As to Erasmus being a heretic:
B. Hall claimed that in the notes of Erasmus at Romans 9:5 and Philippians 2:6, Erasmus "undermined the value of their use against Arianism, and at 1 Timothy 3:16, he argued
God had been added later to make the text explicit against the Arians" (Dorey,
Erasmus, p. 102). Edward Hills pointed out that Calvin opposed "Erasmus' attack on the reading
God was manifest in the flesh (1 Tim. 3:16)" (
KJV Defended, p. 204). Hills affirmed that Calvin complained about Erasmus' refusal to admit that Philippians 2:6 taught the deity of Christ (
Ibid.). In his commentary on Romans, Charles Hodge noted that Erasmus proposed at Romans 9:5 "to place a full stop after the words
Christ came, and make all the rest of the verse refer to God" (p. 301). Jan Krans affirmed that “he [Erasmus] even treats passages such as Romans 9:5 in such a way that a clear statement of Christ’s divinity is ‘explained away’” (
Beyond What is Written, p. 116). Robert Sider wrote that Zuniga had objected to the translations of Erasmus at Acts 4:27 "on the grounds that it invited interpretations leading to Arianism" (
Paraphrase on the Acts, p. 192). Richard Trench wrote: "Erasmus, indeed, out of that latent Arianism, of which, perhaps, he was scarcely conscious to himself, denies that, at Jude 4,
despotes is to be referred to Christ; attributing only
kurios to Him, and
despotes to the Father" (
Synonyms, p. 97). In a discussion with Farel where Farel referred to 1 John 5:7, Arthur Pennington quoted and translated the following: “’I answered,’ says Erasmus, ’that the words, the
Father, the
Word, and the
Holy Ghost, are in no ancient manuscript, and have never been cited by those Fathers who have disputed most against the Arians, as Athanasius, Cyril, and Hilary’” (
Life, p. 267).
James Tracy observed that "Antitrinitarian writers found in Erasmus's critical review of biblical proof-texts used by the Fathers against Arianism a basis for repudiating the doctrine of Christ's divinity" (
Erasmus, p. 189). John McLachlan pointed out that
readers that applied Erasmus's "method of biblical criticism found their belief in the doctrine of the Trinity undermined" (
Socinianism, p. 31). Robert Drummond maintained that Erasmus “more than once betrays a strong leaning towards the Arians, and as he interprets all the texts usually relied on in proof of the doctrine of the Trinity in an Arian sense” (
Erasmus, Vol. II, p. 362). Richard Marius stated: "In some texts and notes, he [Erasmus] seemed to challenge the traditional Christian faith in the Trinity of the godhead, and he minimized the horrific old teaching that an eternally burning hell awaited the damned souls in the next world" (
Thomas More, p. 238). Robert Wallace maintained that “Erasmus has given occasion, both to friends and foes, to consider him an Antitrinitarian” (
Antitrinitarian Biography, III, p. 639). Richard Rolt suggested that Martin Luther accused Erasmus of Arianism (
Lives, p. 81).
Will Durant maintained that Erasmus "obviously doubted the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Virgin Birth" (
The Reformation, p. 288).
The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation in its article on humanism noted that the emphasis of Erasmus "on the exemplary, moral, and pedagogical roles of Christ could be developed into a rejection of the atonement or of the divinity of Christ" (II, p. 268). Alister McGrath stated that Erasmus "developed an essentially moral theology of justification" and that his view makes "justification dependent upon man's
imitatio Christi" (
Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, p. 58). Arthur McGiffert observed that in Erasmus’ book on Free Will, “he maintained the traditional Catholic belief that salvation is the product of divine grace and human effort” (
History, II, pp. 392-393). Garrett Eriks observed that "
Luther rightly points out that Erasmus says man merits salvation" (
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal, April, 1999, p. 46). He added: "A serious implication of the view of Erasmus is that he denies salvation is found in Jesus Christ alone" (p. 47). Arthur Pennington maintained that “we learn also from this treatise [Enchiridion] that he [Erasmus] held the meritoriousness of good works” (
Life, p. 61).
The Westminster Dictionary of Church History noted that "Erasmus interpreted the history of salvation as an educational process conducted by divine wisdom, in which man is led from flesh to spirit, from imperfection to perfection, from sinner to saint" (p. 305). Henry Sheldon wrote: "In place of justification by faith, as taught by the Reformer [Luther], he [Erasmus] preferred to insist that the way to salvation lies in the strenuous imitation of the graces of Christ" (
History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, pp. 32-33). Roland Bainton asserted that “the central point for him [Erasmus] was not, as for Luther, the doctrine of justification by faith, but the pattern of New Testament behavior, the exemplification of the Sermon on the Mount, the literal imitation of Christ” (
Reformation of the Sixteen Century, p. 69). Arthur Pennington maintained that Erasmus “understood by faith in Christ, as we have already seen, the imitation of His example” (
Life, pp. 307-308). He added that “we gather from various passages that he [Erasmus] considers that to be a Christian is not to be justified by faith in Christ, but to exhibit in the whole course of our life and conversation a transcript, however faint, of those graces and virtues which dignified and adorned the all perfect character of our Divine Master” (p. 308). In 1533 in his
On Mending the Peace of the Church, Erasmus wrote: "Let us agree that we are justified by faith, i.e., the hearts of the faithful are thereby purified, provided we admit that the works of charity are necessary for salvation" (
Essential Erasmus, p. 379). Thus, Erasmus seemed to advocate and defend the Roman Catholic view of the doctrine of justification. Halkin maintained that for Erasmus, the [Roman Catholic] Church was “the regulator of faith” (
Erasmus, p. 159). Halkin also noted that “for Erasmus, baptism was essential” (p. 253). Erasmus as translated by Robert Adams wrote: “Baptism is a rite common to all Christians; by it we are born again in Christ, cut off from the world, and made members of Christ’s living body” (
Praise of Folly, p. 99). Robert Drummond suggested that Erasmus “had never said a word against the authority of the sacraments” (
Erasmus, Vol. II, pp. 254-255).
... Enjoyed the OP Jordan, very informative!... Now if all excuse me I have to go to my tent and read my KJV... Brother Glen
