Changes

'''Quotes from Calvin on pædobaptism - ''Institutes of the Christian Religion'' (4.16)'''{{quotation|“The argument by which pædobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious—viz. that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God.” (Inst. 4.16) <br> “it [infant baptism] is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed” (Inst. 4.16) <br> “infants cannot be deprived of it [baptism] without open violation of the will of God” (Inst. 4.16) <br> “If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them [infants].” (Inst. 4.16) <br> “that circumcision was a sign of repentance is completely established by many passages of Scripture (Jer. 4:4). Thus Paul terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Let God, then, be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the bodies of infants? For baptism and circumcision being here in the same case, they cannot give anything to the latter without conceding it to the former. If they recur to their usual evasion, that, by the age of infancy, spiritual infants were then figured, we have already closed this means of escape against them. We say, then, that since God imparted circumcision, the sign of repentance and faith, to infants, it should not seem absurd that they are now made partakers of baptism, unless men choose to clamour against an institution of God. But as in all his acts, so here also, enough of wisdom and righteousness shines forth to repress the slanders of the ungodly. For although infants, at the moment when they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, still they were truly circumcised” (Inst. 4.16) <ref name=Douglas.Beaumont/>}}

'''Quotes from Calvin on pædobaptism - ''Institutes of the Christian Religion'' (4.16)'''{{quotation|“The argument by which pædobaptism is assailed is, no doubt, specious—viz. that it is not founded on the institution of God, but was introduced merely by human presumption and depraved curiosity, and afterwards, by a foolish facility, rashly received in practice; whereas a sacrament has not a thread to hang upon, if it rest not on the sure foundation of the word of God.” (Inst. 4.16) <br> “it [infant baptism] is a well-known doctrine, and one as to which all the pious are agreed” (Inst. 4.16) <br> “infants cannot be deprived of it [baptism] without open violation of the will of God” (Inst. 4.16) <br> “If reason is listened to, it will undoubtedly appear that baptism is properly administered to infants as a thing due to them [infants].” (Inst. 4.16) <br> “that circumcision was a sign of repentance is completely established by many passages of Scripture (Jer. 4:4). Thus Paul terms it a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11). Let God, then, be demanded why he ordered circumcision to be performed on the bodies of infants? For baptism and circumcision being here in the same case, they cannot give anything to the latter without conceding it to the former. If they recur to their usual evasion, that, by the age of infancy, spiritual infants were then figured, we have already closed this means of escape against them. We say, then, that since God imparted circumcision, the sign of repentance and faith, to infants, it should not seem absurd that they are now made partakers of baptism, unless men choose to clamour against an institution of God. But as in all his acts, so here also, enough of wisdom and righteousness shines forth to repress the slanders of the ungodly. For although infants, at the moment when they were circumcised, did not comprehend what the sign meant, still they were truly circumcised” (Inst. 4.16) <ref name=Douglas.Beaumont/>}}

===Zwingli (16th Century)===

===Zwingli (1484–1531)===

[[Ulrich Zwingli|Huldrych Zwingli or Ulrich Zwingli]] (1 January 1484 – 11 October 1531) was a Reformation Swiss theologian who famously opposed the German Martin Luther on many doctrines, but agreed on the issue of infant baptism. The theology of Huldrych Zwingli was based on the Bible, taking scripture as the inspired word of God and placing its authority higher than what he saw as human sources such as the ecumenical councils and the church fathers. He also recognized the human element within the inspiration of the Bible noting the differences in the canonical gospels.{{quotation|“The children of Christians are no less sons of God than the parents, just as in the Old Testament. Hence, since they are sons of God, who will forbid this baptism? Circumcision among the ancients … was the same as baptism with us.” (Works of Zwingli)

[[Ulrich Zwingli|Huldrych Zwingli or Ulrich Zwingli]] (1 January 1484 – 11 October 1531) was a Reformation Swiss theologian who famously opposed the German Martin Luther on many doctrines, but agreed on the issue of infant baptism. The theology of Huldrych Zwingli was based on the Bible, taking scripture as the inspired word of God and placing its authority higher than what he saw as human sources such as the ecumenical councils and the church fathers. He also recognized the human element within the inspiration of the Bible noting the differences in the canonical gospels.{{quotation|“The children of Christians are no less sons of God than the parents, just as in the Old Testament. Hence, since they are sons of God, who will forbid this baptism? Circumcision among the ancients … was the same as baptism with us.” (Works of Zwingli)