History and Baptismal Regeneration

[CharlieJ]

“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


I have often wondered about the historical ubiquity of baptismal regeneration. It seems that baptismal regeneration was held more consistently than the mode or subjects of baptism, or the deity of Christ, or the catholicity of the Church, or anything else.

How as Protestants can we account for the fact that the most widespread belief of the Church is wrong? Unless I am mistaken, we have no proto-Reformation sacramental theologian as Augustine was for soteriology.

 

[MOSES]

I think Zwingli was wrong (except if he was just speaking about some superstitious "Doctors" in the Roman church).
Zwingli says "ALL"....either he is exagerating, or he really means "all." If the latter then that is way to broad a brush stroke in my opinion.

Power was not generally ascribed to the water itself, but rather, to the Sacrament. And if we want to deny this, then we make the sacrament a dead sign, rather then a divine mystery.

Did the "doctors" really ascribe power to the water, in and of itself, as Zwingli says???

How as Protestants can we account for the fact that the most widespread belief of the Church is wrong?

First...prove it to be wrong rather then assume it to be wrong.

Note: Taking stuff on the sacraments from Zwingli, who was a sacramental heretic (in my opinion), is not a very good place to start.
Zwinglians are not even allowed to be ordained in many reformed churchs (e.g., the OPC)

 

[Davidius]

Shawn's right. We should remember that the main branches of the Reformation disagreed with each other over the sacraments enough to anathematize each other as well as the Catholics. Zwingli was a little whacko on them. Anyway, I think this is a great question. It's one I've often asked myself.

He may have mistaken the Roman doctrine of ex opere operato with the notion that the power to cleanse of sin was in the water itself, which was not even true for the Catholics, as far as I know.

 

[Whitefield]

First...prove it to be wrong rather then assume it to be wrong.

Note: Taking stuff on the sacraments from Zwingli, who was a sacramental heretic (in my opinion), is not a very good place to start.

Using your challenge from the first statement: prove Zwingli should be classified as a sacramental heretic. And I'm not really sure what "a sacramental heretic" entails. Could you please explain what that is supposed to mean? e.g., was he unsaved because of his views on the sacraments?

 

[MOSES]

First...prove it to be wrong rather then assume it to be wrong.

Note: Taking stuff on the sacraments from Zwingli, who was a sacramental heretic (in my opinion), is not a very good place to start.

Using your challenge from the first statement: prove Zwingli should be classified as a sacramental heretic. And I'm not really sure what "a sacramental heretic" entails. Could you please explain what that is supposed to mean? e.g., was he unsaved because of his views on the sacraments?

I apologize.
The word "heretic" is thrown around so loosely nowadays, that I used that word myself very loosely, but it was in an unserious manner.

What I mean by "sacramental heritic" is that his view of the sacraments were so extreme (or "knee Jerky") compared to the soundness and soberness of men like Melanchton, Calvin, etc...That Zwingli, even to this day, would not be allowed to even be a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church...(similar to a heretic).

Again, modern day Zwinglism minsters also would not be ordained.
May they be saved?
Well sure...that is not the issue. They are just as saved as some of Zwingli's modern day counterparts: The American Baptist culture churches.


Note: And for "proof" the proof lay's in the pudding of the fact that Zwinglism is not permitted in the OPC and other likes churches.

 

[Whitefield]

First...prove it to be wrong rather then assume it to be wrong.

Note: Taking stuff on the sacraments from Zwingli, who was a sacramental heretic (in my opinion), is not a very good place to start.

Using your challenge from the first statement: prove Zwingli should be classified as a sacramental heretic. And I'm not really sure what "a sacramental heretic" entails. Could you please explain what that is supposed to mean? e.g., was he unsaved because of his views on the sacraments?

I apologize.
The word "heretic" is thrown around so loosely nowadays, that I used that word myself very loosely, but it was in an unserious manner.

What I mean by "sacramental heritic" is that his view of the sacraments were so extreme (or "knee Jerky") compared to the soundness and soberness of men like Melanchton, Calvin, etc...That Zwingli, even to this day, would not be allowed to even be a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church...(similar to a heretic).

Again, modern day Zwinglism minsters also would not be ordained.
May they be saved?
Well sure...that is not the issue. They are just as saved as some of Zwingli's modern day counterparts: The American Baptist culture churches.


Note: And for "proof" the proof lay's in the pudding of the fact that Zwinglism is not permitted in the OPC and other likes churches.

Yes, I agree, Zwingli had some views on the sacraments that Luther and Calvin could not agree with. I do not agree with some of them, but I would stop short of calling them heretical. I save that for things like transubstantiation. Although we may agree on questioning some of Zwingli's views on the sacrament, I don't think "what is not permitted in the OPC" is the litmus test for heresy and heretics.

 

[CharlieJ]

I think Zwingli was wrong (except if he was just speaking about some superstitious "Doctors" in the Roman church).
Zwingli says "ALL"....either he is exagerating, or he really means "all." If the latter then that is way to broad a brush stroke in my opinion.

Power was not generally ascribed to the water itself, but rather, to the Sacrament. And if we want to deny this, then we make the sacrament a dead sign, rather then a divine mystery.

I would really like to see some data on this. I had an ancient church history class and did a paper on baptism, but I saw no evidence that anyone held any position other than baptismal regeneration. I would love to see counter-evidence, but until I do, I don't think that Zwingli is painting with broad strokes.

Also, I think you need to give Zwingli more credit. He very well knew Catholic sacramental theology, and he assuredly did not mean to imply that the RCC believed the physical element of water held power (which no one ever asserted), but was using the rather common figure of speech "water" for "baptism."

So, to any church history powerhouses out there, are there any dissenting voices on baptism?

 

[Pergamum]

Aren't baptists "Zwinglian" when it comes to the Sacr....err...the ordinances?

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

The OP asked about Baptismal regeneration in church history. Zwingli's quote was used to point out that Zwingli noted its pervasiveness in the church fathers. The issue is not Zwingli, it is the notion of "baptismal regeneration" as found in the writings of Augustine and many others. Yikes.

Was baptismal regeneration a common view up to the Reformation?