Zwingli’s New Revelation on Baptism – Everyone was wrong but him

Rob has series of posts on baptism, which is over all interesting. This point in particular, however, is one which must be drawn and then explained by those who hold to the same view point as Zwingli:

The view that baptism relates primarily to justification and essential for the forgiveness of sins was the predominate view that continued far past the early Patristics continued until the Reformers (I’ve researched many hours and I’m yet to find an opposing viewpoint before Zwingli, but I surely welcome corrective data if its out there). With the implications of the Reformation period in mind, however, it makes logical sense that such a shift of focus would occur since this period began thinking of salvation by faith alone.

via The Function of Baptism Throughout Church History: Part 3 « Tolle Lege!.

How is it that only Zwingli, 1500 or so years removed from the Apostles, suddenly understood baptism?

For more information, check out this article.

Post By Joel Watts (10,045 Posts)

Joel L. Watts holds a Masters of Arts from United Theological Seminary with a focus in literary and rhetorical criticism of the New Testament. He is currently a Ph.D. student at the University of the Free State, analyzing Paul’s model of atonement in Galatians. He is the author of Mimetic Criticism of the Gospel of Mark: Introduction and Commentary (Wipf and Stock, 2013), a co-editor and contributor to From Fear to Faith: Stories of Hitting Spiritual Walls (Energion, 2013), and Praying in God's Theater, Meditations on the Book of Revelation (Wipf and Stock, 2014).

Website: → Unsettled Christianity

Connect

20 thoughts on Zwingli’s New Revelation on Baptism – Everyone was wrong but him

  1. Being a Lutheran and going to a Lutheran seminary, I have a certain level of contempt for Zwingli. One of my professors would even go so far as to spit every time he mentioned Zwingli.

  2. Wow, Gents.. I don’t see Zwingli in that negative a light at all! In fact re-reading the Brtish Methodist W.P. Stevens book, I have come to some new understandings of him. Since I have been looking at the whole aspect to the Reformed understanding of Sacraments once again. He is actually closer to Calvin and Vermigli (Sign & Seal), than he is to the modern Zwinglian positions. “But here the simple should learn that there is no dispute here about whether the body and blood of Christ are eaten and drunk (for no Christian doubts that), but whether it is a sacrifice or only a memorial.” For Zwingli, it is food for the soul.
    But sadly, he is not really read himself enough. He was the first Reformed theologian, simply! ( And I am a Calvinist in some sense myself.)

    • But, Fr. Robert, that is for the Eucharist.

      Where was Zwingli on baptism but, frankly, calling it a good show.

  3. Being on the Anglo-Catholic side of life and a big Luther fan…his argument cinched the deal for me about the reality of of the Sacraments. Interesting that Luther drew me to a Catholic belief.

    • I think Luther understand, perhaps, a deeper need and a real biblical meaning of the sacraments which was passed over by Zwingli.

  4. padre steve,

    I have been too on that Anglo-Catholic side, but now it is just too Roman for me. But a friendly question, what would that “argument” from Luther be? The Words of Instiution? And I love Luther also!

Leave a Reply, Please!