God but not ever coming to the knowledge of God in this life.

 

Again, what makes both Paul and Moses different than other murderers and sinners, is that THE LORD chose them for big purposes, and ACCOMPANIED THEIR MESSAGE WITH SIGNS AND WONDERS to affirm God's backing.

No credible signs accompanied Calvin, Zwingli, Luther.

 

Yes. Just about the whole second half. Also, "blood" here is a literary device which stands for Jesus' Godly and pleasing life of obediance, His suffering for righteousness' sake, and His death. His actual blood is worthless: "The flesh profits nothing: it is the Spirit that enlivens."
This over-literalness and crude misunderstanding of literary expression is unworthy of Spiritual wisdom, and represents the carnal mind confusing metaphors for literal absurdities. Nicodemus did the same thing, talking foolishly of a man entering his mother's [XXX] a second time, instead of listening to the Spiritual insight in Jesus' teaching.
Such nonsense is just more Romanist magical thinking, leading to superstitious absurdities.

Calvin's theory doesn't apply to all listeners who hear a preacher. It only applies to those who take up Jesus' offer of amnesty, and actually repent. The work of belief, repentance, and a lifelong commitment is required, before any salvation is attained.

If this is typical of "the Institutes", I'd say you're wasting your time reading it,
and should go back to the pure Gospel in the form of the New Testament alone,
which is a fresh pure spring of the Holy word of God.

Rippoff: "Naz is unwilling to cite Calvin..."

Why should I waste time doing that when I can cite the New Testament?

 

Children are not in need of salvation.
They are God's creation.

Only adults who commit mortal sins need salvation.
Forget Calvinism and a dozen other nonsense theologies.

Common sense tells you that innocent children are not under God's wrath or a death sentence.

Only murderers like Calvin, Zwingli, other adults who knowingly disobey God's commandments.

You don't owe the time if you didn't commit the crime.

 

My mind goes right to God's word, given to Ananias:

"Carry on: for I have chosen him for Myself,
to bear My name to the nations and kings, and the descendants of Israel:
- for I will show him how greatly he must suffer for My name's sake." (Acts 9:15-16)
​

If I had just discovered I had been murdering God's saints,
by being struck blind by Jesus Himself,
and was left cowering and fasting in somebody's basement,
contemplating my heinous sins in the darkness,
and a man of God arrived with the above message after 3 days of abandonment,
I'd need a change of pants.

Because when God says you are going to suffer bigtime in His service,
obviously as a fitting reward for your previous murderous evil,
I can't imagine being able to minimize it, especially knowing:

"God is not mocked: What a man sows he reaps."​

Not really meaningful, so I haven't anything to say about name changes.

People usually change their name to hide their past lives.