# Did Luther and Zwingli write...



## JM (Sep 11, 2007)

Luther: “There is not sufficient evidence from Scripture that one might justify the introduction of infant baptism at the time of the early Christians after the apostolic period. . . . But so much is evident, that no one may venture with a good conscience to reject or abandon infant baptism, which has for so long a time been practiced.”

Zwingli: “Nothing grieves me more than that at the present I have to baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done. . . . If however I were to terminate the practice, then I fear that I would lose my prebend [stipend]. . . . if we were to baptize as Christ instituted it then we would not baptize any person until he has reached the years of discretion, for I find it nowhere written that infant baptism is to be practiced.”

I've heard them quoted in sermons but haven't been able to find the sources.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 11, 2007)

I am not sure of the Luther quote, but I do know of people who think this way today. 

Zwingly entertained this thought for a very short time with some anabaptist friends. He recanted and became an adversary to this kind of teaching.


----------



## Scholten (Feb 10, 2013)

*Zwingli and Infant Baptism*

I happened to Google Zwingli recently and came across the following post by JM. (Mod-threads merged) His post is closed, but I wanted to respond to it. His post concerning Zwingli is:

Zwingli: “Nothing grieves me more than that at the present I have to baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done. . . . If however I were to terminate the practice, then I fear that I would lose my prebend [stipend]. . . . if we were to baptize as Christ instituted it then we would not baptize any person until he has reached the years of discretion, for I find it nowhere written that infant baptism is to be practiced.”

I once did a paper on the book "The Reformers and their Stepchildren" by Rev. Leonard Verduin. That is where this quote comes from. In the book the original source (in German) is listed. When I studied the original source I learned that the source of the statement was actually a Huldrych ZING, not Huldrych Zwingli. I took a copy of the original source to Rev. Verduin at that time. He acknowledged that a mistake had been made. Unfortunately his book is quoted over and over again. 

If you would be interested in referencing the paper on that topic you can obtain a copy by Googling Dialogos Studies and Zwingli. I would be very interested in any insights others might have on this matter.


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 10, 2013)

Thank you, Herb. That's a nice piece of detective work. Zwingli was one of the primary people who convinced me to become pro infant baptism. Seeing him wrestle with the issues, respond to the anabaptists (who were perhaps rather legitimately appealing to his theology), and grow in his own understanding of the sacrament helped me move along.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 10, 2013)

Threads merged.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 10, 2013)

Herb, as you pointed out it does appear dubious to attribute the quotation you cited to Zwingli. I also know, however, that according to the Lutheran church historian Eddie Lois Mabry the relatively moderate Anabaptist leader Balthasar Hubmaier insisted that in 1523 Zwingli had expressed some doubts about infant baptism during at least one of their personal interactions.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 10, 2013)

The Luther quotation in the OP appears to be fairly accurate, as has been documented here.


----------



## Scholten (Feb 11, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> Herb, as you pointed out it does appear dubious to attribute the quotation you cited to Zwingli. I also know, however, that according to the Lutheran church historian Eddie Lois Mabry the relatively moderate Anabaptist leader Balthasar Hubmaier insisted that in 1523 Zwingli had expressed some doubts about infant baptism during at least one of their personal interactions.



Yes, Phil, Hubmeier did claim that. However, if you check Zwingli's own comments on that, he had quite a different view of their discussions. So we need to be sure to hear both sides on a matter like this. 
Of course, we all agree, I'm sure, that the ultimate test is what the Scriptures teach. I did find the above helpful because if the "father of covenant theology" did not really believe it, that would _greatly_ reduce the likelihood that his views were in fact biblical. I, for one, am convinced Zwingli was solid in his views, biblical.


----------



## Phil D. (Feb 11, 2013)

Scholten said:


> Yes, Phil, Hubmeier did claim that. However, if you check Zwingli's own comments on that, he had quite a different view of their discussions. So we need to be sure to hear both sides on a matter like this.
> Of course, we all agree, I'm sure, that the ultimate test is what the Scriptures teach. I did find the above helpful because if the "father of covenant theology" did not really believe it, that would greatly reduce the likelihood that his views were in fact biblical.



I totally agree with this. I tried to be as circumspect as possible in my statement by qualifying it with the terms "according to" and "insisted", as well as providing a direct link to the source I was citing.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Feb 12, 2013)

Herb, I didn't quite understand the context of your sentence. Who is "the father of covenant theology?" Thanks!


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Feb 12, 2013)

Jackie Kaulitz said:


> Who is "the father of covenant theology?"


Zwingli was one of the earliest of the Reformers to write about the covenants of works and grace.


----------



## Bengibor (Feb 12, 2013)

I don't think we should be bothered with what Luther and Zwingli wrote at some stage of their spiritual development. Luther also wrote that the epistle of St. James was the 'epistle of straw' and worthless if I remember correctly and he also doubted the canonicity of Revelation, 2 Peter etc. There's not a single evidence that anyone objected to infant baptism in the first 1500 years of the Church and there's a total consensus of all the church fathers and later Reformers that the practice originated from the apostles. Baptists sometimes quote Tertulian but he objected to baptism of little children on different premises and was not a Baptist on that issue.


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 12, 2013)

Bengibor said:


> I don't think we should be bothered with what Luther and Zwingli wrote at some stage of their spiritual development. Luther also wrote that the epistle of St. James was the 'epistle of straw' and worthless if I remember correctly and he also doubted the canonicity of Revelation, 2 Peter etc. There's not a single evidence that anyone objected to infant baptism in the first 1500 years of the Church and there's a total consensus of all the church fathers and later Reformers that the practice originated from the apostles. Baptists sometimes quote Tertulian but he objected to baptism of little children on different premises and was not a Baptist on that issue.



It is logically unsound and historically unwise to hold to infant baptism because the ante-Nicene fathers held to it. Their practice arose out of a particular theology of IB (illustrated in Tertullian's attack on the practice) that the Reformed (and every Protestant I've ever heard of) has correctly rejected as unbiblical. And since errors in doctrine usually lead to errors in related practice, it is certainly not impossible that errors in practice may have grown from the erring doctrine of IB fairly quickly. We know from the epistles of Ignatius (115) that doctrinal corruption was present in the early church within 25 years of the late dating of Revelation (ca. 95). If doctrinal corruption takes place in less than a generation, and let's arbitrarily assume that errant practice arising from the doctrinal error takes another generation to follow (it could well have been shorter - given travel times in the Roman Empire and the practice of circulating teachers we know that the minimum possible time for an error to spread throughout the Mediterranean churches from Alexandria to Rome could have been less than a decade.), the errant theology behind IB could have been in place as early as 155, easily early enough to be a common tradition by the time of Tertullian.

If we are going to argue for IB, we cannot do it from early church tradition, we had better do it from Scripture alone.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 12, 2013)

I merged and reopened the thread to deal with the opening post; let's leave the Baptism debate for other threads. If folks want to debate the use of the church fathers in the argument pro and contra infant baptism that would make a good stand alone thread (not that we probably haven't had it come up before over the years here).


----------



## James Swan (Feb 12, 2013)

Phil D. said:


> The Luther quotation in the OP appears to be fairly accurate, as has been documented here.



Thanks for the plug to my blog. My hobby is looking up obscure Luther quotes. Keep them coming!


----------

