Excellent summary, very helpful. I only disagree about one thing. Zwingli's death, if it brought him instantly into the presence of the Lord, was not a personal tragedy for him.
The Reformation Man Is To Many Person, Specialy For Protestant Just To Hear To Sir Mr Dr. Martin Luther King, . ... Thanks All, .... Cheerio.🌠👍👍👍🌠🌠🌟🌠🌠.
What the video does not share is that Zwingli also killed many people. Though most were in Battles, they were battles that he started, and never looked for a peaceful resolution. He would block food from the enemy till they would have to fight. He also saw to a law against the Anabaptist in which many were killed. He himself saw to the arrest of three Anabaptist, and all three were drowned. Two of them he refused to pardon. Zwingli in late writing admitted that Anabaptist had the pure Gospel, and that they indeed were brethren, but had no argument against their deaths. I John alone proves that Zwingli himself was still in darkness and definitely not a believer. This was one of the reasons Luther called zwingli "an ass" and refused to fellowship with him. Zwingli started in the right direction, but ended up as nothing more than a sensationalist.
Larry, I must politely disagree.. almost completely, and in some areas, virulently. I do not know enough to dispute your allegations about Zwingli's conduct; but I do most solemnly assert that he WAS a believer.. without any doubt. Let us recall that it was Zwingli's son-in-law, Heinrich Bullinger, who composed the Second Helvetic Confession... which, at one time, was the second most widely-accepted confession in all of Europe.I'm not sure your reasoning for many of your assertions here. I have to wonder if you lambast Zwingli.. only in comparison to some other figure, perhaps Luther: IDK. But, at least for a moment, let's compare Zwingli with John Calvin. If you can seemingly easily disparage Zwingli, then surely a reasonable person could do the same regarding John Calvin. I suspect that Calvin, too, later recognized his former serious errors.You state that Zwingli refused to pardon certain Anabaptists. Who can forgive sins but God alone? "For the record", both Calvin and Luther ALSO were quite strongly opposed to Anabaptists. Their actions and their positions.. did not justify their attitudes AND actions against Anabaptists.Luther and Zwingli were not as much enemies as you assert. Indeed, they agreed on fourteen of fifteen points toward a unified confession.. at the Colloquy of Marburg, in 1529. I will close with this: It was Zwingli, and not Luther, who had the most accurate understanding of the Lord's intent for the Lord's supper. Did our Lord say to His disciples that they would "receive something" by participating in the Lord's supper? No. Absolutely not. Jesus provided the reason why He wanted His followers to celebrate it: so that His followers would remember Him and His work on our behalf. It's that simple, that precisely accurate. It has only been MAN that has attempted to attach "more" to it... than Christ intended. I note the detractors of "the memorialist view" always use the word, "mere", in a pejorative way many times, when asserting their own view. They have no justification in doing so. We are to remember, and to worship God as we do..... but no more.
yeah but luther was a bitch Zwingli died on the battlefield Luther died from being fat Luther told the baltringen haufen that submission to authority is gods will oh yeah i read that bit in the bible where Jesus paid his taxes and shit
Luther had been suffering from ill health for years, including Ménière's disease, vertigo, fainting, tinnitus, and a cataract in one eye.[249] From 1531 to 1546 his health deteriorated further. The years of struggle with Rome, the antagonisms with and among his fellow reformers, and the scandal that ensued from the bigamy of Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse incident, in which Luther had played a leading role, all may have contributed. In 1536, he began to suffer from kidney and bladder stones, arthritis, and an ear infection ruptured an ear drum. In December 1544, he began to feel the effects of angina.[250] 62 lmao dis nigga just went to school and church
@@allgonoemo4217 Hahaha Luther was a pansie compared to Zwingli who doied in battle ALL those guys had non stop battles they were hunted and wanted dead their whole careers Calvin was 'fortunate' enough that his battles were more political Zwingli was the real man of the Ref largely forgotten unknown wed all be getting butt and mouth raped by catholic priests at 9 still today without him
Larry Cox (Romans 3:23) 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.' This is not an excuse, but a fact which becomes increasingly evident the more we familiarize ourselves with 'great' historical figures. King David was not permitted to build the Temple because he was a 'man of blood'. Quite apart from his wars, quite apart from the affair with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah, he carried out a census against God's will, which resulted in the deaths of 70,000 of his countrymen. His son Solomon, author of some of the Biblical wisdom literature, was a real piece of work, with his 700 wives and 300 concubines. He built pagan shrines for some of these women. It is not uncommon for 'great' leaders, even spiritual leaders, to falter as they age. It's not for nothing that the necessity of endurance is emphasized in Scripture.
As someone who claims to be reformed theology how can you say his death was tragic? Obviously god ordained it that way before time so... especially since He hopefully likely went to heaven, that was better for him no old age no constane bickering like calvin and luther were entwined in. Also, Calvin died at 54 thats only 7 more years. This guy leaves a little bit to be desired in his grasp of his comments.
Uncas Unga Great points. I considered it from the second perspective first: unless one believes in 'soul-sleep', one must admit with Paul that it is better to be absent from the body and present with Christ. As for the 'probability' of his being in heaven, it says '...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.' According to this and similar statements, it seems fairly safe to conclude that Zwingli is among the elect.
Zwingli: Alright Martin, we agreed on most topics, like soteriology for example. Luther: No...You said Christ can or cannot be present in the Eucharist, whatever the believer believes. What the heck were you thinking??? Are you out of your mind?!?!?! I'm not even sure you're a Christian!!! :D:D:D
@Paul ... I have no problem with closed communion. Luther could not bring himself 'all the way' toward what he knew was true. At the Colloquy of Marburg in 1529, Luther and Zwingi did agree on 14 of 15 points.. "for the record". Per John 6:28 & 29, it's not what we DO (the Lord's table) but what we BELIEVE. Saving grace is imputed to those who believe by the Holy Spirit --- NOT via any rite, such as communion. The book of concord cannot be infallible.. because it is not Scripture. True believers have retained the authentic Gospel, per the Scriptures. Not only Rome drifted away from it, but they took others with them... sadly.
@Paul .. I hear you; I read your posts. I simply do not accept your claims, nor do I believe in your (Lutheran) interpretations. I will forever believe that Zwingli was correct in his understanding of the Lord's supper.
A great preacher and reformer. Zwingli deserves a lot more attention that he receives today
Good teachings.
Wonderful and informative video. Thank you.
Excellent summary, very helpful. I only disagree about one thing. Zwingli's death, if it brought him instantly into the presence of the Lord, was not a personal tragedy for him.
The Reformation Man Is To Many Person, Specialy For Protestant Just To Hear To Sir Mr Dr. Martin Luther King, . ... Thanks All, .... Cheerio.🌠👍👍👍🌠🌠🌟🌠🌠.
... Comparing M. L. King to Martin Luther.. is like comparing a mere hill versus Mount Everest.
Zwingli is known by the Swiss to have been brutal and sadistic.
No he was not.
This brand of Christianity is dying hard.
All Western churches do. For the same reasons.
He was the first marxist😊 shalom!!!
Mabel Gardens
What the video does not share is that Zwingli also killed many people. Though most were in Battles, they were battles that he started, and never looked for a peaceful resolution. He would block food from the enemy till they would have to fight. He also saw to a law against the Anabaptist in which many were killed. He himself saw to the arrest of three Anabaptist, and all three were drowned. Two of them he refused to pardon. Zwingli in late writing admitted that Anabaptist had the pure Gospel, and that they indeed were brethren, but had no argument against their deaths. I John alone proves that Zwingli himself was still in darkness and definitely not a believer. This was one of the reasons Luther called zwingli "an ass" and refused to fellowship with him. Zwingli started in the right direction, but ended up as nothing more than a sensationalist.
Larry, I must politely disagree.. almost completely, and in some areas, virulently. I do not know enough to dispute your allegations about Zwingli's conduct; but I do most solemnly assert that he WAS a believer.. without any doubt. Let us recall that it was Zwingli's son-in-law, Heinrich Bullinger, who composed the Second Helvetic Confession... which, at one time, was the second most widely-accepted confession in all of Europe.I'm not sure your reasoning for many of your assertions here. I have to wonder if you lambast Zwingli.. only in comparison to some other figure, perhaps Luther: IDK. But, at least for a moment, let's compare Zwingli with John Calvin. If you can seemingly easily disparage Zwingli, then surely a reasonable person could do the same regarding John Calvin. I suspect that Calvin, too, later recognized his former serious errors.You state that Zwingli refused to pardon certain Anabaptists. Who can forgive sins but God alone? "For the record", both Calvin and Luther ALSO were quite strongly opposed to Anabaptists. Their actions and their positions.. did not justify their attitudes AND actions against Anabaptists.Luther and Zwingli were not as much enemies as you assert. Indeed, they agreed on fourteen of fifteen points toward a unified confession.. at the Colloquy of Marburg, in 1529. I will close with this: It was Zwingli, and not Luther, who had the most accurate understanding of the Lord's intent for the Lord's supper. Did our Lord say to His disciples that they would "receive something" by participating in the Lord's supper? No. Absolutely not. Jesus provided the reason why He wanted His followers to celebrate it: so that His followers would remember Him and His work on our behalf. It's that simple, that precisely accurate. It has only been MAN that has attempted to attach "more" to it... than Christ intended. I note the detractors of "the memorialist view" always use the word, "mere", in a pejorative way many times, when asserting their own view. They have no justification in doing so. We are to remember, and to worship God as we do..... but no more.
yeah but luther was a bitch
Zwingli died on the battlefield
Luther died from being fat
Luther told the baltringen haufen that submission to authority is gods will
oh yeah i read that bit in the bible where Jesus paid his taxes and shit
Luther had been suffering from ill health for years, including Ménière's disease, vertigo, fainting, tinnitus, and a cataract in one eye.[249]
From 1531 to 1546 his health deteriorated further. The years of
struggle with Rome, the antagonisms with and among his fellow reformers,
and the scandal that ensued from the bigamy of Philip I, Landgrave of Hesse incident, in which Luther had played a leading role, all may have contributed. In 1536, he began to suffer from kidney and bladder stones, arthritis, and an ear infection ruptured an ear drum. In December 1544, he began to feel the effects of angina.[250]
62
lmao
dis nigga just went to school and church
@@allgonoemo4217 Hahaha Luther was a pansie compared to Zwingli who doied in battle
ALL those guys had non stop battles they were hunted and wanted dead their whole careers Calvin was 'fortunate' enough that his battles were more political
Zwingli was the real man of the Ref largely forgotten unknown wed all be getting butt and mouth raped by catholic priests at 9 still today without him
Larry Cox
(Romans 3:23) 'For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.' This is not an excuse, but a fact which becomes increasingly evident the more we familiarize ourselves with 'great' historical figures.
King David was not permitted to build the Temple because he was a 'man of blood'. Quite apart from his wars, quite apart from the affair with Bathsheba and the murder of Uriah, he carried out a census against God's will, which resulted in the deaths of 70,000 of his countrymen. His son Solomon, author of some of the Biblical wisdom literature, was a real piece of work, with his 700 wives and 300 concubines. He built pagan shrines for some of these women.
It is not uncommon for 'great' leaders, even spiritual leaders, to falter as they age.
It's not for nothing that the necessity of endurance is emphasized in Scripture.
As someone who claims to be reformed theology how can you say his death was tragic? Obviously god ordained it that way before time so... especially since He hopefully likely went to heaven, that was better for him no old age no constane bickering like calvin and luther were entwined in.
Also, Calvin died at 54 thats only 7 more years. This guy leaves a little bit to be desired in his grasp of his comments.
Does someone go to heaven immediately they die? 😄
... tragic from a human point-of-view.... but I do believe in the sovereignty of God.
Uncas Unga
Great points. I considered it from the second perspective first: unless one believes in 'soul-sleep', one must admit with Paul that it is better to be absent from the body and present with Christ. As for the 'probability' of his being in heaven, it says
'...that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.'
According to this and similar statements, it seems fairly safe to conclude that Zwingli is among the elect.
Vuelto pan de arroz con ttiburon
Zwingli: Alright Martin, we agreed on most topics, like soteriology for example.
Luther: No...You said Christ can or cannot be present in the Eucharist, whatever the believer believes. What the heck were you thinking??? Are you out of your mind?!?!?! I'm not even sure you're a Christian!!!
:D:D:D
While both were good, Zwingli had the correct view of the Lord's supper --- not Luther.
@Paul .. I politely-but-firmly disagree. No sacrament is "a means of grace" ---- that is a huge LIE. John 6:28 & 29
@Paul ... I have no problem with closed communion. Luther could not bring himself 'all the way' toward what he knew was true. At the Colloquy of Marburg in 1529, Luther and Zwingi did agree on 14 of 15 points.. "for the record". Per John 6:28 & 29, it's not what we DO (the Lord's table) but what we BELIEVE. Saving grace is imputed to those who believe by the Holy Spirit --- NOT via any rite, such as communion. The book of concord cannot be infallible.. because it is not Scripture. True believers have retained the authentic Gospel, per the Scriptures. Not only Rome drifted away from it, but they took others with them... sadly.
@Paul .. God is sovereign... even for the eternity of my already-deceased infants. ... But sacraments are NOT a means of grace.
@Paul ... Luther was right about a lot of things... but not everything.
@Paul .. I hear you; I read your posts. I simply do not accept your claims, nor do I believe in your (Lutheran) interpretations. I will forever believe that Zwingli was correct in his understanding of the Lord's supper.
Luther and Erasmus were both scared of him..
SECTARY AND FALS