Featured Question on church History-- Zwingli

I'm guessing you are asking about his view of history, not his view of baptism. Yes, it is correct. Zwingli was a contemporary of Luther and Calvin in the Reformation, although he was not aligned with either of them. Unlike Luther and Calvin, he completely rejected all the sacraments including baptism. I believe he was the first to do so.

 

I was reading through the Shepherd of Hermas recently, which was written in part to deal with the people who believed that if they died after being baptized, they were doomed to hell. Such thoughts led to the false doctrine of penance, as a way to have our post baptism sins forgiven.

I guess I'm just trying to say that wildly inaccurate views on baptism have been around for a long time. Saying that something wrong was taught for 1500 years doesn't miraculously make it right.

 

The Christian is complete in Christ (Galatians 2:9-10), therefore baptism or any other ordinance cannot be essential for salvation.

Verse 11 speaks of a 'circumcision made without hands' which is obviously a spiritual circumcision, being nothing else but the New Birth. This is symbolized in v.12 by baptism which figures our death to the old life and our raising again to the new. However, this cannot be taken to mean that baptism actually secures our new birth, because if it did we wouldn't be complete in Christ.

 

I believe this will sum up Zwingli's view of baptism, which he realized was completely novel:

"In this matter of baptism--if I may be pardoned for saying it--I can only conclude that all the doctors have been in error from the time of the apostles . . . . All the doctors have ascribed to the water a power which it does not have and the holy apostles did not teach." Huldrych Zwingli, On Baptism.

Does this answer your question? I'm not sure what you are asking.

 

Arguments from "Church" history are not valid to prove doctrine. the other problem is that Baptist Writings historically have been burned by both Protestant and Catholic state churches, so we are missing many writings that would support Baptist doctrine, the Bible is the final authority, arguments about church history. Church history is just tradition, and tradition does not equate truth.

 

Well there certainly is a bible only based argument to make for teetotalism. but this is not the place to discuss that.

 

He is incorrect here. If for no other reason than there wasn't one uniform belief on baptism until around the Council of Chalcedon. While the practice, or mode, was nearly uniform until about 300, baptism by into water (either via immersion or affusion), aspects of that were in play as well: should it be in still water or running water? Etc.

Baptism was not seen universally as the seal of salvation in this time either. Moving beyond the containment of the NT teaching (which I believe was baptism as a symbolic ordinance) there are other indicators that baptism wasn't seen as salvific. Many Christians delayed their baptism until Easter or Christmas in the early church period. Secondarily, no early church document ever prescribes baptism for salvation. For instance the Didache (the earliest church manual) in its two sections on baptism never says it is required for salvation but only for someone to be welcomed into the fellowship of the local church. In Polycarp's epistle (6.2) he mentions baptism is a kind of symbol for believers to remind themselves of their commitment to Christ...but it is not said to be salvific. Baptism, as described by Irenaus in several parts of Against Heresies is a confirmation of faith, not bestowal of justification. Other examples exist including Justin Martyr, but the larger point is to be made...there isn't any place where uniformity exists in the earliest churches (this isn't to say they never agreed or didn't have their foundations squared up) beyond the Regula fide, and baptism is a place of diversity.

 

I'm sorry. The Scripture reference should have been Colossians 2:9-10. Dementia is obviously catching up with me! Redface

 

You’re right about the Didache. It prescribes the method of baptism but says nothing about the theology of baptism. If I recall the Didache is light on theology all around and heavy on practice.

However, I have to take issue with you on Polycarp, Irenaeus and Justin Martyr. To my knowledge Polycarp never mentions baptism in any context at all.

Irenaeus forcefully taught baptismal regeneration. It was not for nothing that Naaman of old, when suffering from leprosy, was purified upon his being baptized, but [it served] as an indication to us. For as we are lepers in sin, we are made clean, by means of the sacred water and the invocation of the Lord, from our old transgressions; being spiritually regenerated as new-born babes, even as the Lord has declared: "Except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." Fragment 34.

Justin is not quite as dogmatic but he does seem to lean toward baptismal regeneration. I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ; lest, if we omit this, we seem to be unfair in the explanation we are making. As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water. For Christ also said, "Except ye be born again, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. First Apology 61.

To the same effect is Shepherd of Hermas, which I mention only because of its early publication in the middle of the Second Century. And I said to him, "I should like to continue my questions." "Speak on," said he. And I said, "I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins." He said to me, "That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity. Second Book, Fourth Commandment, Ch. 3.

I have not heard of any Christian writer before Zwingli who referred to baptism as being merely symbolic, and since Zwingli himself proclaimed himself to be the first, I think he probably was.

 

While abiding by sola scriptura, are there instances where a certainty of historic practice has aided in supporting doctrine? I think of the contemporary worship debate.
Does non-scriptural historical record carry any weight?

 

Well, the issue is that scripture is infallible, but the early "church" fathers, are not..

I mean how do we know the early "church" fathers were not simply early heretics?
The only way we can know if any ancient writer is right or not, is to test them by the word of God.

There is a serious problem with trying to prove true doctrine by appealing to uninspired ancient writers.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Berean believers in the above verses tested everything they were taught by comparing it with the scriptures, this is what we also should do. We are not suppose to compare teaching with the so called early "church" fathers, or any other teacher in history for that matter, every single teacher, whether ancient or modern, is to have their teachings examined and compared the true word of God:

John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

2 Timothy 3:16-17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

I would like to point out a few things in relation to baptism

1. The thief on the cross was saved without water baptism.

2. Paul said God had called him to preach the Gospel and not to baptize, so Paul saw a difference between the Gospel (Which in 1 Corinthians 15 he says "by which ye are saved") and water baptism.

1st Corinthians 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

3. Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

We see in the above verse, that if a man has the Holy Spirit, then he belongs to Christ Now if you go and read the book of Acts, you will find multiple places where people received the Holy Spirit BEFORE being water baptized.

4. The Bible teaches that those who have the Holy Spirit are of God seals us, and we are told in Ephesians 1:13 that this happens when we believe, no mention of water baptism.

Ephesians 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise

5. We are not saved by works (Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5), in order to believe in baptismal regeneration you have to deny that water baptism is a work. Some try to get around this by claiming water baptism is a work that God does. they do this by confusing passages that are dealing with Spirit baptism and water baptism. At the moment of salvation in the Gospel, a person is baptized (or immersed, or placed into) by the Holy Spirit into Jesus Christ. This "baptism" places us into Jesus Christ. But this baptism is not water baptism, the word baptism, does not always mean the church ordinance of water baptism, it simply means to be immersed or placed into something. consider some examples:

1 Corinthians 10:1-2 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

John 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.

6. All the verses that seem to teach salvation through baptism have interpretations based on context, grammar, and comparison with other scriptures. If you study those verses out you will see that they do not teach salvation through Baptism.

 

How do you know?

 

John 19:The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

 

Are you saying he couldn't have been baptized after? Yes, of course. I only don't see where scripture clarifies he wasn't baptized before.

 

Are you saying it's possible that he lived, or that he was baptized after he was dead?

Oops, nevermind. I read your post wrong. I'm sorry.