While humanism in the days of the Renaissance was likely somewhat different than humanism today, they also had much in common. Concerning Renaissance humanism, Roland Bainton noted that "a menace to Christianity was implicit in the movement because it was centered on man, because the quest for truth in any quarter might lead to relativity, and because the philosophies of antiquity had no place for the distinctive tenets of Christianity: the Incarnation and the Cross" (Here I Stand, p. 95). Norman Davies observed that Renaissance humanism was marked by an "anthropocentric or man-centered view" and by "its fondness for pagan antiquity" (Europe, p. 479). Francis Schaeffer stated: "Beginning from man alone, Renaissance humanism--and humanism ever since--has found no way to arrive at universals or absolutes which give meaning to existence and morals" (How Should We Then Live, p. 55). Alister McGrath wrote that Jacob Burchardt regarded the humanists of the Renaissance "as the advocates of individualism, secularism, and moral autonomy" (Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, pp. 32-33). Norman Davies asserted: "Left to itself, humanism will always finds its logical destination in atheism" (Europe: A History, p. 480). George Faludy pointed out that present-day humanists "are strikingly similar in their stand to their fifteenth-century predecessors" such as Erasmus, and that humanists today retain many of the ideas of Erasmus (Erasmus, p. 262). Schaeffer noted that Reformer Guillaume Farel opposed on principle the Christian humanism of Erasmus (How Should We Then Live, pp. 82, 84). An article in the Protestant Reformed Theological Journal stated: "Erasmus is man-centered both in his theology and in his method" (November, 1995, p. 30). In another article in this same journal, Garrett Eriks wrote: "Erasmus was a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture" (April, 1999, p. 26).
