jayw on flickr |
Zwingli (1484-1531) initially agreed with the Anabaptists saying that baptism should not be administered to those under the age of discretion, however he changed his position on this matter (George, 1993, p. 249). Zwingli denied that infants were born with guilt from original sin and so rejected Augustine’s reason for infant baptism (McMaken, 2013, pp. 21-22). He rejected the whole notion that external things were able to accomplish spiritual things such as the forgiveness of sins (McMaken, 2013, pp. 22-23). Zwingli instead saw infant baptism as valid because it was a convent sign. In the same way that circumcision was a sign of the covenant for the families in the Old Testament, baptism was a sign of the covenant for families in the New Testament (Colossians 2) (McMaken, 2013, p. 23; Stephens, 2002, p. 187). He saw the lack of reference not to baptise infants in the Bible and 1 Corinthians 7:14 stating that children are counted as God’s people to support infant baptism. He also said that there is no reference to women taking communion, but it is assumed that they are to take part in that sacrament (Stephens, 2002, p. 188). Zwingli used the doctrine of election against the Anabaptist who insisted that a demonstration of faith was needed for baptism. Zwingli was confident of the election of those born into a believer’s family until there was evident to the contrary as there was with Esau (Stephens, 2002, p. 188).
Calvin (1509-1564) also supported the idea that baptism corresponded with circumcision (Raitt, 1980, p. 54). Both baptism and circumcision are seals of the promise and both show spiritual regeneration (Raitt, 1980, p. 57). Calvin had a principle of “offered to all, received by faith”, meaning that infant baptism only became effective when it is joined by faith (Raitt, 1980, p. 54; McMaken, 2013, p. 24). He did also state that infants could have faith in that “some part of that grace which in a little while they shall enjoy to the full” maybe given to infants (Institutes, IV, xvi, 19) (Raitt, 1980, p. 59; McMaken, 2013, p. 24). Arguing against the Anabaptists, Calvin joined the idea that children of Israel were to be circumcised with Jesus asking the little children to be brought to Him (Mat 19:13-14; Luke 18:15-17) to infer that infant baptism is an ordinance of God which he though should be enough for his interlockers (Raitt, 1980, p. 59).
bbarr on flickr |
Works Cited
Forde, G. O. (1993). Something to believe: A theological perspective on infant baptism. Interpretation, 47(3), 229-241.
George, T. (1993). The reformed doctrine of believers baptism. Interpretation, 47(3), 242-254.
McMaken, T. W. (2013). The sign of the Gospel: Toward an evangelical doctrine of infant baptism after Karl Barth. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Raitt, J. (1980). Three inter-related principles in Calvin's unique doctrin of infant baptism. The Sixteenth Century Journal, 11(1), 51-62.
Stephens, P. (2002). Bullinger's defense of infant baptism in debate with the Anabaptists. Reformation and Renaissance Review, 4(2), 168-189.
Forde, G. O. (1993). Something to believe: A theological perspective on infant baptism. Interpretation, 47(3), 229-241.
George, T. (1993). The reformed doctrine of believers baptism. Interpretation, 47(3), 242-254.
McMaken, T. W. (2013). The sign of the Gospel: Toward an evangelical doctrine of infant baptism after Karl Barth. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Raitt, J. (1980). Three inter-related principles in Calvin's unique doctrin of infant baptism. The Sixteenth Century Journal, 11(1), 51-62.
Stephens, P. (2002). Bullinger's defense of infant baptism in debate with the Anabaptists. Reformation and Renaissance Review, 4(2), 168-189.
0 comments:
Post a Comment