Religion and Theology

Theological differences between Luther and Zwingli on baptism not only had paved the way for disunity and enmity between these two reformers that costs the lives of dozens of European Protestants but it must also have contributed to Luthers desertion of Zwingli during the war in 1531 that left Zwingli dead at Zurich battle field. Although Zwingli and Luther agreed on many doctrinal issues such as the sacraments in which both Luther and Zwingli rejected much of which were held by the Roman Catholic Church for centuries, yet they were in stark contrast in their theological standpoint regarding baptism. Luther believed that baptism is a sign of unmerited justification through Gods grace which was made available through the death of Christ, while Zwingli regarded baptism the other way around. He regarded baptism as merely a pledge of allegiance to Jesus Christ, or simply a public declaration of ones faith and commitment in Jesus Christ and has nothing to do with justification much less with salvation.

Brief summary and Thesis
One of the issues in baptism which triggered a conflict between Martin Luther and Zwingli is the role of baptism in the justification and salvation. For his part, Zwingli does not see that water baptism is necessary at all because it is only an outward sign. Zwingli could not agree to Luthers assertion that the purpose and effect of baptism is to confirm faith, claiming that signs that could confirm faith are the miraculous signs and this confirmation is the work of the Hoy Spirit rather than by baptism. He therefore believed that inward baptism or conversion is more important than water baptism thereby separating inward and outward baptism.

Whereas, Luther emphasized that baptism was the visible sign of justification initiated by God through grace. In Luthers theological view point, baptism in water is essential towards receiving the righteousness of Christ and it carry out the justification through the grace of God. Apparently, both Luther and Zwingli had strong theological basis for their view on baptism, however, it also appears that both theological positions have weakness that served as a point of argument against each other.  The weakness of Zwinglis theology on baptism was that he failed to show any compelling necessity for infant baptism on theological grounds as he does not accept an original guilt in infants of which is the means or sign of remission. On the contrary, Luther insisted that that even a child needed to have faith in order to receive salvation by baptism.

The theological differences on baptism between Luther and Zwingli anchored on their notion of what the church is, based on their protestant perspective. In this case, Luthers perspective of the church and its rituals including baptism was highly associated with Roman Catholic teachings while Zwinglis theology of the church in general and of baptism in particular was a genuine protestant theology.   (Thesis in italics)

Introduction
In the works of Roland Bainton, Luther seemed to have completely broken up with the Roman Catholic Church as he has with one stroke reduced the number of the sacraments from seven to two. According to Bainton, Luther accepted only two sacraments throwing away confirmation, marriage, ordination, penance, and extreme unction while embracing the Lords suffer and baptism, on the ground that these two were the only sacraments directly instituted by Christ  which must distinctively Christian. In his Lecture to the Romans (4), it was quite apparent that baptism occupies very important place in Luthers theology. Citing Pauls discussion of baptism in his lecture to the Romans, Luther placed special emphasis on baptism associating it to the death and the burial of Christ. According to Luther, by faith in Jesus means we were baptized into his death, that is, through the merit and power of his death, hence, baptism (baptismus) dipping (mersio) and to dip (mergo) all mean that we were buried therefore together, that is spiritually. Here, Luther clearly indicated that baptism is not simply an outward sign or symbol that has nothing do with justification and salvation rather he asserts that through our baptism in Christ (water baptism) we might walk, progress, in newness, which comes through the grace of baptism, of life, spiritual life.

In contrast with Luthers theological assertion on the spiritual importance of baptism, Zwingli argued that baptism was not at all that spiritually necessary citing that Jesus himself accepted Johns baptism by which sinners were baptized. Zwingli stressed that the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ are the same thing which suggest that baptism was only an outward symbol or sign of ones commitment to follow Jesus Christ. Zwingli further asserts that since Christ received the baptism of John and made no change in it either in his own case or that of the apostles, it is clearly established that baptism had its beginning under John, and that baptism had its beginning under John and that there was no difference between the baptism of Christ, as far as the nature, effect, and purpose is concerned.    

For Zwingli, the fact that Christ has accepted Johns water baptism, it was final and the same with his own baptism. Therefore Zwingli insists that there is no need of other baptism anymore even the baptism of Christ as Christ himself validated Johns baptism. The purpose however of this argument was to emphasized that what is more important is the inward decision to follow Christ, the personal conviction of who Christ is, and the genuine conversion to Jesus Christ. At first glance however, the argument was narrow and confined to the notion of baptism whether it has spiritual significance as Luther asserts, or it was merely an outward symbol or sign of relationship with Jesus Christ which Zwingli stressed. Considering however the level of both Zwingly and Luther, it was unlikely to suppose that both men will argue on such a simple ground. Thus, this paper will dig further on the issue focusing on Luthers theology as may have been influenced by the Roman Catholic teaching and Zwinglis genuine protestant theology. In this sense, the theological difference between Luther and Zwingli on baptism could be seen in the theological difference between Roman Catholic and Protestantism.

Luthers theology on baptism
Who was Martin Luther He was no doubt a great reformer. A son of a copper mines worker, Luther was a former German priest who came to realize the corrupt practices of the Roman Catholic Church which he subsequently made a list and posted it at the door of Wittenberg Church. With this, Luthers career as a reformer began.

Baptism occupies an important role in Luthers theology. This is depicted in his Large Catechism which teaches that in baptism, Christian has enough to study and to practice all his life. According to Mark Tranvik, Luther injected vitality into baptism missing since the early days of the church. This vitality as reflected in Luthers Large Catechism has made baptism meaningful as it promises and brings blessings, victory over death and the devil, forgiveness of sin, Gods grace, the entire Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Apparently, in Luthers Large Catechism, baptism was not merely the sacrament of infancy or simply a rite regarding human justification and salvation but it also promised blessings. Indeed, Luther emphasized that the blessings of baptism are so boundless that if timid nature considers them, it may well doubt whether they could all be true.

Thus, Tranvik asserts that for Luther, baptism extend far beyond the the momentary rite at the font.  However, this theological stand point decreased during the middle ages compared to the early church. According to Tranvik, the development of the medieval sacramental system has associated baptism only with the beginning of life with its chief purpose to wash away the guilt of the original sins. Tranvik contends that during this time, Luther held that the emphasis on the understanding of the sacrament had diluted baptisms transformative power as the sacraments virtually eliminated the need of faith.

In view of the early churchs decreased emphasis on baptism, Tranvik stated that Luthers theological notion on baptism had changed too. He now placed more emphasis on the necessity of faith, and asserted that it is not baptism that justifies or benefits anyone, but it is faith in that word of promise to which baptism is added. For Luther then, faith plays a fundamental role in baptism. Essentially therefore, baptism holds a very important role in the Christian life because of the faith which is associated to baptism. That is, a logical understanding of Luthers theology on baptism is that baptism is essential to Christian spirituality because it suggest that when one undergoes baptism, he or she must have faith that that baptism will justifies him or her. Baptism therefore becomes essential because it confirms ones spiritual relations with God.

Luther however continues to reshape his view on baptism. For instance, Tranvik pointed out Luthers statement stating When one is baptized, say Luther, one should not understand this allegorically as the death of sin and the life of grace but as actual death and resurrectionfor baptism is not a false sign. This statement now reflects a more expressive conviction that baptism is more than just washing away of sin or an outward rite symbolizing the faith in Jesus Christ. It now literally asserts an actual death and resurrection which means that the individual sinners need to die, in order to be wholly renewed and made into another creature.

Looking back at the Roman Catholic teaching of the Eucharist, Catholics believe that during the Lords Suffer, the bread and wine becomes the real flesh and blood of Jesus. This teaching is called the doctrine of Trans substantiation. Luthers view on baptism which requires sinners to die in order to be made wholly new into another creature resembles the doctrine of Trans substantiation. Indeed, Eucharist and baptism were the only sacraments retained by Luther. In First Lectures on the Psalms I appearing in Luthers Works vol. 10, Luther asserts that Christians have the Keys, Baptism, the Eucharist, and the promise, the Word, and the voice of God

While Luther appears to have a sound theology on baptism, his interpretation of the apostle Pauls teaching of baptism in his Lecture to the Romans seemed to be over stated as there seemed to have no such emphasis in the teaching of Jesus Christ in the four books of the New Testament dealing with his life, teachings, and death. Thus, it appears that the basis of his interpretation is of baptism was his understanding of the teaching of Trans substantiation. In other words, his theology on baptism seemed to be influenced by his own understanding of the teaching of the Eucharist during he was a Catholic priest. This is quite evident in his discussion on the continuity of the church from the Old Testament particularly in his Lectures in Genesis. In this work, Luther recognized the pope and the papacy in baptism. He stated, In this way God gathered and preserved His church from the beginning, just as under the papacy baptism, the keys, the Eucharist, and other pure articles of faith were retained.

From this theological viewpoint, Luther has clearly delineated the influence of the Roman Catholic teaching on his own theological point of view. Indeed, during the early 1540s, efforts had been made by the Roman Catholic Church through the Council of Trent, to find common ground between Roman Catholics and Protestants on the issue of salvation and justification. Donald K. McKim mentioned that as per the debate between the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics is concerned a decree builds on the Trents teaching that the original sin affects the entire human race, but through the grace of baptism, both this sin and the resulting punishment are remitted. Given this, it was quite evident that Luthers theology on baptism was influenced by the Council of Trents theological position especially in doctrine of justification.

Zwinglis Theology on baptism
Before going further on Zwinglis theology on baptism, it seemed necessary to identify this reformer. A Swiss patriot, he led the reformation in the Swiss city of Zurich and his main emphasis on his reformation effort was to purify the Christian worship.

Like Martin Luther, Zwingli was a former priest and a humanist scholar prior to his conversion to Protestantism.  In Zwinglis Commentary on True and False Religion Zwingli criticizes the doctrine of the Catholic regarding the Keys, the Church and the Sacraments. It could be recalled that earlier in this paper, Luther asserted that the Keys, Baptism, and the Sacraments and the voice of God essentially Christians must have, yet Zwingli hereby criticizes this doctrine. In this commentary, Zwingli has depicted widely the theological difference between him and Luther. Contrary to Luthers theological standpoint on baptism, Zwinglis theology on baptism was genuinely based on the practical implication of the gospel of Christ. In the introduction to his commentary, the author cited that because of pure interpretation coming from the gospel, the evangelical Christian has deeper insight into his sin and misery, than the average Roman catholic The implication of this assertion was that for Zwingli the Christian religion is nothing else than a firm hope in God through Jesus Christ and a blameless life wrought after the pattern of Christ as far as he giveth us. The point therefore is that Zwingli does not care at all about sacraments including baptism. What he cared about was what the scripture or the gospel demands. This was in stark contrast with Luther as he was very much concern about baptism and the Eucharist.

Reflecting on the above discussion, Zwinglis theology on baptism is simply based on the pure interpretation on the practical implication of the gospel. Thus, his understanding of baptism was purely derived from the way baptism was interpreted by John the Baptist. According to the gospel of John, Johns baptism was symbol of repentance. Later in the apostles teaching in the in the New Testament books, water baptism was a confirmation of a persons decision to follow Jesus Christ. It was a public testimony of ones faith in Jesus Christ. This is exactly the view held by Zwingli. He does not believe that baptism is necessary for spiritual regeneration. According to Zwingli himself, Why does one need baptism who already, through faith in God, is sure of the forgiveness of his sins Faith that requires a ceremonial to certify it is not a true faith. And if the recipient of baptism does not beforehand have true faith, his baptism is meaningless.  

Given the statement above, Zwinglis theological position on baptism was clear. That it is not absolutely necessary in the salvation and justification of the individual person. That what is absolutely necessary is a genuine faith in Jesus Christ that through our confession of our sins to him, and after asking his forgiveness with all sincerity, we believe and we have faith deep in our minds and heart that Christ has indeed forgiven our sins, and that through our faith, we receive the salvation which Christ offers through his grace. For Zwingli, this kind of conversion and faith in Jesus Christ requires no baptism.

The above discussion is quite evident in his On True and False Religion wherein Zwingli emphasized that baptism is only an outward sign or merely a public testimony of ones faith. He asserts that Johns water baptism and Jesus baptism was the same. He cited an occasion in the in the gospel of Luke where two disciples of John the Baptist joined Jesus Christ. Zwingli asserts that despite they were obviously baptized by John they were nowhere re-baptized by Christ. In this case, their baptism was obviously only the baptism of John. Zwingli argues that Johns baptism also demanded a new life which means it is enough. Zwingli stated, The baptism of Christ required nothing different, for He, just like John, began to preach, Repent Matt.47.
Here, Zwingli draws comparison between Jesus and Johns purpose of baptism where in he noted that Both Jesus and John preach repentance. According to Zwingli, The fact that Christ was Himself the hope, and that John was not the hope (for he was himself the hope (for he was not himself the light, John 1 8, but sent men to Christ), produced no difference in the baptisms for both tended to Christ, that is, demanded a new life which should be modeled after the pattern of Christ. Nay more, no difference is argued by the fact that Christs baptism had the author of salvation at hand in person, while Johns promised that he was coming, for the lot was the same of those who were baptized in the baptism of John as those who were baptized in the baptism of Christ      

Zwinglis theological standpoint on baptism therefore was simple and based on practical interpretation of John the Baptists water baptism. Though biblical, yet Zwingli apparently does not regard baptism as important just as the way that Luther regarded baptism and sacrament.

Theological differences between the two
Obviously, there is a stark difference between the theological positions of Luther and Zwingli regarding baptism. Zwingli strongly argued that Jesus baptism was the baptism which John the Baptist did for everyone, sinners and righteous alike who came to him at the Jordan River. Zwingli argued that even Jesus disciples themselves were not baptized by Jesus but by John the Baptist as it is not likely that they baptized others, but had never been baptized themselves. It seemed to assume that the reformers teachings and doctrine about baptism were a complete breakaway from the doctrines and teachings they so embraced during they were still Roman Catholics.

Martin Luther on the other hand has a more organized theological view both on Eucharist and baptism suggesting that he has a concrete basis for his doctrine. That is, it is quite unlikely to think that Luther has developed such thoroughly articulated teachings about baptism and the Eucharist. Luthers acknowledgement of and incorporating as part of the Christian heritage some of the Roman Catholic teachings which were attacked and criticized by Zwingli earlier, depicted a sharp distinction between the theological perspective of the two reformers. Luthers reliance on such teachings reflect that some of the Roman Catholic doctrines still holds some influence on Luthers theology, whereas, Zwingli has totally relinquished all the theological influences by starting his own independent theological interpretation about baptism and the sacrament.
In Luthers theology, baptism and the sacrament were very essential doctrine of the church. Luthers contended that any should not pay regard to external form but to the word and to baptism, and the church must sought where the sacraments are purely administered, where there are hearers, teachers, and confessors of the word. Luther apparently had placed special significance on baptism which has become the completeness of ones spiritual rebirth. That is, baptism has become the confirmation of ones regeneration, justification, and salvation, which was markedly different from what Zwingli preaches. From the view of Geoffrey William Bromiley however, Zwingli rather than Luther represents the reformed position. His theology on baptism was directly opposite Luthers theology as he held that baptism is simply a covenant sign thus, utterly disagreeing with Luther that the purpose of such a sign is to confirm faith. According to Bromiley, Zwinglis idea of baptism as merely a covenant sign is a sign which pledge to faith and discipleship. For Zwingli, baptism does not pledge to a life of perfection and it does not effect an inward change in those who received it.

One reason why Zwingli rather than Luther is representing the reformed position was perhaps Luthers doctrine were in some way identified to be following some of the Roman Catholic tradition. Referring to Luthers sermon in 1519, Oswald Bayer stated The general approach of the baptismal sermon of 1519 shows that Luther was still following the Augustinian tradition, characterizing the understanding of baptism by using the three-part framework of sign, thing, thing signified, and faith, and faith.

Given therefore the arguments by both parties, it appears that the theological difference of Luther and Zwingli had to do with the backgrounds of their theological view points. Luthers doctrinal stand in baptism in some way was identified to the Augustinian teachings which were still held by the Roman Catholic during his time. Zwingli on the other hand seemed to have a genuine doctrine on the baptism. As Bromiley noted, that in the second section Zwingli attempted to date the institution of Christian baptism from the baptism of John and not from the commission of Matthew 28. Medieval theologians had allowed an institution of the sacrament prior to passion, but they could agree that it had the same force, and the identification with the baptism of John was completely necessary.

Thus, while Luthers doctrinal position on sacrament and baptism seemed to have been influenced by Augustine in particular and by the Roman Church, Zwinglis doctrine was regarded as genuine protestant. Apparently however, both baptismal doctrinal standpoints had strength and weaknesses. For instance, Luthers view on baptism as a confirmation of faith, justification, and salvation seemed to apply only among individuals capable to understand the responsibilities behind such doctrine. However, Luther also believed in infant baptism. This led to the question of the infant capability to understand the teachings on baptism.

In the same way, Zwingli also believed in infant baptism, but he also has the problem of reconciling what the baptism will symbolized since the child does not understand what baptism means. It was indeed this difference that created disunity between this two great reformers. Zwinglis refusal to recognize the doctrine formulated by the Anabaptists, one of the militant Swiss protestant reformers, whose theological tenets was similar with Luthers doctrine, heightened this difference which brought Zwingli and Luther to a conference at Marburg in 1531. However, the conference failed to resolve the conflict between Luther and Zwingli which had established the disunity between the Swiss and the German Protestants. Thus, in a battle against the Roman Catholic armies in Zurich in the same year, Luther did not during never have sent support. Zurich Protestants was defeated and Zwingli died in that battle.

Conclusions
The Protestant reformation during the medieval period has indeed brought many lessons. Of course, one of the important lessons that we can draw more strength of character is that the courage, dedication and perseverance, and determination of the reformers to preach the gospel had brought us enormous blessings. However, just like any epic story of heroism in times of war, the theological difference between Luther and Zwingli has led to disastrous end. This lesson is difficult yet it mirrored the human character of self assertion rather than to accommodate others.

Of course both Luther and Zwingli are great men, great reformers, and great leaders. They have steered Europe into a more active participation on the affairs of society, and reshape the European history. But their lasting legacy was that through their great effort, it opened the door for many to search for new outlook especially in the spiritual dimension. Though they may indeed have theological difference, yet they deserve to be recognized as the greatest men of their era, the greatest men of the Protestant reformation and the greatest men of the Protestant faith. Europe owes them a lot and so the world is.