Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect
30,891
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 36:
Line 36: + + + + + + + Line 43:
Line 50: − + Line 59:
Line 66: − − ===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) − − “Children born of believing parents are children of God, like those who were born under the Old Testament, and consequently may receive baptism.” (Works of Zwingli) − − “Baptism under the New Testament is what circumcision was under the Old; consequently, baptism ought now to be administered to children, as circumcision was formerly.” (Works of Zwingli) <ref name=Douglas.Beaumont/>}}
→Protestant commentaries 1555–2014 in support of infant baptism: Matthew 28:19-20: minor revision - mainly chronological sequence - Zwingil died before Luther
==Protestant commentaries 1555–2014 in support of infant baptism: Matthew 28:19-20==
==Protestant commentaries 1555–2014 in support of infant baptism: Matthew 28:19-20==
===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)
“Children born of believing parents are children of God, like those who were born under the Old Testament, and consequently may receive baptism.” (Works of Zwingli)
“Baptism under the New Testament is what circumcision was under the Old; consequently, baptism ought now to be administered to children, as circumcision was formerly.” (Works of Zwingli) <ref name=Douglas.Beaumont/>}}
===Luther (1483-1546)===
===Luther (1483-1546)===
“Here a question occurs by which the devil through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer then answer thus: –That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost” (Infant Baptism, XIII A) <br> “God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God.” (Infant Baptism, XIII A) <br> “we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God” .” (Infant Baptism, XIII A) <br> “those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament even though they do not believe. Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them” (Infant Baptism, XIII A) <ref name=Douglas.Beaumont/>}}
“Here a question occurs by which the devil through his sects, confuses the world, namely, Of Infant Baptism, whether children also believe, and are justly baptized. Concerning this we say briefly: Let the simple dismiss this question from their minds, and refer it to the learned. But if you wish to answer then answer thus: –That the Baptism of infants is pleasing to Christ is sufficiently proved from His own work, namely, that God sanctifies many of them who have been thus baptized, and has given them the Holy Ghost” (Infant Baptism, XIII A) <br> “God confirms Baptism by the gifts of His Holy Ghost as is plainly perceptible in some of the church fathers, as St. Bernard, Gerson, John Hus, and others, who were baptized in infancy, and since the holy Christian Church cannot perish until the end of the world, they must acknowledge that such infant baptism is pleasing to God.” (Infant Baptism, XIII A) <br> “we are not so much concerned to know whether the person baptized believes or not; for on that account Baptism does not become invalid; but everything depends upon the Word and command of God” .” (Infant Baptism, XIII A) <br> “those who unworthily go to the Sacrament receive the true Sacrament even though they do not believe. Thus you see that the objection of the sectarians is vain. For (as we have said) even though infants did not believe, which however, is not the case, yet their baptism as now shown would be valid, and no one should rebaptize them” (Infant Baptism, XIII A) <ref name=Douglas.Beaumont/>}}
===Melanchthon (16th Century)===
===Melanchthon (1497–1560)===
[[Philip Melanchthon]] <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Melancthon Philip Melancthon - Wikipedia]</ref> (16 February 1497 – 19 April 1560) was a German Lutheran reformer and collaborator with Martin Luther, and the first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation, the foremost intellectual leader of the Lutheran Reformation, and an influential designer of [[education]]al systems. He stands next to Luther and John Calvin as a reformer, theologian, and molder of Protestantism . He was a primary contributor to the formulation of the Protestant ''Confession of Faith'' (1530)
[[Philip Melanchthon]] <ref>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Melancthon Philip Melancthon - Wikipedia]</ref> (16 February 1497 – 19 April 1560) was a German Lutheran reformer and collaborator with Martin Luther, and the first systematic theologian of the Protestant Reformation, the foremost intellectual leader of the Lutheran Reformation, and an influential designer of [[education]]al systems. He stands next to Luther and John Calvin as a reformer, theologian, and molder of Protestantism . He was a primary contributor to the formulation of the Protestant ''Confession of Faith'' (1530)
'''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/>}}
===Matthew Poole (1624–1679)===
===Matthew Poole (1624–1679)===