Zwingli on infant baptism as interpreted by Verduin

proregno

proregno

Puritan Board Freshman
Way back in 2013 'Scholten' (Herbert Kraker?) wrote:

"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."

Did Luther and Zwingli write...

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...
www.puritanboard.com www.puritanboard.com

The article he refers to, not available anymore at this link: http://www.dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos/baptism/Zwingli_on_Infant_Baptism.htm

Also not available at his website: www.dialogos-studies.com

Can someone else help me with:

a) that specific article by Scholten/Herb,
b) Herb's 'paper on the book of Verduin
c) any other reformed critiques of Verduin (I do have FN Lee & McMahon)

ps. I did send a private message also to Herb, but I saw in his message board the last time he was here at PB = 2013? I also do not see any email or contact info at 'dialogos' website?

Thanks if anyone can help
Slabbert Le Cornu
 
Charles Johnson said:
Zwingli's defense of infant baptism in his works is very clear. It's sad that this historical error has been allowed to propagate.
Click to expand...
I have been reading Verduin the past few weeks, and all I can say is ... or ask: I wonder how massive influence this book (or at least it's main ideas) had on many, 'reformed and baptists' past 60 years resulting in totally "throwing the baby (infant baptism & a WCF/BC reformed biblical view of church and state) out with the filthy water (roman catholic 'sacralism' as one sided explained by Verduin and his anabaptist friends, in which all views disagreeing with his/theirs = all thrown into the same basket of a 'second fall' with 'Constantianism' and nothing good can come from it)?

On p. 57 of my edition Verduin writes about how many since (at least end of 19th century, after french revolution of previous century?) are now (because of anabaptist 'political' thought): "embarrassed" about the 'christian sacralism' of BC article 36 .... which has been the majority view past century even among reformed and presbyterians, the first changing BC art. 36, etc. (not me included....)

This book helped me therefore also understand where the ideas of 'neutral' (radical?) two kingdoms type of view of church and state (of course they would say based on 'common grace natural law') comes from, whether the influence is intentional or not ... (where a wrong antithesis is seen between reformed natural theology and the moral revealed law/ten commandments, etc)

Not only the relation between OT and NT in terms of covenant, but also how we should see the relation between 'church and state' from not only the NT, but also the OT, and seeing both continuity and discontinuity in terms of both, are some of the major differences between these two lines in history.

But Verduin is a 'NT only' Christian (not a 'biblical' Christian = OT and NT), which is a fundamental major problem which results in his one-sided view of the whole history of 'sacralism' (and then also infant baptism, ecclesiology, etc), yes, he himself says that there is no middle ground between his anabaptist view and those of the magisterial reformers.

Many 'reformed baptist' (and many now within the reformed camp itself?) wants the 'soteriology of the magisterial reformers', but not their total 'kingdom worldview' that Christ is King of both church and state, for instance;

"... that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commanded in His Word." - BC article 36.

"Indeed, this consideration makes a true king: to recognize himself a minister of God in governing his kingdom. Now, that king who in ruling over his realm does not serve God’s glory exercises not kingly rule but brigandage. Furthermore, he is deceived who looks for enduring prosperity in his kingdom when it is not ruled by God’s scepter, that is, his Holy Word." - Calvin's prefatory address to king Francis I of France in his Institutes.
 
Last edited:
Early on (1523) Zwingli did make some ambiguous and relatively tepid remarks on infant baptism, which seem to have been (mis)interpreted by Anabaptist leaders like Hubmaier - although the latter further claimed that Zwingli had also verbally spoken even more unfavorably about infant baptism - see page 243 including footnote 1 here. In subsequent writings (through 1528) Zwingli gave increasingly robust defenses of infant baptism as he developed a Covenantal model for the practice (although he was equally concerned in some of those works with refuting Catholic notions of baptismal regeneration).
 
Just to fill out some more historical context, I thought I recalled Zwingli having admitted that soon after starting his reforms in Zurich he had indeed questioned infant baptism.
​
I was myself deceived by this error some years ago, as I thought it would be best to baptize children after they reached the age of discretion.​

Denn der irrtumb hat ouch mich vor etwas jaren verfuert, das ich meint, es wäre vil wäger, man touffte die kindle erst, so sy zuo guotem alter komen wärend. ​
​
(Von der Taufe, von der Wiedertaufe und von der Kindertaufe [May, 1525]; Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche Werke, Leipzig: Heinsius, 1927; Vol. 4. p.228)​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top