Allow me to repeat, and I will do so often. There is only one scripture, and in it you will find the truth, anything outside of that, or anything thing that conflicts with scripture should be immediately discarded as false doctrine.
Huldrych Zwingli is an example of hiding a lie between two truths, and eventually his doctrine (not the Bible’s) became the foundation of false teaching throughout the world claiming that baptism was not necessary for salvation in direct opposition to God’s word.
Zwingli’s views on baptism are largely rooted in his conflict with the Anabaptists, a group whose beliefs included the rejection of infant baptism and centered on the leadership of Conrad Grebel and Felix Manz. In October 1523, the controversy over the issue broke out during the second Zürich disputation and Zwingli vigorously defended the need for infant baptism and his belief that Re-baptism was unnecessary. His major works on the subject include Baptism, Re-baptism, and Infant Baptism (1525), A Reply to Hubmaier (1525), A Refutation (1527), and Questions Concerning the Sacrament of Baptism (1530).
In Baptism, Re-baptism, and Infant Baptism, Zwingli outlined his disagreements with both the Catholic and the Anabaptist positions. He accused the Anabaptists of adding to the word of God and noted that there is no law forbidding infant baptism.
He apparently didn’t understand that not adding to means exactly that… the church should be quiet where the scripture is quiet, and speak where it speaks.
He challenged Catholics by denying that the water of baptism can have the power to wash away sin.
However, Zwingli’s belief is in direct conflict with scripture which clearly states baptism is for the remission of sins Acts 2: 38 Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Now considering Zwingli’s biblical knowledge he must have been aware of this verse, so this clearly indicates he was teaching a false doctrine… intentionally.
Zwingli understood baptism to be a pledge or a promise, but he disputed the Anabaptist position that it is a pledge to live without sin, noting that such a pledge brings back the hypocrisy of legalism.
Of course this is an opinion, not a biblical fact. If this were true, then any commandment of Christ would have to be disregarded as a form of legalism. And, again Christ is very clear on this saying whoever says they believe in be and does not obey His commands is a liar, and the truth is not in Him (1 John 2:4)
He argued against their view that those that received the Spirit and were able to live without sin were the only persons qualified to partake in baptism. Again, a personal opinion, this is not scriptural.
At the same time he asserted that re-baptism had no support in scripture.
Disagreed, we are to be baptized for specific reasons, if we are not baptized in the manner, or for the reason prescribed then we were not truly baptized, therefore must be “baptized” for the right reasons. ON the other hand, if one wasn’t baptized for the right reasons and was therefore not baptized, then it would not be a second baptism, but first… but that is not the point he is making.
The Anabaptists raised the objection that Christ did not baptize children, and so Christians, likewise, should not baptize their children.
Agreed, but in addition, babies, and children do not understand sin, that they are sinners, and therefore are innocent until they reach the age of accountability (understanding, which comes at various times for various children)
Zwingli responded by noting that kind of argument would imply women should not participate in communion because there were no women at the last supper.
The last supper consisted of the Apostles, so it would not have been possible for a woman to be there
Although there was no commandment to baptize children specifically, the need for baptism was clearly stated in scripture. In a separate discussion on original sin, Zwingli denies original guilt. He refers to I Corinthians 7:12–14 which states that the children of one Christian parent are holy and thus they are counted among the sons of God. Infants should be baptized because there is only one church and one baptism, not a partial church and partial baptism.
This is clearly double talk… he referred to 1 Corinthians 7:12 – 14 but can only take this position by rejecting the true meaning and purpose of Baptize which he would have been well aware of so again, he is a false prophet.
The first part of the document, A Reply to Hubmaier, is an attack on Balthasar Hubmaier’s position on baptism. The second part where Zwingli defends his own views demonstrates further development in his (who gave him a right to have a “personal” interpretation, another obvious contradiction of the scripture 2 Peter 1:20) doctrine of baptism.
Rather than baptism being simply a pledge, he describes baptism as a sign of our covenant with God. Furthermore, he associates this covenant with the covenant that God made with Abraham. As circumcision was the sign of God’s covenant with Abraham, baptism was the sign of his covenant with Christians. In A Refutation, he states,
The children of Christians are no less sons of God than the parents, just as in the Old Testament. Hence, since they are sons of God, who will forbid this baptism? Circumcision among the ancients … was the same as baptism with us.
His later writings show no change in his fundamental positions. Other elements in Zwingli’s theology would lead him to deny that baptism is a means of grace or that it is necessary for salvation. His defence of infant baptism was not only a matter of church politics, but was clearly related to the whole of his theology and his profound sense of unity of the church.