Here we have an examination of the treatise, “In Catabaptistarum Strophas Elenchus.” This was a classical treatise, one of the first known which designed to promote and defend infant baptism. It was written by the hand of the reformer Huldrych Zwingli. The following was written in Zürich, in the year 1527, on July 31, which is not too far removed from the controversy on baptism that had taken place in the city. This work will be examined and we will provide a potential response to some of the claims made in it here.
Zwingli had prominently advocated for the executions of the side that believed, practiced and taught differently. This treatise was written just a few months after the first executions had taken place in the city. The treatise we investigate is a justification for the views that Zwingli (the reformer) held, given for why the infant-baptism, then widely practiced at the time, must be recognized by all.
This document was originally written in Latin, the usual scholarly language of this time, although he had to translate at times from the Swiss German of his opponents. This is what this reformer presented for all to see, consider and judge with respect to baptism. So in the end, the arguments he makes here become a defense for why he acted the way he did.
How well have his ideas withstood the test of time and how well does his defense hold up today? Were his reasons for his actions doctrinally sound, and were they coming from a scriptural perspective? On this subject, at least, we may be somewhat able to avail ourselves by careful examinations.
Preface
To begin, Zwingli opens his article with an opening line in his preface, not derived from any Scripture such as the New Testament, but rather, he simply quotes an “old saying” (Lat. vetus dictum) which states, “success is the mother of all evils”.
However, this saying may be replied with the truth that is divinely inspired as given in an epistle of Paul in 1 Timothy, which tells us that “the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
It has already been shown clearly from this that Scripture and Zwingli cannot both be correct.
Much of the reformer’s remaining response to the “Catabaptists,” which is what he chooses to term them, shows a disinterest in adhering to or respecting the dictates of inspired scripture. The reformer Zwingli many times demonstrates a preference for the traditions of men over giving a careful and full recognition to the truths of the Holy Bible, although he had been a major contributor to its translation into German, and must have been aware of its sayings. He pays it lip service, to be sure. But often in this writing, he shall leave us only with his personal collections of nonbiblical sayings, common superstitions, and temporal arguments which even contradict Scripture at times. He shall appeal often to worldly concerns, to the superstitions of poorly educated non-Bible readers, his own base of support, and to matters seeming to relate to public order, but which in this case bear equally as much on himself as on anyone else. So much less are these kinds of arguments to be used against those whom he, as a magistrate and city official, dealt rather violently with, and as we shall see without justifiable cause. The opponents of Zwingli were persecuted in a manner that was perceived in his own time as both lacking honor, and unusually unmerciful. So we will take up their case here.
In investigating such a treatise as this, the light of the God’s eternal inspired Scripture reveals the foundations of these arguments.
Continuing on now into his preface, there is another place worthy of mention. Our reformer claims that “the faith of some” is being “assailed” by exposure to the Gospel. The faith is being assailed, he says. Yet, the faith which he [Zwingli] speaks of can be shown, as below, to be nothing other than that of idols and superstitions of blindness, and the assailing of these ideas as we shall see is the opening of their eyes, turning them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith.
Those people who have repented themselves from their trust in what is empty ritual, have turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God. They have thereby quit trusting in idols in order to place their faith in God. The assailing of what our writer calls here “faith”, is in fact preaching of repentance from trust in dumb idols and in their false teachers, who appeal to the flesh. These use worldly riches and appeals to base superstition to allure men. The trust in these is what had to be ‘assailed.’ As it says in the book of 2 Corinthians, “For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds; Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”. The Gospel is, as Zwingli mentioned, the method by which this is done. See what Scripture says about the Gospel:
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” —1 Peter 1:23-25
And again:
“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
— 1 Thessalonians 2:13
The next charge of our reformer: “They deny that Christ, himself, perfected forever his saints in his one offering of himself.”
From this point onward, we will continue to investigate each of this man’s claims in like manner as above. In the quotation above, a clear reference to Hebrews 10:14 is made by him.
However, we must say that for him to imply that the practice of a scriptural mode of baptism, somehow denies this fundamental tenet of the New Testament, is committing another error, because it implies that the baptism itself is the offering. We know this is not so, as according to 1 Peter 3:21, we have been saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Baptism is a “like figure” of this resurrection, as the apostle Peter says. Now, being a “like figure” of a thing is not the same as being the thing itself. We are saved by that which baptism is a figure of, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ on the third day.
Thus, regardless of position on baptism, this is not a debate about the subject of “whether or not the offering of Christ is effective.” Zwingli misses the point. This is not brought under debate, but is agreed by all as being that the offering of Christ is effective.
Likewise, also in the epistle to the Colossians, it is again explained for us that during baptism, one is both buried with, and “risen with him in the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.” So without the faith of the operation of God, and if the faith of the operation of God is not present, then there can be no being risen. This is because that faith is what one has been risen in. For again, he says in the Bible, “risen with him in the faith of the operation of God.” This is according to Paul in Colossians 2:12. And therefore if this faith, which is a belief that God will operate is not present in the person, then of course we are not speaking of a baptism at all, but only an outward washing in water that has taken place. As Paul asks in Acts 19:3, “Unto what then were ye baptized?” So then a baptism must be unto the right thing.
The person being baptized should be able to profess their faith therefore. And so did Philip require the enunch to do in Acts 8:36-38. Notice the ‘if’ statement in Acts 8:37.
Thus according to all of this, Christ’s death, burial and resurrection is what fulfills Hebrews 10:14. That was the one offering of himself. Baptism is a sign of this, and an active recognition and answer of a good conscience toward the effectiveness of this.
We should not place superstitious faith in the ability of water or other priests or other men, or works of other men or our own works to save. Do these things have to do with salvation? No they do not, only the resurrection of Christ does. So rather, we should hold the individual faith, which is by grace (Ephesians 2:8-9) and believe in the word of God, which tells us to do this. This faith is placed solely in the name of Christ alone as the only mediator. (John 14:6).
For this reason, water, other priests, other men, or works done by men cannot be the object of the true faith. Only Christ can be.
Next charge of Zwingli: “It is to no purpose that they say, … that Christ was a great prophet or a man of God, but not the Son of God.”
This is clearly a false accusation drawn up by Zwingli, so he waxes eloquent in this section of the treatise with arguments against a faulty position, to allow him to further drag the discussion off track. Nobody has argued against Him being the Son of God, and this “refutation” is toward a position nobody on the opposing view holds. His purposes here are of creating more confusion in these opening lines, especially to unwary readers, about what the controversy is really all about.
The only person who has argued or maintained such a position in the first place, is the reformer himself – This is because he has been relying on unscriptural priesthood instead of the one true high priest, Jesus. Therefore, dethroning Christ in his own mind and placing usurpers to His dignity, and doing all of this based on a trust in the glories merely of this world: in superstitious idols, and water rituals that are not scriptural baptism. Unto what were they baptized? None of these objects have any scriptural basis on which these may be justified. As far as salvation, Zwingli has himself argued in essence, that water has a stronger effect than the resurrection of Jesus Christ, or belief in Him. He attributes salvation to that water or priest and water alone.
And this is also why Zwingli claims that, to take the correct view of baptism as a sign of salvation, (whereas the death, burial and resurrection of Christ itself is the cause of salvation), is equal, in his mind, to saying that the “one offering” is not effective.
For Zwingli, the origin of both false beliefs that he charges is actually within himself.
The next charge in his preface: “In brief, then, when they clearly deny that Christ is by nature the Son of God, it is through evil design that they rage about baptism, and not for zeal’s sake.”
Zwingli again harps on this charge here, but no further details are provided to substantiate it. Nowhere is it seriously maintained that the theological opponents of Zwingli ever said this. He does not provide the location of where such a denial of the nature of Christ ever occurred. And so this seems to be more of an attempt to create a cloud of smoke around his opponents, and nothing more.
And his last allegation of note via the preface: “They assail far more sharply than do the Romanists all who stand by Christ, by which they evince to what purpose [i.e. Romanism] they spare those whom they so anxiously flatter. But all our material cannot and must not be sought elsewhere than from the armory of the Old and the New Testament. Do thou, Father of lights, illuminate their darkness, that they may see their error, and as thou wilt sometime do, eliminate this error from the Church quickly, we pray!”
Here, Zwingli makes an appeal to pragmatism. He claims that, in a political struggle, which is what he perceives this as, one must be pressed to choose sides. Either us or the Romanists, he says.
At that time, he was a magistrate, a state official, of a rival political sphere to that of Rome. The reformer now argues that only the might of arms could stand up against the Roman Catholics. He appeals to the fear of being overcome by arms, and he draws divisions, not on theological grounds any longer, but on political lines. However, this last appeal shows us more inclinations as we noted from the beginning, as many of the sectarians, state churches that rely on infant baptism – demonstrate this tendency to rely on manmade sayings to support views that actually require a Biblical basis, a basis which they cannot find to draw from. They seek to draw support by rallying all toward worldly and political causes, instead of remaining strictly in Scripture – And thereby run counter to it. This would seem to be a fundamental error of sectarianism.
Therefore, it is a great mistake to suppose that, just because this man claims to be following only the Old and the New Testament, that this is in fact a true claim. We must “try the spirits,” as the apostle John wrote, to see whether they are of God, rather than believing every spirit. Would that he would follow such of his own advice, he could become as many of those that he caused to be killed. He could embrace the local church of the New Testament, as opposed to merely the state church. Then he would embark on the God-seeking, God-fearing ways, based on a pure approach toward God’s word and placing all things otherwise beneath the authority of that word, as far as faith and practice.
“For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”
—1 Thessalonians 2:13
“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.” —1 John 5:9-10
This faith includes keeping the family, the state and the church separate. “Them that are without God judgeth.” And “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.” Every ecclesiastical order should keep this in mind. Christ said his kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, the political realm should not have any weight in deciding spiritual matters, which are matters of truth. The truth does not change – and we should not allow it to change – according to the political situation.
Main Argument
Moving into the main arguments, Zwingli next divides his full “refutation” into four parts. First, there is a series of replies against the baptist view against his own (the arguments of which we get an indirect glimpse of). Second, going to the offensive, he writes a series of counterarguments against what he thinks their own position is. This is switching from the defense to the attack. He then finishes out the main text in the third section with a closing monologue. At the end, there is an appendix attached as the fourth and final part.
However, our reformer momentarily departs from this structure at the start, to provide the reader with another long-winded account from his perspective of how the controversy arose. There is much repetition here, and we will not belabor any point that has already been made, but a few remarks of this intro section can be made.
Here, the reformer’s reaction to the truth is made abundantly clear by the sentence which he gave toward the baptists. He held, that they should be executed by drowning. In this section then, Zwingli attempts to justify the city council’s decision to impose this death sentence upon those who had dissented from the accepted view. He goes to some length in order to stress that he had given the baptists of Zürich a chance first, to make their case. He does this in order to make it less obvious that he resorts to brutal violence to impose his own will and order on society. He chose this rather than allow the truth, if he truly thought it was on his side, to prevail. But we consider that if I Corinthians 2:13-14 is true, especially the second verse, then there are men who think only in their natural minds, which cannot understand the truth of God’s word. We read that, this is for the reason that they are not being taught by the Spirit of God, contrary to what it states of the church in verse 13, which is that they are taught by the Holy Ghost. So then, such men thinking only in their natural minds would not be able to come to right conclusions.
For the above reason therefore, to decide that a theological debate wherein one side might have men that are unable to come to the right conclusions, that the outcome should be enforced by killings, for supposed thought-crimes by the “losing” side: this is to impose a “might makes right” mentality. This is to impose totalitarianism, bound up in the decisions of fallible man. So even winning a debate is no possible excuse to justify enacting a death sentence for alleged thought-crimes. This much, should be obvious.
Regardless of these circumstances, as has often been the case, the esteemed “winner” of a debate may not even be correct – they may merely be more popular, but on the truthfully incorrect side of the debate. Yet further, those who are correct, will have nothing to object from giving free course to the truth to override falsehood in its own course. For the truth, at least, this happens without the aid of extortion or other forms of coercive penalties for the unpopular side. But only from the desperation of the false view would a necessity be seen to terrorize those who disagree with it – To silence the truth that overwhelms them. But we see this done by a combination of fallacy, false accusation, and persecution. So, the decision to execute those men simply for disagreeing or simply for holding their own communion within their church cannot be argued as a positive for Zwingli’s position or views.
More specifically, Zwingli labors on in his account here however, raising more complaints about public servants who have been “harshly treated”. He complains about how the same baptists “assail and rush on” others, and how the ministers of the church on his side are supposedly “reviled” and “abused.” But in the face of Zwingli’s approval of the killings of these men, these complaints miss the mark.
He also charges them quite loosely and repeatedly as agents of disorder. How can the reformer compare the upheaval of minds toward the truth of God’s word as bringing any greater “disorder” than his own faction’s cowardly and dishonorable killing and exile of dissenters? Did not our reformer take part in killing them, drafting laws against them simply for having the wrong ideas? If they had committed any real crime, as he alleges, then why did he have to craft new laws against baptism to sentence them under?
How can any society, we might ask, be freely and peacefully ordered according to law and nature when such factions exist, such as Zwingli’s reformers and the city council, who tyrannized against ideas that may be true? This would seem to be the much greater disorder, in truth. Zwingli, being the perpetrator, is willing to turn a blind eye to his own actions. But we should not however. Those with untrue ideas cannot withstand honest scrutiny.
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
—II Corinthians 3:17
Now to the main dialogue section:
Our reformer objects first to the assertion that the basis for his infant-baptism doctrine is found in I Corinthians 1:16, Acts 16:15, 16:33. He counters this by proclaiming that his own book is his primary basis. Not any scripture! From this other book, the reformer cites himself from his own book, as saying the following: “Circumcision among the ancients (so far as it was sacramental) was the same as baptism with us. As that was given to infants so ought baptism to be administered to infants.” [End quote, underline added]
Although Zwingli passes the opportunity to reference a single passage of scripture in this part of his argument (he even denies having done so), he does make allusion to Colossians 2:11, which indeed draws the same parallel, but it is in different terms.
“In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:”
—Colossians 2:11
It may be briefly responded here that, just as it makes sense that one cannot be “born again” without believing on Jesus Christ first (see John 3:3-8) so also the “circumcision made without hands” (next verse, Colossians 2:12) would be required to occur after having been “born again” as a new believer. (i.e. I Peter 1:23, I John 5:1). As circumcision came after birth, so also baptism would come after belief (i.e. being born the second time), and in that order. Zwingli’s theory is missing the concept of being “born again” as one being born of the Spirit. Hence, because of this, his point is invalid – Because being born the second time is not the same thing as being born the first time, but happens later, so baptism happens later as well.
The term given in Acts 2:38, “baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins” supports this. We may explain the term, “for the remission of sins” in a natural way as follows: As one receives a gift for some either accomplishment or occasion such as a birthday (i.e. “a gift for your birthday”), one is baptized because of, not in order to receive, remission of sins.
The incorrect understanding here would be: “giving someone a birthday gift causes it to be their birthday,” or “giving someone a baptism causes them to have remission of sins.” To spell it out even more plainly, you do not somehow cause it to be someone’s birthday simply by giving them a birthday gift: That is not what “a gift for your birthday” means. Otherwise, you could cause every day to be their birthday easily by giving them a gift on every day. Likewise, it is not caused the remission of sins through the use of water. But rather, that is caused through the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. As Peter wrote, baptism is a “like figure” of that by which we are saved. As a like figure, baptism is given for the remission of sins which has been received. So then baptism is a sign of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and is given because of having already received the remission of sins through belief, i.e. because of being born again.
Acts 2:41-42 also supports this, because we learn here, those who “gladly received his word” were baptized. We also learn that this is how they were added to the church (Acts 2:47, I Cor. 12:13) and that these individuals continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. None of these things describes the behavior of an infant who is oblivious to the events around them. It only describes those who gladly received his word.
Now, for those who did not do these things, those who did not or could not gladly receive his word at that time, there is nothing spoken about them. It does not say that they were baptized. This fits with the concept that non-believers and false believers were not baptized. Only those who did truly gladly receive his word were baptized. This passage in Acts 2 tells us therefore that infants certainly were not immersed in baptism either, because they were not capable of these preconditions, being not yet born again at this young age. They had not yet gladly received those words: they had not yet believed. Only those, exclusively those who had done so were baptized at that time, according to what the Bible says in Acts 2:41-42.
In Acts 8:37, this profession is the requirement for baptism given by Philip to the eunuch (Philip uses the crucial word, ‘If’ in Scripture). Infants, we being quick to remind once again, are not capable of making such professions, as the eunuch made, nor are they capable of continuing in a doctrine (as it says in Acts 2:42) which requires comprehension of and belief first. And this is the truth, which vain superstition cannot hide from, nor can it prevail against.
On to the next point, the reformer returns to explain that his real use of the three earlier mentioned passages, are as examples to support his basis (which was in his book, not in inspired Scripture). So again, the basis of his argument, according to the reformer, is his own book. The three examples given in Scripture are, in his view, merely supposed to support that.
In particular, Zwingli tells us, that in one of the theological councils, Balthasar Hubmaier retorted to him this: “Those [verses] are the columns and they bring no other Scripture but futile conjecture; we demand clear Scripture.”
Zwingli acknowledges this, and that these three scriptures are not and cannot be a foundation, but he simply counters that the other side had been relying on similar “columns” of its own. This is supposed to be his defense. Zwingli argues now, that, to suppose that the apostles themselves had been baptized, is also going too far, because this fact is not explicitly written in Scripture!
The main problem with this line of reasoning is that everyone agrees they were baptized. This is not something that needs to be assumed to support any doctrine at all, much less one worthy to put others to death over. Because the disciples were professing believers (!), so there is no reason at all why Acts 2:41-42 and Acts 8:37 precludes them from having been baptized.
However, these are reasons why non-professing and nonbelievers are precluded: This includes infants and others. Hence, for this reason and this difference, the weight of Zwingli’s counterargument here is empty.
We should reiterate now that Zwingli freely acknowledged (!) that the three verses from before, form no solid basis for his conclusions (!) at all, and that Zwingli instead leans back on his own book which he wrote, to provide the basis for his conclusions… But is his book inspired, or could it have errors? Zwingli concludes at the end of this point: “I laid as the foundation the saying:” and gives another statement from his book. Yet his book is a fallible writing, not inspired scripture.
In this article we show, that a statement from outside of the inspired Scripture is subject to private interpretation. Thus, his statement may be compared to Biblical statements to see if it is true, but cannot serve as a foundation by itself.
He does not provide Scripture to actually support his statements. This, in sum, shows his entire problem.
He next argues the following: “It does not follow: ‘The apostles are not said to have eaten pork, therefore they did not eat it.’ So our reasoning here is: It cannot be proved that believers’ infants were not baptized by the apostles because this is not written, for there are many things done, both by Christ and by the apostles, which were not committed to writing. The lawyers call this a question of law, not fact.”
The Scriptural mode of baptism, we can show, involves a believer who, through the faith of the operation of God, is buried with and risen with Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:12). This means that to claim someone is baptized without this faith, this does go against Scripture – and there is also no example of it being done in the way which Zwingli argues.
In I Peter 3:21, baptism is also characterized specifically as not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but as the answer of a good conscience toward God. Therefore, baptism is not simply an outward act that could be performed on any object. The baptism has become the answer of a good conscience toward God. As such, it implies there is a good conscience toward God in the person being baptised first of all.
Some things cannot become baptized. As such, it makes no sense to speak of neglecting to baptize those things.
Suppose I make the statement, that, “everything that could be eaten was eaten.” Does this simple statement prove that mountains might have also been eaten? Mountains cannot be eaten; my statement does not open up the possibility that mountains might have been eaten, because it only includes things that could be eaten. Therefore, we do not require a clarifying statement, every time I say this, just to disprove the possibility that mountains may have also been eaten at that time. It is an absurd notion on the face of it to think that my statement tells us that mountains were eaten. Surely you see the point of this statement, reader.
Baptism spoken of in scripture is always undergone by the believer. No one else can be baptized, according to Scripture. It is an absurd notion to suggest that anything other than a believer could be baptized. As it says in Colossians, the person is “risen through the faith of the operation of God” and not through any other thing. We do not require a clarifying statement that nonbelievers are not baptised at every one of these various points in Scripture, since, according to Scripture it is proven that only believers are baptised… There is no counterexample to this, as well. There are only imagined counterexamples. Just as misreading my statement, somehow, as evidence that mountains were eaten. I never said that. Zwingli’s reply to this: You never said they weren’t. (!!) I suppose we can prove from this same argument by omission that animals, rocks, and unbelievers were baptized by the Apostles also as well.
Yet, not only is this line of reasoning on Zwingli’s part absurd: what he willfully resists admitting, is that it actually positively contradicts scripture. This shall be shown with plenty of examples below.
Zwingli follows all of this weakness, by writing next: “If it were down in plain words somewhere: The apostles did not baptize infants, it would not (even then) follow that they are not to be baptized. The inquiry would have to be made whether they simply omitted the performance or whether it was not right to baptize.”
What the reformer has done here is advance to a plan B argument. Zwingli has failed his previous argument, tacitly admits that nowhere in Scripture does it teach what he before claimed. So, failing that, the reformist falls back to a second line now, not being compatible with the first and Zwingli himself admitting that the first explanation that he had earlier argued is wrong. He says at this point that, if the apostles never baptized infants, that still would not invalidate his position.
He writes, just because the apostles never once baptized a single infant, that would not necessarily mean that it is wrong to do that. He argues now that it would not be wrong to break away from the apostolic practice and tradition of Scripture.
However, his inquiry fails again to consider whether the following was possible: that the Biblical definition of baptism itself excludes nonbelievers from the very possibility of being objects of baptism from the very start, as I have already maintained above.
The issue is not that “it’s not right to eat mountains”, that’s not the issue, but rather, that it is not even possible. The moral conflict of whether it is right or not for a man to eat mountains does not cross the mind under any normal circumstances. It is accepted as mad to try to eat a mountain. A task that is not possible. So there is no debate or special discussions over whether it is right to do so, either. The omission of any debate over whether such an action is right, does not prove, as Zwingli would like to have it, that it is possible. Quite the opposite. The lack of any discussion or debate about eating mountains is evidence of the impossibility of the task. Because no one is even thinking of it happening. And it is not evidence of the possibility. Other examples of things that are impossible to do may be constructed: And it is also not possible to baptize anyone without faith, and it is therefore normal and normative to require a profession of faith, as Philip did in in Acts 8:36-38 and as the apostles did in Acts 2:41-42; after all, only those that gladly received the word were indeed baptized according to Scripture. After this, Luke, in the book of Acts states, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, that those who were baptized continued in the doctrine of the apostles.
Zwingli further adds, “these examples you will never be able to do away with, as I shall clearly show.”
However, his examples will also be addressed now. The household of the jailer in Acts 16:33 we have more information about. In Acts 16:34, the very next verse, the account says that “he set meat before them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house.”
So when the account of Acts speaks of his house being baptized, it also says that they all believed in God.
The household of Stephanas in I Corinthians 1:16 is another household that is said to have been baptised. But we should not forget that they are also made mention of again, in I Corinthians 16:15, where this is said of the same house: “that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints”. Obviously, being addicted to the ministry of the saints is not talking about infants here.
Lastly: the example of Acts 16:15 has, by far, the least information of the three. But an argument from less information cannot be used, if one also wishes to refer to the other two examples which provide information that already affirms our Acts 2:41-42 foundational understanding of baptism, which is that the baptised gladly received, and believed, the word of God. Acts 16:15 does not contradict these accounts.
Now, as Mark 16:16 alludes, baptism must coincide with and be preceded by belief. “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved”: Notice the very ordering of the words.
Also in Matthew 28:19: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”.
As we have seen in Colossians 2:12, we know that baptism occurs through the faith of the operation of God. We see from every example that, if they did not believe, then they were not baptized. So, the statement (he who believes and is baptized shall be saved) also goes along with the eternal security of the believer (which is discussed more in this article; See also Acts 13:48.) This is because it makes sense to say that, 1) if anyone is baptized, then they are a believer, and, if, 2) as many as are ordained to eternal life do believe; then, we do also know that, 3) anyone who believes and is baptized shall be saved. Only believers are saved (2), only believers are baptized (1). Thus, anyone who is baptized (in the Biblical and true sense so that it is recognized in the Bible), must also be saved: Mark 16:16. So all three statements hold together without any contradictions. This is our Biblical foundation.
Moving to Zwingli’s fifth reply, he writes: “For what else have I ever done but confirm by testimony of Scripture all that I have given out?”
Just a few pages before this, Zwingli used his own book as his foundation (as previously discussed). He did not confirm it by testimony of Scripture. Unless he thinks that his own book is Scripture! See page 139 of the same treatise. And it is so unfortunate that the man does not live up to these words within his own treatise. This almost leads us to think that the work in question must have been falsified somewhere by a second author, to contain such a blatant self contradiction, five or six pages after he had quoted his own book as evidence without Scripture. “What else have I ever done?” I checked the translation but that is what he seems to be saying.
Because of this, it is worthwhile to recall here what the original argument of the baptists states, as can be gleaned from Zwingli’s responses: “Now he [Zwingli] hastens to do what the enemies of truth have thus far done.”
In the next part of the reformer’s same reply: he adds on another untrue statement which adds unneeded confusion: “As often as they, either Christ or the apostles, refer to Scripture they mean not their own letters or the gospel records, which were either not yet written or were then in the process of writing, just as the times demanded; they meant the law or the prophets.”
See II Peter 3:16—
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. —II Peter 3:16
St. Paul’s epistles (the antecedent of this verse) were accounted to be scripture according to St. Peter in this epistle. Hence it makes no sense to suggest that scripture according to the New Testament must be strictly referring to the law or the prophets.
Also, in I Thessalonians 2:13, Paul boldly maintains that he has brought to them the word of God. He says the word of God, and not the word of men. And again also to I Peter 1:23-25, the word of God is the word which by the gospel is preached unto us. So then, from these references it is shown that scripture is not limited to Old Testament according to the apostles. The word of God includes the gospel.
For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. —II Peter 1:21
Yet Zwingli leans on the earlier false statement, to argue that his opponents the baptists were denouncing the Old Testament. And what is the reason for this? He accuses them because they called the New Testament “scripture.” He therefore states multiple times: “totum vetus Instrumentum negaretis.” or translated: “they reject the whole old Testament.”~!
Needless to say, this is perfect anti-logic. There is no right reasoning behind it. How can believing the statement that “the epistles of Paul are scripture” lead to be rejecting the Old Testament? If so, does this mean that Peter, who called Paul’s writings “scripture” in the book of II Peter, also rejected the whole Old Testament by the same logic?
Scripture says in Ephesians 2:20-22, “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”
We see here that the apostles and prophets serve together as foundation: the apostles, obviously, do not detract from the others. We therefore challenge Zwingli’s charge, which honestly appears to be saying, that holding the apostles’ writings as Scripture somehow detracts from the other Scripture, or in other words detracts from the Old Testament.
What does the book of Hebrews say in the beginning of it? “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”
Reading John 17 shows us that the Son entrusted his word to the apostles and that the world would learn his word by the apostles. And in Hebrews 1:1 we see that the prophets of the Old Testament likewise spoke by the Holy Ghost. Just as in these last days, God spoke unto us by his Son. All scripture is given by inspiration of God.
What does the book of Titus say in the beginning of it? “In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me according to the commandment of God our Saviour;” (Titus 1:2-3)
So we see that just as God manifested his word through preaching in due times, (again see Hebrews 1:1) so also God committed unto Paul the same according to the commandment of God, our Savior. It is the same inspiration in both the Old and the New Testament. It is therefore a work pure of deceit to try to separate them. Often, this false argument (i.e. ‘the New Testament is not scripture according to itself’) is made to throw off those that are weak in the faith, and I have also seen it made myself in person.
II Peter 3:15-16 is enough to answer this, because there Peter makes reference to Paul’s epistles as “scripture.” If there are “other” scriptures aside from what Paul has written, then what Paul has written must be scripture as well.
Paul himself says in Galatians 1:11-12, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
In same reply still, Zwingli wrote: “At Worms you deny Christ, and lead the way back to trust in works…”
It is manifest that trusting in a work such as water baptism*, rather than faith in the operation of God, is actually a works salvation. Any of Zwingli’s assertions therefore that he makes against justification by works, should be applied back to his own advocacy for nonscriptural baptism, which does represent trust in works.
*- done in an irregular method that does not adhere to the scriptural method – if it were done in a scriptural method, then it would not be the object, in itself, of belief, but it would be “a like figure” unto that by which we are saved (see I Peter 3:21) which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. We are actually saved by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and baptism is “a like figure” to that same death, burial and resurrection. That is what it was always meant to be, according to I Peter 3:21.
We shall continue on somewhat into the reformer’s replies here, avoiding many pitfalls and repeats of several arguments already addressed.
In the sixth reply, Zwingli writes: “I ask then what you mean by family? You will doubtless say: ‘Those who had come to such an age that they knew what law is and what sin is, for he must repent who wishes to be baptized, but since infants cannot repent, they cannot be included in the family.’ Thanks to God that you have learned to make so fine a rope of sand, twisting out lie from lie. For having persisted in the statement that none is to be baptized but he who can repent, you will rightly assert that infants may not be baptized. But here there is need of a law forbidding, and you have no law.”
We have the testimony of Philip in Acts 8:37. One cannot act as though it says otherwise. What hinders a man to be baptized? This is asked in Acts 8:36. A conditional if, that is, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” The answer is provided by Philip in Acts 8:37. This condition, this ‘if’ statement made by Philip prompted the eunuch’s confession and then his baptism afterward.
Surely, Zwingli was aware of this passage. It seems near certain that his trusted defense against this was, by feigning that the passage does not exist. He may have believed many in his audience would not be aware of the passage. His claim, that there is no law forbidding, might be one received on trust toward the reformer in this case, as is done elsewhere. He merely asserts that there is no law forbidding. Some people who do not know better might accept that. But actually there clearly is a law forbidding in Acts 8:37.
It seems in the face of such a situation, the way in which they choose to avoid the full impact of God’s word and law in Acts 8:36-37 is simply by not dealing with it or answering it in any way. Remaining silent when presented with the witness of this great man of God, Philip, and going on about their arguments as if they had never seen it afterward. This, as well as complete spiritual darkness and confusion, would explain to us why this passage in Acts 8 is never, so much as one single time mentioned, in the discussion here.
This is because there is simply no way for the Zwingli position to answer it. For him, its existence has to be quietly ignored. The ignorance of the audience is relied upon for support here. Yes, that’s right. Acts 8:36-38 is simply too powerful to be dealt with. Too likely to convince the skeptics of the truth to be mentioned. So that it has to be ignored altogether by Zwingli. To even mention it a single time, and thus risk bringing more peoples’ awareness to it, is too dangerous for him.
Please also note that the concept of whether infants should be considered part of the “family” (as far as the statements of the New Testament) will also become important very soon in this discussion. It is hinted at by Zwingli in the reply here, and will be discussed in the eighth reply.
In the seventh reply, Zwingli writes: “How could [Paul] say in general, in [1 Cor. 1:16], that he had baptized the house of Stephanas, which he did not do if there were children in it whom he had not admitted? The same must be said about [Acts 16:15]. But in the third case [Acts 16:33], when he asserts that the whole house was baptized, how is it that they do not see that in the beginnings the same custom obtained as with Abraham and his descendants, who circumcised the whole class of his servants, as well those taken in war as the homeborn slaves and those bought, not to say the children, as appears from the passage just cited from [Exodus 12:48]? There it expressly commanded to circumcise every male of the family, and there is never any mention of believing or knowing God, which yet ought to be the especial care of all.”
It has already been explained before that while circumcision had to follow after the physical birth, likewise baptism occurs after being born again (John 3:6-7), also inwardly. Being born again is being saved, as shown in John chapter 3.
Now, after all this we finally arrive at the hinge of this reformer’s argument. A full quote of this important reply is provided here, which will include the original argument of the baptists themselves followed by Zwingli’s chosen reply.
“Catabaptists: Eighth- The last chapter of this epistle shows that the apostle neither knew nor baptized children. Zwingli dishonestly keeps this back; it makes against his foundation of glass. Paul describes this family to the learned when he says: Ye know the house of Stephanas, that it is the first-fruits in Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the service of the saints– that ye submit yourselves to them and to every one that helpeth with us and laboreth. A family of this sort pædobaptism and pædobaptists do not recognize; they do away with it, for it is against them.
“Reply- As in many other places so here, we easily catch the author of this frivolous confutation, although the greatest proof is the Swiss tongue, in which it is so written that it has no foreign or imported words. Yet, as I have said, since the man now doubtless burns among the shades as much as he froze here through his catabaptist washings, I have concluded to omit his name. What impudence is this, O shade, in that you assert that I wish to ignore these words of Paul. Were these words not cited by Haetzer in the first two debates?
Did not I reply that they were synechdochic, like 1 Cor. x. 1 : ‘All our fathers were under the cloud?’ But there were infants also under the cloud, yet no individual mention is made of them. All crossed the sea. Yet the infants could not have crossed. Therefore they crossed who did not, but were borne by those who did…”
Here, Zwingli finally describes what he regards as the “unstoppable argument.”
Any explanation of how “a family” performed some action, such as crossing the sea, is explained as a “synecdoche.” A synecdoche means, that those parts of the family or group that were able to do the described actions, did the actions, and that the rest of the group – which is the part unsuited to partake in the action – is said to be “included by synecdoche.”
This synecdoche explains what is meant, when it is said in Scripture that the group (as a whole) partook in the action. So, in this case, if Scripture says, “the family crossed the sea,” it means that those who were able carried those who were not. It does not mean that the infants individually crossed the sea on their own power. When they say the family crossed over, it means that the infants were carried over the sea. They could not cross themselves. But they were included in the family’s action of crossing by synecdoche. Hence, included by synecdoche only.
We do not assume from the fact that the family “crossed over the sea,” that every individual member, even the infants, crossed by their own power. They would not have had the ability to do this.
Likewise, if the family was performing, “the ministry of the saints,” then the infants would be included by synecdoche only. If this is truly a synecdoche, then the statement does not force us to believe that every infant in the household was performing the ministry of the saints. The statement only means that everyone in the family that could perform the ministry was doing it.
In this method Zwingli appears able to explain how the infants of the house of Stephanas, if they existed, in I Corinthians 16:15, had not themselves, “addicted themselves to the service of the saints.” They would only be included by synecdoche, he says. Let us consider his argument further:
“…So in the family of Stephanas there were those who were the first believers of the Achaians; there were also those who at the same time belonged to the church, who in actuality, because of age, not yet believed nor took part in the ministry of the saints.”
So, by this device of words, Zwingli tells us to include infants as being individually baptized as part of the family, while excluding them from having engaged in any of the other activities.
He tells the reader that they are only included in each of these other activities by synecdoche, and not by explicit action themselves.
This then, supposedly explains the statement in Scripture. In a similar argument, found in his twelfth reply Zwingli straightly argues this point again:
“Learn then that infants were counted among believers and were baptized, and that of believers those actually believed, prayed, distributed property, broke the Lord’s bread, who had come to such age and understanding as to be fitted for this and subject to the observance, … but however the letter reads, by synecdoche is understood every class according to its manner and understanding. What have squalling [infants] to do with the reading of the law, or adolescents with the offering of the firstfruits?”
But now, we may say, if this concept is admitted, then it is immediately possible to say that the family was baptized, and that the infants were excluded from this household baptism by synecdoche, as they were not (yet) suited to undergo baptism any more than they were to believe, pray, or distribute property!
In fact, this argument has been historically used by baptists to advocate in favor of their position. Consider the following from the 1542 Vermanung:
“They claim that, beyond a doubt, there were children present. Therefore, they say, the apostles baptized children. So, why should we not do so if the apostles did? But this assumption proves nothing. Why? At the time when entire households were baptized, it is just as likely that there were no infants present as it is likely that they were. For there are as many homes in which there are no infants as there are homes with infants. Often, reference is made to an entire land, city, or house without including any children at all. We read that the whole of Judea went out to hear John (Mt. 3:5). Matthew says: ‘King Herod is afraid and, with him, the whole of Jerusalem’ (2:3). It does not follow that the infants went out from their cribs to hear John or that they were afraid. Similar examples can be found in other places in Scripture.”
As we have said: there are positive requirements found regarding right baptism. In Acts 2:41, only those who gladly received his word were baptized, not all. In Acts 8:36-38, Philip would only baptize the eunuch if he believed that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. These are positive requirements.
And so the argument by synecdoche is brought crashing down immediately upon itself. One might apply household baptism merely by synecdoche to the whole family. Those who were not of sufficient age were not individually baptized. If we admit the existence of synecdoche, why then it logically follows: we may apply it to baptism.
It is for this reason that the argument by synecdoche is a null point. For whether one admits of it or does not admit of it, either way the argument from Scripture against baptism of infants remains completely true. We have also shown from the above points that this is far more than just an argument from silence, although that alone would be enough.
How can one say from any Scripture that such group as have not believed nor made professions of faith (after the model of Acts 8:36-37) were able to be included in baptism? So then, if we admit synecdoche (contended to be the best argument by Zwingli), why then, we have only made the case against Zwingli stronger!
It can be said that, if the households mentioned did have any infants, then they were included only by synecdoche in baptism. That they did not partake of the baptism themselves by reason of this early age. This is the same reason why, according to synecdoche, they did not partake of the believing, the doctrine of the apostles, the breaking of the bread, and the prayers.
This is all the more bolstered by the passages of Acts 2:41-44, where, those who were baptized were said to continue steadfastly in the doctrine of the apostles, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. If Zwingli thinks that infants were not capable of this, but only included by synecdoche: why then, by all means they were likewise only included by synecdoche in baptism as well. This is according to the requirements of Scripture previously discussed.
And this is supported in Acts 16:33-34, where the same household is said to have been baptized and to have believed in God. If we permit infants to be excluded from the following actions by synecdoche, namely ‘believing in God and continuing in the doctrine of the apostles, breaking of bread, and prayers’ – we shall likewise permit them to be excluded by similar reasoning, from having been baptized also.
Just as one synecdoche may exist… so too another appears. But if neither exists, then Zwingli’s argument is not helped at all. His escape from the original dilemma is undone: if no synecdoche is allowed, then if the household of the Jailer believed with all his house, then clearly it did not include any infants.
Next argument: “As those infants then belonged to the family of their earthly and their heavenly Father and were sealed by their sacraments, so now also they who are children of Christians, since they are also sons of God, use the sacrament of God’s sons. You will find no crack by which you can escape.”
According to Scripture, one is a son of God at the point when they are saved. “Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God:” – 1 John 5:1. And by grace are we saved through faith, according to Ephesians 2:8-9.
He adds: “Although I take no exception to the change of form: We are baptized into one body, instead of: We who are of one body are baptized in one baptism, for by nature being of the body precedes bearing the mark of the body.”
The body spoken of in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the congregation – the church body: Here Zwingli mistakes being born again (salvation) with church membership (baptism – after salvation). An individual person with a body becomes baptized in water. A single member of the church is not to be confused with the church body that is referred to in 1 Corinthians 12:13. The “one body” in 1 Corinthians 12:13 is the church body, not the individual body of one person being baptized. Zwingli appears to be in error.
Zwingli: “In Ex. xxiii. 17 it is written: Three times a year all thy males shall appear before the Lord thy God. Notice this word ‘all.’ Tell me, then, were infants in the cradle from all Palestine carried thrice a year to Jerusalem? If so, then according to your argument, they ate unleavened bread for seven days, sowed the fields and offered the firstfruits. But since they did not do this, it follows that all males were not included.
If they were not brought, it is not true that every male appeared thrice a year before the Lord. ‘All males’ is therefore synecdoche, and however on first appearance it seems as though every male is ordered to be present at the three feasts, they alone are bound by the law who were so old that they could not receive the instruction…”
On accepting this, we may say that the infants not baptized by apostles, being excluded by synecdoche as they were not yet believers. Thus, “the household was baptized” likewise, becomes synecdoche. In reality, only those that were old enough to believe and be baptized were. The rest, who were not old enough, might be included only by synecdoche. Thus the reformer’s arguing from synecdoche is without effect.
Zwingli carries on: “Paul, in [1 Corinthians 10:1-2], tends in no other direction than to prove that they are as much initiated by our sacraments as we ourselves. It follows therefore, first, that in Paul’s time it was the custom of the apostles to baptize infants; second, if any one contradicts it he vitiates the opinion of Paul.”
We do not see how Zwingli responds to the possibility that infants were excluded from baptism by the same synecdoche. It seems that he has no response to this. This is what has been advanced above.
However, were we to use I Corinthians 10:1-2 as a counterexample for baptism, then why do we not include all, including those not even born or conceived, as the apostle Paul does in I Corinthians 10:1-2 himself? From this passage not only infants, but also the unborn and those generations yet to come were included by Paul in I Corinthians 10:1-2.
If we were to fully carry the analogy of I Corinthians 10:1-2 to the ordinance of baptism in the church, we would have to apply baptism not only to infants but also to the unborn and generations not yet conceived. Paul speaking in I Corinthians 10:1-2 refers to many unborn people who were also under the cloud and passed through the sea. He said, “all our fathers were under the cloud.” That includes those who were yet unborn. He says, “all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea.” That includes every generation from Moses to Paul.
A similar example to this exists in Hebrews 7:9-10, where the author writes, “And as I may so say, Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in Abraham. For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.”
Therefore, if we carried the analogy of I Corinthians 10:1-2 in particular, then it needs be explained how unborn and future generations could be baptized before they even begin to exist. Does one water baptism carry down to all descendants? Is one water baptism of one person sufficient to baptize all future sons, daughters, grandchildren, etc.? If not, then the analogy of I Corinthians 10 in particular does not hold, at least not in the way that Zwingli would want.
The above quotation deserves its own mention despite being a repeat of his earlier argument, because the weakness of Zwingli’s argument is easily demonstrated by this non sequitur. So I have included it for further reference.
It is true, however, that the reformer’s synecdoche is completely broken. For if anything, his synecdoche actually helps our case and it clearly hurts his own. Synecdoche would allow us to explain how a household would have an infant, and be included by synecdoche in the baptism while not being baptized him-or herself. Why not? Because they were not old enough to believe that Jesus is the Christ and be born of God, there are positive requirements, and therefore even if Zwingli is right, it means that they were only included in the mentioned baptism of the household by synecdoche.
This absolutely concludes the matter: Synecdoche can only help the case against Zwingli, and synecdoche at best does nothing to support Zwingli.
His remaining argument, after settling this point, is so glaringly weak that we will simply leave you with his closing statement to this section of the book before moving on:
“The arguments against the synecdoche in 1 Cor. x. 1 : All our fathers were under the cloud, they all crossed the sea, all were baptized unto Moses, all ate the same spiritual food– the arguments, I say, that they bark out against these synecdoches are so foolish and impure that they are not to be taken into account. For they say they know that they ate, drank, crossed the sea, went to stool and urinated, but it must be proved by us by clear Scripture that infants were baptized. After that they insult us this way: See now how Zwingli stands with his synecdoche, which he affirms with his own peculiar cunning and sophistry, lest by acknowledging the truth he may suffer the persecution of the cross of Christ. What can you do with these men? That I might expound synecdoche correctly I adduced these examples, which they are so far from tearing away that he who will may use them, not only as examples of synecdoche, but to show also that in the apostles’ time believers’ infants were baptized, as I have indicated above.
They approach the matter with bitterness, since they can do nothing by the sharp energy of the word of God. They charge cunning and sophistry, which I so express my abhorrence of that all my writings can free me from the charge better than any oration prepared for this purpose. But I recognize and cherish the truth. And I should have to endure nothing if I should adopt your opinion, unless you are most mendacious, for you have promised oftener than I can say that all will eventuate happily if I join you. But you had to have recourse to calumnies and shouts when you undertook to overthrow synecdoche, for you saw this to be impossible. This remains, and will ever remain synecdoche: The fathers were all baptized, the fathers all ate the same spiritual food with us, as was shown in the foregoing sufficiently and will be treated again in the following. Thus far I have replied to the first part of your refutation, to the rest I will do the same in the course of the disputation. Now I proceed to the second part.”
Second Part
There is not much left to say on this part that has not already been addressed. But some of the objections contained in these later sections of the book are certainly of interest and significance.
Zwingli moves on from his own defense, to the “offensive” in the second subdivision. There is not much to discuss here except for an early portrait which he provides of a “CONSTITUTION OF THE SECT OF THE CATABAPTISTS” which must predate the publication date of this book, on Jul. 31, 1527. It has articles on the following: on Baptism, on excommunication (or church discipline), on breaking of bread, on separation, on pastoral office, on the sword, and on oaths. This must clearly be the Schleitheim Confession of Feb. 24, 1527.
Zwingli at this point charges that two men took part in two adulteries at the same time which caused their couch to collapse, and that one town in their faction refused to judge a man who had mercurially beheaded his brother in a complete frenzy. But there is little else to say in response to these charges that was not already properly addressed in the main article. Having no evidence, no response is warranted. He does at this point present an interesting discourse on the Latin terms, “jurare” versus “dejerare,” compared to the term “perjerare” used in the section on oaths. This minor section of the book would merit a separate analysis which we do not pursue now. He also charges the baptists with promoting a works gospel and “leading the way back to trust in works” at this point, as well as other charges which are going to be repeated again in the third subsection which we will delve into at that time.
Third Part
Zwingli writes: “The Israelites were God’s people with whom he entered into covenant, whom he made especially his own, to whom also he gave a sign of his covenant from the least to the greatest, because high and low were in covenant with him, were his people and were of his church. And when, in giving command or prohibition, he addresses that whole people, the infants are not excluded because they understand nothing of what is said or commanded, but he speaks synechdochically, so that so far from excluding that part which could receive nothing that came because of the times or its age he even includes it, just as when a person acts with a man he acts also with all the family and his posterity. So that he often addresses the whole people as one man: ‘Hear, O Israel,’ and: ‘Say to the house of Jacob,’ etc.”
As mentioned before in the main part, the fact that circumcision followed physical birth in no way tells us about baptism. This is because the person who is born again (as Christ explained in John 3:3-7) is a new creature. See Galatians 6:15. In Christ we are a new creature, are born again not by corruptible seed, but by incorruptible, by the word of God. Before the birth of the new creature, there would be no object to the baptism. Before the physical birth and the appearance of the child, it would not be possible to circumcize them before that time. And before being born again by the word of God, which is being born the second time, which is being born of the Spirit it would not be possible to be baptized before this. To anyone that wants the true parallel, they can have it.
Zwingli writes here: “Abraham was justified by faith. Here is synecdoche. If this were not so it would follow that Hebrew infants were not of the people of God, which has been shown to be false, for they did not believe, and therefore according to the Catabaptists’ faith they were not sons of Abraham.”
See Paul writing in Galatians 4:
“For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.
Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.”
— Galatians 4:22-28
From this we see, that just as the people of God were descended from Abraham, they were also descended through Isaac. As Romans 9:7 says, “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” So being descended from Abraham was not enough. After him, they had to also be descended from Isaac in order to be the people of God.
From Isaac, the people of God were also descended, all the way through the lineage of the Savior, until Christ himself was born. And of Christ it is said that, “as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”. This is even true regardless of time period (see Matthew 22:43-45). So we see that, just as it was Isaac (but not Ishmael) that the seed was called, it is also only through Christ that the people of God descend. Paul writing in Galatians 3:16 states this plainly.
A man cannot see the kingdom of God, except he be born again, and that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. It follows from all of this this that the people of God, even the seed that shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation, are children by the promise of faith, as Paul wrote in Romans 4:16, “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,” Therefore, one might be a son of Abraham, yet not be accounted for the seed. In this way, the house of Hagar was not accounted, because, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called.” This shows us a principle that limits both the righteousness and direct inheritance, actually to Christ only. In truth, Galatians 3:16 tells us this plainly. He is the seed singular, heir of the promise to Abraham. Now converse to this, one who is born again has been placed in Christ, so that they along with him have become the true heirs and shall be true inheritors of the original promise.
For all of this reason, there are some “sons of Abraham” which are not “the people of God.” In Isaac shall thy seed by called.
Anyone also who is in Jesus Christ the Savior is the seed of Abraham, and therefore is “now the people of God” as Peter wrote in 1 Peter 2:10. The objection of Zwingli is therefore undone.
To save time, we will briefly describe the ending remarks of the reformist’s third subsection. In a few words, Zwingli makes the argument that, “there should have arisen controversy” over the desire of some to baptize their infants. In other words, he is not seeing any controversy over the issue in question.
But we see this immediately for what it is: an argument from omission. As we have discussed before, it already makes sense that no controversy would exist about something that was not even possible to do. If everyone knew that baptism was the answer of a good conscience toward God, then it would make as much sense to argue over allowing infants to read scrolls or for men to eat mountains, as for those (who are unwilling) to be baptized. There would naturally be no controversy over such impossible things.
This controversy may well have occurred, we have no indication that it never did. Or, it may well not have. The reformer urges, by his argument from omission (which he elsewhere rejects) that it never occurred. He now says that parents concerned with their childrens’ wellbeing would have brought the dispute.
And yet, we also do not see any controversy over not including newborn infants in the breaking of bread, the Lord’s supper – the form of the other ordinance. Is the lack of controversy over this point somehow an indication that infants broke bread and ate the Lord’s supper? No, it is not. We find we are to “examine ourselves” beforehand, as this is something which infants cannot do.
And so, whether or not someone raised “concern” over this matter, it makes no difference. And further, we see no reason why in the first place anyone would raise the concern over baptism of infants at all, since from the earliest time under John the Baptist, the water baptism was given as a “baptism of repentance.” Baptism therefore would apply from its earliest usage to those that repented. Infants do not verbally repent, making a profession of faith. These are things of which they do not know nor profess yet. Furthermore, it was a baptism of immersion, as seen by the Greek word definitions. Infants do not come up straightway out of the water from a full immersion baptism in a river such as the river Jordan. They do not have the required fortitude. All these reasons, this truth must be hidden from the senses on a constant basis by a pædobaptist. This is the truth, and the cognitive dissonance which they must suppress so that such nonsensical positions could be maintained.
And yet, none of this presents any difficulty to the church. Laws against baptizing of those who were already ‘baptized’ in their infancy, only creates the occasion for glorious martyrs for the faith.
Having cleared away this argument by Zwingli, there are a few threads that remain which we shall answer. Lastly, we turn to respond to some side points in our appendix at the close this article.
Zwingli writes: “For we learn [in 1 Corinthians 10:1-2] that Paul attributed our externals to the Hebrews, though they had the internals alone, but the externals not in the same form but differently. No one denies that they ate spiritual bread just as we, for they, like we, were saved through him who was to come. But they did not carry around the bread and wine in the supper, but used other externals in place of these, manna and water from the rock.”
Here this reformer seems to confuse the passages about “spiritual bread” in John 6 and 1 Corinthians 10, with other passages on the Lord’s supper. A careful examination of the two former passages will immediately show that no “bread and wine” nor a “supper” was physically presented in either of these passages.
But the passages that deal with the Lord’s Supper involve a physical table and bread itself physically being broken and served. This is not so with John 6:24-71 or 1 Corinthians 10:1-4.
John chapter 6 shows us what the spiritual meat is, which is the word of God. This is found in the explanation of Jesus in John 6:63, which states: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” This is as Jesus Christ also said in Matthew 4:4, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.”
The apostle Peter recognized the truth of this by responding, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68). This is also that same true spiritual meat in 1 Corinthians 10:3 that the Israelites received.
Henceforth, we should not confuse the spiritual meat and spiritual drink any longer with the externalities, such as the manna and the water from the rock, which they were meant always to represent.
“And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” — 1 Corinthians 10:3-4
“How is it that ye do not understand that I spake it not to you concerning bread, that ye should beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?
Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.” — Matthew 16:11-12
The error of Zwingli’s argument is plain to see, because the spiritual bread referred to in 1 Corinthians 10 and John 6 is a true explanation for the externalities they refer to in the Old Testament. These externalities, manna and water from the rock were a foreshadowing, and a sign of the spiritual meat and spiritual drink, according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. We should not add confusion to this picture as Zwingli does, by bringing in the Lord’s Supper, something which is involved with breaking of physical bread and wine, and which is dealt with in its own separate passages in the New Testament.
Zwingli goes on: “The internals were the same, the externals different. So [Paul] attributes to them that internal baptism, so that they as well as we were cleansed through Christ; external baptism he expresses by the analogy of the sea and the cloud. But to us, he attributes internal circumcision, for we are under the same covenant with them and are renewed by the same Spirit, and by it are circumcised.”
Now here, the comparison of two external analogies to an internal baptism appears legitimate. This is on topic for 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. However, confusion to this is added (again) due to the reformer tying in circumcision. Here we have one internal, “made without hands” mark, and its explicit external, which was circumcision. It is not immediately clear that Colossians 2:11-12 connects all of this to the external of baptism, or simply presents them side by side. If we allow it, which we may, it presents no problem to our foregoing explanation, because of the fact that one is not baptized until after having been born again. Which, as previously explained in our main section, occurs some time after the age of accountability. This also follows the analogy, because circumcision was a sign made after physical birth, while this also-external sign is made after being saved or born again (born the second time), and cannot be done before as has successfully been explained and explicitly defended to this point in this article.
Last argument to address: “And you will at the same time consider here that in the apostles’ time no one used any Scripture but the Old Testament, nay, Christ himself used no other, and what controversy arose about baptism would have to be settled by its authority; but since this [Old Testament] not even leads us to think anything but that baptism, the sign of the covenant, must be given to infants equally with circumcision, there could have been no hesitation with the apostles in approving the baptism of infants.”
We know this argument is not true, because Jesus Christ was a prophet himself, bringing inspired doctrine to mankind, along with giving it to the world by his apostles. As it says, “For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes” (Matthew 7:29).
Paul in Galatians, “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12). If Paul had to settle all things by the Old Testament alone (as Zwingli now says), why speak of receiving revelations of Jesus Christ here?
And it is also written “God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds” (Hebrews 1:1-2).
So then, Jesus had his own authority to teach, and the apostles were not bound to settle a controversy exclusively by the Old Testament. Thus in Hebrews 8:7 it says, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.”
The position taken by Zwingli does not make sense. Water baptism was not given in the Old Testament. It was within the revelation of God in the New Testament. If the ordinance itself was given in the New Testament, then its administration may also be specified in the New Testament. There is no real reason why only Old Testament administrations must be used.
It is true that everything God did was consonant with and even predicted by and fulfilling of the Old Testament. God the Son however did not have to be reliant on its authority for all matters, as Jesus Christ is the author of it. Whether it be Old or New Testament, the same fact is still true. There is no requirement therefore, which says Jesus Christ had to settle all things by the authority of the Old Testament. In Matthew 7:29, it says Jesus taught them as one having authority. That is because He is the Lord God who inspired all Scripture to begin with.
The Appendix
A few other arguments are made in the fourth and final appendix section, which we examine here.
The reformer argues: “The Catabaptists teach that the dead sleep, both body and soul, until the day of judgment, because they do not know that ‘sleeping’ is used by the Hebrews for ‘dying.’ Then they do not consider that the soul is a spirit, which, so far from being able to sleep or die, is nothing but the animating principle of all that breathes, whether that gross and sensation-possessing spirit that quickens and raises up the body, or that celestial spirit that sojourns in the body.”
Zwingli accuses his opponents of the ‘soul sleep’ doctrine. However the method by which he does so, reveals another deep error Zwingli has made respecting the Scripture passage he decides to use… We now present his central point here:
The reformer: “In 1 Cor. xv. the apostle, speaking of the resurrection, makes this which is understood as continuance or persistence in life, so to speak superior, of which he speaks in general, until he comes to the passage: How do the dead rise, or with what body do they come? There finally he reaches the discussion of that resurrection of the flesh which is to come at length. Do you, reader, that you may see that I assert nothing rashly, come to this passage, dismissing the rest. Notice how ‘From man came death, and from man the resurrection from the dead, for as in Adam all die, so in Christ all are made alive,’ pertains not only to the resurrection of the flesh, but to that life which follows this at once. ‘For through Adam we die, but through Christ we are preserved in life.’ For he says: ‘He who believeth in me shall live even though he die.’
Then consider what follows: ‘Else what shall they do who are baptized for the dead if the dead rise not at all? Why are they then baptized for the dead?’ You see, the ancients had a custom of baptizing themselves in behalf of the dead, not that this is approved by Paul or us (it was a foolish thing which followed the faithful out of unbelief even unto belief, for some things cling which perversely have the appearance of piety, especially toward parents and relatives). But the apostle acutely employed the foolish abuse of baptism – which in my judgment was the sprinkling with lustral water the graves of their dead, as some do today — against those who denied that the soul lived after it left the body until it was raised for judgment.
And he thus catches them: If then the soul sleeps, why do you, too, moisten with lustral water the graves of the dead? What benefit do you do those who do not live, but are either nothing or asleep? You may note here in passing, reader, that this argument is used partly in behalf of infant baptism. For if they supposed that with baptismal or lustral water they accomplished something for the dead, how much less would they refuse it to children? For they would do this according to the Lord’s word, for which they would have no document?”
Now first of all, if we wanted a passage against soul sleep, we would find one in 2 Corinthians. We would not need to use a passage like this one out of 1 Corinthians 15:29, which is less clear to the point for which Zwingli presses it. But we see the ulterior motivation for doing so as a way of fallaciously arguing for his position. And so, the reformer turns only here, to 1 Corinthians 15:29, and not to much more decisive and clear passages dealing with that subject, such as 2 Corinthians 5:6-8, as we have cited above.
To refute his argument, we must first explain how the reformer is mistaken in his conclusions, and he is according to every possible view of the exact meaning of the passage in question, regardless of which one is true. Below is a threefold explanation.
(1) According to the most straightforward view, the statement by Paul is in view of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. Here, he asks the hypothetical question, ‘what shall they do which are baptized for the dead (namely, Christ), if the dead are not raised?’ Clearly, they are actually baptized with the belief that the dead, namely Christ, is risen. But he asks the hypothetical question, why are they then baptised for the dead? The desired answer here would be that, ‘they are baptized not for someone that is dead, but risen.’ This first view refutes Zwingli’s argument, because it does not make reference to someone being baptized in place of a dead person at all, as he suggests, but rather: they are baptized because of the death and burial, (but also) the resurrection of Christ. Paul then according to this view is keen to remind us that we are baptized for one that is now alive, not for one that is still dead. And this is also the truth. This first view has the strength that we know elsewhere this is the point of baptism according to Colossians 2:12 and others.
(2) According to the view here adopted by Zwingli and others, the statement by Paul is in view of the fact that some Corinthians had taken up the practice of specifically performing baptisms for the dead by baptizing those that are still alive in their place. This would be a wrong practice, and as such, this view has the weakness that Paul never directly censures such activity. Under this view, this would stand as the only evidence of the performance of such activity, at least, until the time when this passage seems to have been misinterpreted by marcionist gnostics in the mid-2nd century AD. However, Zwingli argues that he, Paul, uses this example as a means by which to reprove others. The problem with this is that it still seems that this could be taken as an approval by Paul of the (supposed) practice, because in this case he never reproves or censures the behavior itself. But even under this view, Zwingli’s argument is refuted. This is because that practice is viewed as a wrong practice by Paul, as Zwingli already conceded. Why would the existence of a wrong practice at Corinth provide justification for infant baptism, rather than demonstrate that it also for the same reason is a wrong practice? If the only reason Paul cites this example is to use it as proof of the belief that the dead do not remain dead, and not as advocacy for the practice, then it seems that this passage still does nothing to provide justification for the practice. Neither then does this passage provide justification for the proposed parallel which Zwingli forces here with infant baptism. Indeed, Zwingli’s position for infant baptism is less than “baptism for the dead”, because it has not the slightest mention here nor anywhere elsewhere in Scripture. And if Paul is seen here as disapproving this practice, how can we draw from this disapproval any approval for any other unstated one?
(3) According to a more circumspect view, the statement by Paul is in view of the fact that the dead in Christ, plural, shall rise in resurrection again. This view has the strength that it operates under the proper plurality of the term “the dead” in the Greek, which all three occurrences are plural and not singular. This view can be supported mostly by paying close attention to the word used as the preposition in, “for the dead,” which is not the most common “εἰς” but in 1 Corinthians 15:29 it is the word “ὑπὲρ”. Now this is the word at the root of the word “hyper”. It is used as a preposition: often accurately translated “for”, sometimes “of” or “above” in English. Consider the lexicon definition of this word given by Greenfield:
Ὑπὲρ, prep. (fr. ὕπος, high) with a genitive, upon, above, over; met. as to, i.e. of, concerning, respecting, Ro. 9. 27 ; in respect to, in relation to, 2 Co. 1. 6, 8 ; for, i.e. in behalf of, Mat. 5. 44 ; for, i.e. on the part of: on the side of, Mar. 9. 40 ; for, i.e. in the place of, instead of, 1 Co. 5. 20 ; on account of, because of, for the sake of, Ac. 5. 41 ; with an accusative, over, above, i.e. beyond, more than, greater than, superior to, Mat. 10. 24, 37.
We draw the following conclusion. In the less common accusative case, this word can mean beyond, greater than, or superior, as we would often understand the term “hyper” directly today. We find this accusative case in passages like Ephesians 3:20 and Philemon v. 21. In the more common genitive case, this word has a usual meaning given by the preposition either “concerning” or “in place of”, such as in most examples, but it also has the definition meaning “because of,” which we have underlined from the above lexicon article, and we can also perhaps say more directly, “for the cause of.” This latter use has examples such as Acts 9:16, Philippians 1:29, and Ephesians 6:20 and also the example given by Greenfield Acts 5:41. Now if we take this sense in view of ‘the dead in Christ:’ we see how one is baptized ‘for the same cause as’ those that are already dead in Christ. Since we know that the dead rise, we would then in baptism follow the same ’cause’ that they presented to us while they were alive with us. But Paul asks the audience, ‘if the dead rise not at all, why then would we be baptized because of them?’ The desired answer here would be that ‘they are baptized not for the cause of those that are or remain dead, but we have certainty, for the cause of those who rise in Christ.’ Likewise, ‘they are not baptized for the cause of those who are truly dead – but instead, for the cause of those who we know with certainty rise in Christ.’ In this view, therefore, we see that if the dead rise not again, then there are many who have been baptized “for the dead” — but if the dead do rise again, then there are many who have been baptized “for [the cause of] those who rise in Christ,” rather than “the dead.” So that “baptism for the dead,” as such, does not exist, provided that the dead in Christ do rise again, and we know this is as taught throughout the rest of Scripture. For the use of making a point about how the dead in Christ rise again (as seen from the context of this section of 1 Corinthians 15), Paul raises this hypothetical situation where the dead in Christ do not rise simply in order to show how baptism would be invalidated, as it would then be for “the dead” and not for those that rise again, and therefore, baptism in turn is a proof of the belief that the dead will rise again.
This view does not have the weaknesses of the second view because it does not imply anyone was performing baptisms “in place of” dead people in that sense, but only “for the cause of,” or in a broader sense “because of” those people. This explains why Paul never censures anyone for maintaining such a practice, since it cannot exist as long as the dead are set to rise in Christ. If the dead are set to rise in Christ, then we see clearly the reason why we should be baptized because of them, and for their cause, which they stood for while still alive with us on earth.
Some who take this view have found other means to support it than what I have argued, that is aside from analyzing the Greek root word as above. It has been proposed that the term “βαπτίζονται” in 1 Corinthians 15:29 in this view, should be in the oblique sense as Matthew 20:22, Mark 10:38 and Luke 12:50, rather than the meaning of “water baptism.”
This modification to the third view has been favored by some apparently because it eliminates the “vicarious baptism” explanation of the second view immediately, it addresses the weakness of Paul not censuring this supposed practice in the same time as mentioning it and leads us directly to the third view conclusion. But this modification can be shown not to be necessary because of the explanation around the preposition “hyper” as shown above. That is a perfectly valid reason to favor the third view over the second. However, while the modification to the third view may not be necessary, it has strength from the fact that, if we are baptized for the cause of the dead in Christ (who we remind are not truly dead), then we also follow the whole law of Christ for the same cause and reason; therefore, it might be thought there is no reason why baptism is singled out, except as one example as Paul has done here. And if baptism is brought up by St. Paul as an example of an ordinance followed for the cause of Christ (which the dead in Christ, who will rise again, imparted to us), then it could equally mean perhaps the oblique usage of “baptism,” meaning a baptism in blood, as this modification of the third view proposes. And this version of the third view draws support for itself immediately from Paul’s statement in verse 30, adding, “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” drawing attention to the perilous situation, which suggests, that perhaps those who are referred to as being “baptized” in the previous verse are not those who receive literal baptism, i.e. Christians universally, but are martyrs who went through their sufferings, all for the cause of those whom they believed would rise again. If this meaning of baptism is meant, then this powerfully motivates Paul’s statements.
It has also been argued that this modification of the third view is seemingly necessary, because Paul refers to “they … which are baptized for the dead”, whereas in the next verse, Paul includes himself: “And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?” When he says “they,” and does not include himself, this seems to suggest that not every Christian is being referred to by this verse. However, this textual situation does not actually require that we accept the modification to the third view. This is because, as we have previously explained, those “baptized for the dead,” in the sense that the dead rise not again, are merely a hypothetical existence. In reality, no one is so baptized, because those (whose cause we have been baptized for) are not in fact dead, but rather, actually they are set to rise in Christ. Thus, those “baptized for the dead” are a mere hypothetical existence, as we earlier explained, posed for a single rhetorical point; whereas Paul and the other Christians did stand in jeopardy every hour; hence, Paul included himself with “we” in verse 30, but “they” who are baptized for the dead (who will not rise again) are a mere hypothetical existence. We know that the dead in Christ will rise, so that therefore, no one in reality is baptized merely for “the dead.” Thus far our defense of the unmodified third view, where “baptism” is taken literally for water baptism in 1 Corinthians 15:29.
What about the modification of this third view? This modification where “baptism” is taken from that given by Jesus in Matthew 20:22, et. al. follows from the same exact explanation as the unmodified view, because whether it is a water baptism or not, it is for the same cause. The question arises for both, Why would we do anything for the cause of those that are dead, if the dead rise not again – water baptism, martyrdom, or anything else?
From this, it may be seen how the passage in question under this third view can be seen to totally disagree with Zwingli’s impositions upon it. In all cases, we have disproven his impositions on 1 Corinthians 15:29.
To go a step further, we can even adduce support for the baptist doctrine here. Now see the excerpt from Gill’s commentary upon 1 Corinthians 15:29,
“Those seem to be nearer the truth of the matter, who suppose that the apostle has respect to the original practice of making a confession of faith before baptism, and among the rest of the articles of it, the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, upon the belief of which being baptized, they might be said to be baptized for the dead; that is, for, or upon, or in the faith and profession of the resurrection of the dead, and therefore must either hold this doctrine, or renounce their baptism administered upon it; to which may be added another sense of the words, which is, that baptism performed by immersion, as it was universally in those early times, was a lively emblem and representation of the resurrection of Christ from the dead, and also both of the spiritual and corporeal resurrection of the saints. Now if there is no resurrection, why is such a symbol used? it is useless and insignificant;”
This is support from the unmodified version of the third view in favor of the Biblical doctrine as we have shown regarding baptism. If one is baptized for a cause, such as for the cause of the dead in Christ, this naturally includes a belief in the resurrection of the dead – and it requires that one first knows the cause of Christ before one would cause themselves to be baptized for it. Therefore, our passage now presents us with the idea that one was baptized for a cause knowingly. This cause is namely the cause of those that are dead in Christ. St. Paul asks, why would one be baptized for the dead (that is for the cause of those dead) if the dead rise not at all? Gill now proceeds to describe the modified version now, as well, in this additional commentary:
“…I see nothing of moment to be objected to these two last senses, which may be easily put together, but this; that the apostle seems to point out something that was done or endured by some Christians only; whereas baptism, upon a profession of faith in Christ, and the resurrection from the dead, and performed by immersion, as an emblem of it, was common to all; and therefore he would rather have said, what shall we do, or we all do, who are baptized for the dead? I am therefore rather inclined to think that baptism is used here in a figurative and metaphorical sense, for afflictions, sufferings, and martyrdom, as in Matthew 20:22 and it was for the belief, profession, and preaching of the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, both of Christ and of the saints, that the apostles and followers of Christ endured so much as they did; the first instance of persecution after our Lord’s ascension was on this account. The Apostles Peter and John, were laid hold on and put in prison for preaching this doctrine; the reproach and insult the Apostle Paul met with at Athens were by reason of it; and it was for [the resurrection of the dead] that he was called in question and accused of the Jews; nor was there anyone doctrine of Christianity more hateful and contemptible among the Heathens than this was.
Now the apostle’s argument stands thus, what is, or will become of those persons who have been as it were baptized or overwhelmed in afflictions and sufferings, who have endured so many and such great injuries and indignities, and have even lost their lives for asserting this doctrine, if the dead rise not at all? how sadly mistaken must such have been! why are they then baptized for the dead? how imprudently have they acted! and what a weak and foolish part do they also act, who continue to follow them! in what a silly manner do they expose themselves to danger, and throw away their lives, if this doctrine is not true! which sense is confirmed by what follows: the Alexandrian copy, and some others, read, ‘for them’; and the Ethiopic in both clauses reads, ‘why do they baptize?’ ”
This is the end of the threefold argument. However, there are some other views of this verse which exist outside of these three. We will briefly review them as well. But please note that none of these other views seems to have any advantage over the three discussed above.
(4) It has been argued that the preposition does not refer to an act figuratively of being baptized “for the dead” at all, but the accusative case of “ὑπὲρ” is substituted. Here it is held that some Christians performed baptisms rather “above” the dead, in the sense that the baptistery was physically placed over the grave(s) of the dead. Luther adopted this view. But this however provides no motivation for Paul’s statement. What particular significance would this form of baptism have, over a baptism performed in any other place? How does such a practice (baptising over the dead) prove the belief that the dead in Christ will rise again, such that Paul would use it as an example?
(5) It has been argued that the preposition takes the same form as that of the third view, except not because of the dead in Christ that they are baptized, but merely ‘the dead’ as a whole. In this case, the motivation of the baptism is not the cause of Christ; but simply “because of” the dead. In other words, the person acts because they do not want to become like the dead. This view was held by the Geneva Bible footnotes. But this actually contradicts the true reasons we know would be reasons for baptism according to the scriptures dealing directly with baptism.
(6) Some views argue instead, against the usual definition of “the dead.” But they do so by placing extreme force and stress on the words. For example, it may suppose that A) “the dead” refers to the future state of one’s own self; B) “the dead” refers to the current self, being as dead in sins; C) “baptism for the dead” refers to the practice of the so-called “Clinics” – such as Constantine the Great – who delayed baptism until near the point of death, and thus were nearly dead. None of this explains the usage of plural for “the dead” in the Greek of the verse, but rather substitutes the self for “the dead” in various ways, which is singular.
Other explanations appear to be weaker still than these three. For instance: “for the dead” meaning “to supply themselves in place of the dead,” as though one baptised had done so to take the place of one passed on – or, another meaning, that the recently dead are ‘baptized’ or washed, i.e. “for the dead” would actually mean “in order to join the dead,” – or some such thing. These other explanations not only seem to have no strength over other views, but also have no coherency in themselves: they fail to explain the context for which the statement is brought up in this passage at all, and also place a great force and strain on the meanings of these words, generally. Thus we have dealt with all possible meanings of this passage and shown that none of them supports Zwingli’s argument for infant baptism. Furthermore, we have shown that both the modified and unmodified version of the third view even supports believer’s baptism. Thus ends the overview for this section of the reformer’s arguments.
The reformer argues: “The Catabaptists teach this, too, that the devil and all impious will be blessed. They claim to learn that עוֹלָם, i.e., the Hebrew word meaning forever, does not mean interminable duration. Here they do just as they do everywhere. […]
And so do you, O reader, listen: In that last judgment, after which there shall be no other, after which there shall be no age but sheer eternity, Christ will say: ‘Depart hence from me into eternal fire.’ What end will that have that can find no end? For if that ‘eternal’ were temporary, as it cannot be, for then all time ceases, then the salvation of the blessed would be temporary. But the foolish talk foolishness.”
Now this, like many of the reformer’s opening arguments, appears to be nothing more than a screen of false accusation, for we find nothing wrong in his arguments. Nothing is wrong except the unwarranted accusation that anyone would seriously argue or hold the beliefs of “annihilationism” or universalism, or that anyone would argue against the concept of eternity in the first place or at all. No quotation showing that Zwingli’s opponents ever believed or taught this is present in the treatise.
But let us charitably suppose that perhaps, somewhere, one of his opponents at some time did argue against the term “forever.” In this case, Scripture is correct and the reformer is not wrong.
The reformer argues: “Catabaptists assume to themselves all, the office of preaching, and of others who are legitimately set apart by Christian churches, ‘Who elected you?’ But here they do not regard Scripture. It has no force. We do not read that any of the true apostles assumed to himself the ministry of the word. So no one ought to assume it to himself. When Paul asks: ‘How shall they preach unless they are sent?’ let him hear, Catabaptists. By what authority, pray?
That of the father of lies and strife.”
Unless our reformer Zwingli is willing to tell us first by what authority preachers are sent, why would he expect to be told by what authority these are sent?
But in the above he says that this is merely his response to the question, “who elected you?” This, he believes, is impertinent. But in defense of this, what of all the churches who chose men to send into the field, such as in Acts 11:22, and Acts 15:25. What of the statement of Paul regarding those that are sent by the churches? 2 Corinthians 8:23 says this: “Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.” Recall as well that even Paul the apostle was sent by a church:
“And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way, and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus.
And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem.
And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.
Which when the brethren knew, they brought him down to Caesarea, and sent him forth to Tarsus.” — Acts 9:26-30
So then, “who elected you” should at least be an answerable question. Whether it is a church body like it should be or else not.
The reformer: “For they have nothing by which they may trust in Scripture, but only a negative basis alone when they say: We do not read that the apostles baptized infants, therefore they should not be baptized. They ward off all Scripture by the boss of an asserted spirit. Spurn not prophecy, they say, and do not extinguish the spirit. Right enough! But what is added? ‘Prove all things.’ We shall then prove the spirit, for the divine John warns not to trust every spirit, but to prove them whether they are of God.
You deny that Christ is by nature the Son of God, the propitiation for the sins of all the world.
Your spirit is then not of God by John’s test.”
This seems to be yet again a repeat of the earlier charge unsubstantiated. If Zwingli could produce a single quote at all, which established this, do you not think, reader, that he would surely have quoted it numerous times by now? Surely, if his theological opponents openly denied that Christ is the Son of God, this would have become the crux of his every argument to prove them wrong, and the rest of the long writing by Zwingli would not have been necessary. I leave it to the judgment of the readers now whether he had such a quote of his opponents, and withheld it to the very end choosing not to provide the direct quote to us his readers in order to convince us, or whether this was merely a false charge against his opponents.
I will say that Zwingli did provide quotes of his opponents frequently in the first and second parts. None of these quotes did anything to suggest they held the beliefs remotely that he implied – namely, universalism, soul sleep, and denying the nature of the Son of God. None of the quotes that he provided remotely suggests that.
Now, we also know what kind of spirit creates false charges.
Now at this point, I will also add the following bit of information: Besides from his deafening silence surrounding the Acts 8:36-38 passage, there is one other piece of circumstantial evidence that suggests the Reformer has not been entirely thorough or complete in representing the points of his opponents.
Going back to the eleventh reply in the main argument, a curious detail may be found in his quotations. In the course of this eleventh argument by Zwingli’s theological opponents, they make mention of a passage that they are going to “establish” their case from, namely in Acts 18 & 19, that Paul did not baptize Corinthian children. However, we never hear from them again on this second mentioned chapter. We hear their argument from Acts 18, and Zwingli responds to it in the usual way. But then after this the discourse immediately shifts to a quotation from the baptist side on Acts 16:31.
What is interesting is, we never heard mention of Acts 19 again from anywhere else in the entire discourse.
How possible is it that Zwingli left out, that is, skipped over, the original argument from Acts 19 by his theological opponents, as he would prefer his readers not be aware of what that passage says? Did he leave in, perhaps by accident or oversight, the very brief reference to an argument from Acts 19 that was originally present but which he chose to remove from the record?
In Zwingli’s treatise, we never get to hear how the baptists were going to use Acts 19, this second chapter, to “establish” their point on this matter, despite the fact that it is recorded they said they were going to do so.
What is more possible, that the baptists explicitly mentioned Acts 19 but then forgot to return back to Acts 19, despite having mentioned it in writing? or is it more likely that the reformer quietly removed that section of their argument from his version in this treatise because it was not convenient to him?
In any case, the passage is likely the following:
Acts 19
“And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,
He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John’s baptism.
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.
And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.
And all the men were about twelve.” — Acts 19:1-7
This passage tells us that, if these men had not heard of the Holy Ghost, this means they could not have been baptized according to the rule of Jesus in Matthew 28:19. As soon as Paul hears that the men had not heard of the Holy Ghost, he immediately asks them: unto what then they were baptized? So we see from this that the men could not be baptized unto something which they did not already know. This means there is a pre-requirement for baptism in Acts 19. And this therefore places Acts 19:1-7 in the same category as Acts 8:36-38, which as we have already discussed, gives us a requirement for belief upon the person being baptized. And here we have a requirement for knowledge beforehand unto what the men were baptized.
So, regarding water baptism in particular: According to Paul, if any man does not know about something, it is not possible for him to be baptized unto it.
This is according to Acts 19:2-3.
So, now we not only deal with the deafening silence from Zwingli, who spoke not a single word on the entire subject of Acts 8:36-38. It is not referenced even a single time. But we also have a curious lack of further details about Acts 19, after the baptists so curiously mentioned it as one of the Scriptures they were about to use to “establish” their views.
Below is the quote of the baptists (whom he calls “Catabaptists”) by Zwingli from the original book. The original text here says Acts 18 and 19.
Yet we find no further reference to anything in Acts 19 anywhere else in the document.
To prove this, I have reproduced the entire quote of the baptists from out of the translation, while skipping over Zwingli’s objections.
The baptists: “Eleventh. It is not true that Paul baptized Corinthian children. Why? Because he baptized believers alone or saw that they were baptized by others. As we shall establish it from Acts 18. and 19., to the confusion and disproof of the misleading pædobaptist contention.
It is thus in the Acts, 18. When Paul was at Corinth, ‘Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with his whole house, and many Corinthians who heard at the same time believed and were baptized.’ Infants could not hear, they could not then believe, much less be baptized. For the hearing faithful were baptized. And here the whole house was rendered faithful, from which infants are excluded, and they were so excluded because there were none there, or if there were, they were not counted in it and accordingly not baptized, for the faithful families were baptized.
[interjection of Zwingli here]
So also in the sixteenth chapter: ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus and thou shalt be saved and thy house.’ And that his house was saved with him follows on: ‘And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and so he was baptized, and all who were in his house; they, too, heard and so were baptized.’ Where again infants are excluded, for they could not hear and believe, as follows on: ‘And he rejoiced with his whole house, because he had believed in God.’ ” [end of full quote]
Anything missing here? What happened to the part where they were going to establish this from Acts 19, I ask. Did this explanation exist in the original from which Zwingli quotes? Did he only partially quote them here, or did they themselves actually forget? There is a discrepancy here. They clearly mentioned Acts 19 in the above passage. And yet, it is unclear whether the baptists themselves mentioned Acts 19 while failing to return to it later, or whether they did mention Acts 19 again, but Zwingli quietly skipped over their arguments.
Do you think the baptists quoted from Acts 8:36-38 at any point? Do you think they never quoted from it? Is it possible that the baptists also quoted from Acts 8:36-38, but that Zwingli chose to skip over their argument to avoid dealing with the passage entirely? Why would Zwingli completely avoid discussion of Acts 8:36-38 and Acts 19:1-7? Only time will tell.
I certainly do refer frequently to Acts 8:36-38, Acts 19:1-7 and Acts 2:41-42 – and Acts 22:16 as well as Acts 10:47-48, as some of the most positively proving Scriptures for water baptism, in addition to the passages mentioned earlier. These are as well as the passages which place belief and faith as a pre-requirement, like Mark 16:16, Matthew 28:19, Colossians 2:12, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 18:8, and others which I have waited to mention until now.
In Zwingli’s version of events, it seems like we were outright denied any use or reference of two of these primary references in Acts. As it appears that, whatever the baptists did or did not say, Zwingli did go out of his way to avoid all discussion over Acts 8:36-38 and Acts 19:1-7.
He writes, in the final ‘peroration,’: “For though, as the apostle continues on, ‘we are one body and one soul or spirit, in that we are called to one and the same hope,’ they are unwilling to hear the apostle’s warning. For secretly they have taught what is not right, doubtless not knowing ‘One Lord, one faith, one baptism.’ So it is not strange that they have left us, since they who do not see those things are not of us.”
According to Zwingli, the following is true:
“Paul in I Cor. xii. says: ‘In one spirit we are all baptized into one body.’ But you Catabaptists yourselves argue that if one comes to the Lord’s table, he must first through baptism have become of Christ’s body. I do not say this because now or hereafter I wish to teach that circumcision or baptism introduces one into Christ, […] but that I may show that the circumcized or baptized are in the body of God’s church…”
The reformer Zwingli seems to suggest here that baptism has nothing to do with entering into the body of Christ. In 1 Corinthians 12, this is called the church in other words. If Zwingli is correct, and baptism is not related at all to joining the church, then why does he bring this up as an issue of them leaving the church in his peroration now, via Ephesians 4:5? On the other hand, if it does signify the attainment of church membership, as we find by reading of 1 Corinthians 12:13, then this leads to a position that is in contradiction to Zwingli in his second quotation above.
Misc.
There are two minor points that I have deferred until now, as they are not related to baptism. Rather than breaking the flow of the rest of the article, I relocated them here at the end of the article.
The reformer writes: “The promises also were made to [Israel] alone; I say nothing about the sibyl’s poems, whether they were produced among them or introduced. Still this people of God stood for this, that whatever good he wished to bestow upon the human race he gave or promised through this quasi priesthood. It was then the special people whose were the promises, even though he spoke also through sibyl prophetesses among the Gentiles…”
This obviously is not in line with Scripture because it states in Romans 3:1-2 that the oracles of God were committed unto them and so this was their advantage. The last verses of Psalm 147 also states in the Old Testament the following,
“He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.
He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.”
The reformer writes: “But since [Esau] lived and was of the non-elect, he so lived that we see in the fruit of his unfaith that he was rejected by the Lord. […] Since then we learn from the dead mind of Esau that he was rejected of God, in vain do we say: ‘Would that he had died an infant!’
He could not die whom divine Providence had created that he might live, and live wickedly.”
The problem with this statement is that it goes against statements of intent such as 1 Timothy 2:4 and 2 Peter 3:9, as well as Matthew 25:41.
This statement by the Reformer makes the error that the statement about Esau being hated, as found in Romans 9:12-13, is taken from Genesis. However, the second part of this quote (or the second quote), actually comes from Malachi 1:2-3, which was written long after Esau was born, and not Genesis.
