Zwingli, Ulrich. Commentary on True and False Religion. Ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson. (1929; Reprint ed., Durham: The Labyrinth Press, 1981), pp. 43-156.
Summary
Ulrich Zwingli addressed his Commentary on True and False Religion to the then king of France, Francis I, as a defense of his reformed theology. The first twelve pages introduce “the Most Christian King” Francis I to the general situation in Christendom as Zwingli saw it. Zwingli discusses the degenerate state of the Catholic church and its need for reform: “When I, too, saw that our world is overflowing with the most iniquitous war and fiercest battles, and is defiled . . . I, too, put my hand to the plough and raised my voice so loudly that greedy Rome and the idol [the Pope] worshipped there did hear, even though its hide is very thick” (51).
Zwingli accuses the church and the theologians at Sorbonne as lacking the Word of God, hence the unhealthy state of world affairs. The portion of Zwingli’s Commentary discussed in this paper includes the following theological topics: the word “religion”, God, man, religion, the Christian religion, the gospel, repentance, the Law, sin, and the sin against the Holy Ghost. Zwingli defines the word “religion” as “that sense which embraces the whole piety of Christians: namely, faith, life, laws, worship, sacraments” (57). He accepts only the Word of God, in the original languages, as “true;” hence all other religion which is not founded on the Word of God is “false” and mere superstition. Preaching of the Word of God is essential to educating the populace about the meaning of Scripture.
God, to Zwingli, is above human understanding. Humans cannot know what God is, only that He exists. Only God can reveal who He is; man cannot seek to understand God on his own. Zwingli’s purpose is to undermine the philosophical approach to understanding God; this is false religion. He uses God’s revelation to Moses in Exodus 3:13, that God simply is, to say that “the first thing in acquiring knowledge of God is to know that He is he who is by nature, who Himself is, and who receives being from none other” (63). In Zwingli’s view, God is good and that which He has made is good (Genesis 1:31). God alone is sole sustainer of the universe, so that “not even the mosquito has its sharp sting and musical hum without God’s wisdom, knowledge, and foresight” (p.66). Zwingli adds a polemic against the “free will” theologians during the ensuing discussion of God’s providence. He believes that the whole matter of predestination, free will, and merit rests on the issue of the providence of God. God’s providence furnishes the essential difference between God and man. God alone is good, and all things are given by him. He alone is merciful; this the Scriptures attest to unswervingly. God even sent His own Son to show the extent of His divine mercy for the human race. Zwingli adds that the knowledge of God is fruitless without faith.
Man cannot be known by man, according to Zwingli. From God alone, as creator of man, can the knowledge of man be sought. Adam brought death to his soul, and eventually his body. According to Zwingli, this death was the result of the sin of self-love, which has been propagated in every member of the human race. Man became the enemy of God in the garden. Thus, all of man’s thoughts are corrupted and defiled, and he is a lover of himself more than a lover of God. Here, Zwingli again criticizes the free will theologians. If man is completely corrupt, how can he have unimpaired freedom of choice? According to Zwingli, this is like “trying to weave a rope out of sand” (83).
Zwingli’s discussion of religion centers around a lengthy polemic against the theology of free will. He argues that, since Adam hid in the garden after eating the forbidden fruit, man’s nature is always to run away from God, not toward Him. Thus, if man did have a free will, he would never choose to follow God, since he views himself as a god. Only in a predestination theology is God, not man, the sole determinate of mercy. God, in His infinite mercy, called out after Adam. God still calls out after man in loyal devotion, and man still runs because of his sins. Man, as utterly dependent upon God for grace, must only listen to God and His Word. The Word of God must claim prominence over any other words. Zwingli neatly funnels his polemic against free will into the deduction that any “truth” other than that found in God’s Word is false religion.
Zwingli’s topic of the “Christian Religion” is a description of the nature of Christ’s ministry; Jesus was sent to earth in order to restore lost humanity. Humans, in their depravity, are incapable of mediating between themselves and God. Zwingli affirms Jesus’ fully divine and fully human character. Only through this divine/human vessel could God effectively restore the relationship between Himself and sinful man: “For, being God and the Son of God, He that was sent as a deputy and mediator gives support to hope. For what cannot He do or have who is God? Moreover, being man, He promises friendship and intimacy” (106).
The gospel, as Zwingli points out, not only saves the believer, but essentially means that sins are remitted in the name of Christ. However, since man is not inclined to recognize himself as needing repentance, this is something which is accomplished by the grace of God. Now, if all men lean away from repentance, how does repentance begin? Zwingli shows that baptism is the initiation into the repentance process. John the Baptist proclaimed repentance; however, since only the blood of Jesus cleanses, the water was a symbol, an initiation. Baptism, therefore, leads to repentance, which in turn leads to Christ and baptism in the Holy Spirit, which draws us to God.
Repentance is the second part of the gospel, according to Zwingli. He immediately separates repentance as a feigned pain experienced in the Penance process from true godly repentance. The former is an unfortunate result of the institutional nature of the Catholic church. The latter recognizes that we are permanently sinful, needing to be continually repentant. Salvation is by grace, through faith. Thus, according to Zwingli, it is not enough to be baptized, or even to call on the name of the Lord. We must live according to the will of the Father. Zwingli states, “This is also clear, that not repentance but hope in Christ washes away sin, and that repentance is the being on guard lest you fall back into the ways you have condemned” (135).
The Law, according to Zwingli, is “nothing else than the eternal will of God” (137). He delineates between laws of the “outer” man and laws of the “inner” man. The former have to do with civil or ceremonial laws, but the latter have to do with God’s eternal laws, such as the ten commandments. Love is the ultimate goal of the Law; thus Christ is love (Rom. 10:4) and we are to follow Christ.
Zwingli delineates two categories of sin. The first is the disease which we contract from Adam, namely, original sin. The second type of sin is that which transgresses the Law. The latter is a consequence of the former. However, Christians have been made free from the Law and from sin. Our freedom from the Law is not in its abrogation, but in our transcending the Law through grace, thus living above the Law. The Law, then, condemns as sin only what is contrary to the will of God. Yet, an inward battle still exists between the new man, saved by grace, and the old man, slave to the sinful nature. Zwingli says that the Christian must be careful to defend the citadel of faith; the adamic disease still exists within the body, yet the heart is made new by grace.
The final topic is Zwingli’s view of the sin against the Holy Spirit. Faith provides for our righteousness, however, the utmost blasphemy is not to trust in God.
Response
Zwingli’s Commentary on True and False Religion is a well thought out exposition on his personal theology, as well as the reformation theology of his day. I am amazed at Zwingli’s ability to synthesize and discuss complex theological subjects, and set his ideas down in such a way that one flows into another, yet the whole remains one stream of thought. The issue which impacted me, which I would like to discuss, is Zwingli’s thoughts on predestination versus free will (actually, the argument is more like “the sovereignty of God versus the free will of man”). His polemic against free will seems to prominently weave through the fabric of the Commentary, thus becoming his dominant theme. I had never been exposed to Zwingli’s approach before, so I had some wrongly preconceived ideas about it off the start. I had only envisioned Zwingli as a predestinarian, one who believed in a Hindu-like fate as the ultimate reality, the universe being nothing more than a giant puppet show, all of us serving as characters on strings, which God would move at His leisure. Zwingli shattered my preconceptions. In fact, his ideas are well worth examining, although I still do not concur with him in everything. He seems to see “predestination” as a sovereignty issue between man and God. In Zwingli’s view, man should never be allowed to usurp God, therefore free will is not justifiable. The most important foundation for Zwingli is the understanding that man, since the Fall, is com-pletely sinful. Every thought is of himself; self-love is man’s rule. God, on the other hand, is the exact opposite: others-centered, merciful, kind, just. God alone is good. Now, what’s wrong with what I have just mentioned? Nothing. All of it is completely scriptural. Now, Zwingli takes it a step further. If man is utterly sinful (not even tending toward good without God), how can man make any move toward God? How can man somehow acknowledge God and thus be saved? Zwingli puts the “reaching out” (revelation) on God, not on man. God reveals himself to man in order to extend to him His mercy. The ultimate revelation being Jesus, His son. These ideas seem logical. But, if this is true, is free will really a non-issue? I understand and acknowledge that Zwingli’s ideas are biblical and accurate. They even, in many ways, correspond to my own theology. However, even if God reaches out His hand of mercy toward man, is it not still man’s prerogative to refuse? Is salvation ever compelled by God? These are the issues for me. Zwingli skips over questions like these in his Commentary. The man God reaches out to has to, at some point, accept or reject God’s invitation for grace and thus salvation. The acceptance or denial is what I term “free will.” Yes, I concur that man must wrestle with the consequences of Adam’s sin. Only with this acknowledgment can man ever look to Jesus as the author and finisher of his faith. If man did not need to overcome sin, he would have no need for a savior.
However, does the Scripture not state that it is God’s will that none should perish, and all come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9)? How do men perish, then? They must partake of a will other than God’s will; this will is their own. Zwingli appears to view man as having a will, but it is not free; it is limited in some way. Let us go to Zwingli’s thoughts on repentance. A key may be found there to answer some of the questions I posed above. Zwingli states that repentance is simply a maintenance tool, and has no significance for salvation: “not repentance but hope in Christ washes away sin, and that repentance is the being on guard lest you fall back into the ways you have condemned” (135). Zwingli neatly swerves away from repentance in coordination with salvation, since repentance is an individual’s choice. However, Scripture tells us otherwise. For example, Isaiah 65:8-16 appears to strongly invoke choice in the saving process, albeit an Old Testament view of salvation. In Luke 13:3, Jesus himself advocates choice of repentance leading to salvation. In 2 Thessalonians 2:10, Paul says that those who refused to love the truth would not be saved. Paul also states plainly, in 2 Corinthians 7:10, that repentance leads to salvation. These Scriptures lead me to the undeniable conclusion that man has a choice. If he has a choice, then he has a will that can be enacted against God’s will. The predestination character of this “choice process” is that God, in His all-inclusive wisdom and knowledge, knows what a man will choose before he himself knows it.
Zwingli’s views on baptism also shed light on the free will/predestination dispute. It would appear, from the outward view of things, that baptism surely is a sign of free will, in that man is reaching out to God after the fact that God has reached out to man. Man must choose to be baptized, thus confirming his repentant heart and turning toward God. But in Zwingli’s view, this is not the case. He states that baptism under John the Baptist was “an initiatory rite with which he initiated all the repentant, not a cleansing” (121) and “the famous baptizing of Christ by John in the water is nothing but an initiatory rite, and not a washing away of the filth of the soul, for that is the function of the blood of Christ alone” (121). Man may come only so far, with some sort of limited will, perhaps, but God makes the ultimate move to add grace unto salvation. Zwingli seems to imply that God causes men to desire baptism in the first place, although I do not believe he states that specifically anywhere in his Commentary. The theology of free will apparently posed a threat to the reformer’s view of the sovereignty of God. In other words, at any time salvation decisions are placed in the hands of man, God’s sovereignty is devalued. However, I believe that since God made the initial move, providing grace for salvation, His sovereignty is not devalued at all. In fact, man having free will heightens the sovereignty of God, since He is just enough to allow man to accept or reject Him. God would not be just if He alone dictated man’s decisions.
I will end with this. My own understanding of Christian theology departs from Zwingli’s views in that I tend to accept paradoxes in certain situations where man will never know the truth this side of heaven. I believe, contrary to Zwingli but provable by Scripture, that man does have a choice, whether to accept God’s provision for salvation or reject it. If man did not have free will, God would have to save everyone, since Scripture says that He is not a respecter of persons, and that He loves all men the same (Acts 10:34, Rom. 2:11). Zwingli says that God instituted repentance, beginning with baptism, as a departure point for those who would be saved. Yet, it appears in my eyes as though baptism is a choice issue; so is repentance. Zwingli ignores this aspect of the salvation process, and indicates that these things are sovereignly done by God. Would that not again do away with free will? Therefore, God is still sovereign in that it is He who allows free will in the first place, and man may accept or reject His divine love.
Hey thanks for this a little interesting post. But I still dont get the second part though
Love your site man keep up the good work