« According to Jonathan Merritt: Evangelicals risk everything to reclaim cultural and political control—even if that means defying their own beliefs | Main | Had Al Mohler gone to Southeastern seminary and not to Southern seminary, what would have become of Southern? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


For some bizarre reason I was reading about Zwingli before Calvin. I was struck by his treacherous deceit with his own students. A lesson Seminary students should be aware.

Robert Vaughn

If Zwingli wanted to "drown the dippers" wouldn't that indicate those of whom he spake were dipping rather than sprinkling or pouring?


Robert. They were hunted and drowned. My guess, since many were doing this in secret in their crude kitchens, was a pewter pitcher of water dumped over their heads.

So does it matter since it was "Believers" baptism. Not infant baptism.

Believers. Baptism.

Scott Shaver

Big difference I would suppose between students of Zwingli's day and contemporary is students don't care any more whether it's "true", "deceitful", "obtuse" or otherwise.

As long as it gets hits and "likes" on Facebook, reality makes no difference.

Robert Vaughn

Lydia, as far as persecution, I don't think it matters whether it was believers' baptism, infant baptism or no baptism at all. That is, the persecution and execution that Zwingli was doing for religious reasons was evil, for whatever reason he had for doing it. So in that sense I don't think it matters.

But my point was simply that if Zwingli said drown the "dippers" (as opposed to, say, drown the Anabaptists) that some of them must have been dipping. We do know from historical records that Conrad Grebel was immersing in the Rhine and Sitter Rivers. But Estep's conclusion was that the mode of baptism was "a matter of indifference" to the 16th century Anabaptists. Regardless, it does seem that the fact that some were "rebaptizing" by dipping or immersion caused some of the persecutors to find drowning a particularly pleasing form of execution. King Ferdinand of Austria allowed that a third baptism (i.e. drowning) was "the best antidote for Anabaptism."


Robert, my point, which I did not make well, was in consideration that "mode" was often more about opportunity and necessity for adults of that time who knew the act put their lives in danger.

I am not clear what your original comment was aiming for?

Robert Vaughn

Not sure how to make it clear. Many people say that the 16th-century Anabaptist's mode of baptism was by pouring rather than immersion. My thought was that if Zwingli referred to them as "dippers" that they (at least the one's he was referring to) must have been dipping. IOW, I don't understand why he would call them "dippers" if they weren't dipping. Does that help?

My second point may have not been made well either. Regardless of mode and candidate or anything else, Zwingli was wrong, wrong, wrong.


Robert, your last comment helped me see where you are coming from. Thanks. I was a bit thick!

The comments to this entry are closed.