KJVO vs Latin Vulgate Onlyism

[Logos1560]

Roman Catholics approved of Erasmus' text

The Catholic church never did approve of the Textus Receptus.

Peter Ruckman claimed that “no Catholic bishop, pope, monk, archbishop, or priest has ever recommended Erasmus’ Greek text in any form or in any translation” (Bible Babel, p. 3). Ruckman maintained: “Erasmus’ text is the text that no Catholic will recommend to anyone” and that it “has been anathematized by every pope since its publication” (Alexandrian Cult, Part One, p. 20). Ruckman also wrote that Erasmus “published the one Greek text that no Catholic, during his time or since, has ever recommended for anyone to read” (Part Six, p. 29).

What about Pope Leo X, Cardinals Albertus and Campegius, Sir Thomas More, and Erasmus himself?

Rolt wrote that Erasmus requested permission to dedicate his New Testament to Pope Leo X and that "the pope was pleased he should do it" (Lives, p. 39). In their preface, the KJV translators even noted "that Pope Leo the Tenth allowed Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, so much different from the Vulgate, by his Apostolic Letter and Bull." Harold Grimm confirmed that Pope Leo X “commended” the New Testament of Erasmus “highly” (Reformation Era, p. 81). David Daniell wrote that “Pope Leo X admired and supported Erasmus, and wrote of his admiration for the Novum instrumentum” (Bible in English, p. 117). Pennington maintained that Pope Leo X issued “a brief stamping authority upon it [the second edition] (Life, p. 187). Durant also observed that Pope Leo X approved of the New Testament of Erasmus and that "Pope Adrian VI asked Erasmus to do for the Old Testament what he had done for the New" (The Reformation, p. 285). Before he became the pope, Adrian had been a bishop and inquisitor-general in Spain. Rolt pointed out that Pope Adrian VI was an "old friend and school-fellow" of Erasmus (Lives, p. 78). The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation stated that "the Popes, especially Leo X, had been favourable to him" [Erasmus] (p. 557). Sowards noted that "Leo's brief containing his enthusiastic and unqualified endorsement" of Erasmus's New Testament was printed in front of the second edition of it (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 76). Rolt observed that Pope Leo X and Cardinal Ximenes suppressed the books written by a Spaniard named Stunica against Erasmus and the first edition of his New Testament (Lives, p. 43). Butler maintained that "the pope continued to speak both of the text and version with esteem" (Life of Erasmus, P. 175). In a letter to Henry Bullock discussing the New Testament he edited, Erasmus is translated as writing that his work “is approved by bishops, by archbishops, by the Pope himself” (Jackson, Essential Works of Erasmus, p. 275). In a letter to Thomas More, Erasmus wrote: “The New Testament is approved even by those whom I thought most likely to find fault; and the leading theologians like it very much” (Ibid., p. 264).

The Dictionary of Catholic Biography noted that Erasmus "was upheld throughout his career by the popes, none of whom censured him" (p. 380). Rolt noted that Roman Catholic Cardinal Albertus and Cardinal Campegius wrote letters to Erasmus commending him concerning his New Testament, and they sent him presents (one a silver cup and the other a diamond ring) (Lives, p. 41). Sir Thomas More, who was later made a Catholic saint and who was a close friend of Erasmus, wrote three poems in praise of this New Testament (Ibid.). David Teems asserted that “this New Testament [of Erasmus] was received with applause, and by cardinals, bishops, even a pope or two” (Tyndale, p. 23). A pope did not condemn the writings of Erasmus until Pope Paul IV in the Index of 1559, over twenty years after the death of Erasmus. Thomas James asked: “Seeing his Apology satisfied the pope in his life-time, why should papists traduce him now he is dead?” (Treatise, p. xxx).

 

[Logos1560]

Was Erasmus sound in his theology?

Learn more about the man Erasmus and his theology here:

You would direct readers to one biased, unreliable KJV-only article that does not present the whole truth.

Have you ever readings any biographies about Erasmus and any of Erasmus' own writings? It is more reliable to consult many sources to find a more accurate view of Erasmus and his unsound doctrinal views.

Reformer Martin Luther claimed that Erasmus was "a scoffer, a disguised atheist, and enemy of all religion" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, p. 434). Roland Bainton noted that "Luther's answer to Erasmus was to impute to him a spirit of skepticism, levity, and impiety" (Here I Stand, p. 197). In an introduction to a translation of some of the writings of Erasmus and Luther, Marlow and Drewery note that Luther regarded Erasmus as "a trifler with truth, a scoffer of religion, an unbeliever" (Rupp, Luther and Erasmus, p. 2). In response to Erasmus, Luther wrote: "you declare that these things are not necessary; whereas, unless they are necessary and known with certainty, then neither God, nor Christ, nor gospel, nor faith, nor anything is left, not even of Judaism, much less of Christianity" (Ibid., p. 114). Stephen Nichols affirmed that Luther observed that “Erasmus ‘knows nothing’ of the gospel” (Martin Luther, p. 106). McClintock asserted that "Luther saw the weakness and spiritual poverty of Erasmus" (Cyclopaedia, III, p. 279). Fisher pointed out that Luther “thought Erasmus was defending the principles which lay at the basis of the whole system of salvation by merit” (History, p. 303). Did not Martin Luther have a better first-hand knowledge of the views of Erasmus than do KJV-only advocates?


David Daniell commented that the reformers felt Erasmus was "a fence-sitter when the issue was sola fides and the Scripture-based call for reform from outside the Church" (William Tyndale, p. 73). Schaff noted that Guillaume Farel (1489-1565), a leader of the Reformation in western Switzerland, charged Erasmus "with cowardice" (History of the Christian Church, VII, p. 241). Arthur Pennington wrote that Reformer William “Farel said that he was convinced that Erasmus had not received into his heart the truths of the Gospel” (Life, p. 266). Tracy pointed out that Reformer Theodore Beza "characterized Erasmus as one who preferred his own opinion to the authority of Scripture, who had been content to carp at superstition and refused to learn the truth" (Erasmus of the Low Countries, p. 188). Rolt observed that the timidity of Erasmus "offended the reformers" (Lives, p. 89). KJV-only author David Cloud admitted that Erasmus could be named "Mr. Facing Both Ways" (For Love of The Bible, p. 34).

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). 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). 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). 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 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). He also noted that “for Erasmus, baptism was essential” (p. 253).


Charles Hodge pointed out that according to the Roman Catholic view "we are not justified by works done before regeneration, but we are justified for gracious works, i.e., for works which spring from the principle of divine life infused into the heart" (Justification by Faith Alone, p. 69). Gerstner noted that in response to the question of how a sinner is justified that Roman Catholicism said: "By our works which flow from faith in Christ" (Theology in Dialogue, p. 471). William Perkins (1558-1602) commented: "The papist saying that a man is justified by faith understandeth a general or a catholic faith, whereby a man believeth the articles of religion to be true" (Work of William Perkins, p. 535). Robert Dabney observed that according to the doctrine of Rome "justification is rather to be conceived as a process, than an absolute and complete act" (Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 621). Cameron pointed out that Catholicism "insisted that souls were saved by the bit-by-bit process of sacramental purification" (European Reformation, p. 334). 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). 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). Why do KJV-only advocates seem to claim that Erasmus’ unscriptural view of salvation and justification was sound?


Some other quotations will clearly reveal more of the problems with the views of Erasmus. In his Colloquies, Erasmus wrote: "I find in the writings of the ancient heathen and in the poets so much that is pure, holy and divine, that I must believe that their hearts were divinely moved" (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, p. 414). Samuel Stumpf pointed out that Erasmus "saw a close similarity between Plato's philosophy and the teachings of Christ" (Philosophy: History, p. 216). Erasmus suggested that Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are all precursors of Christ (Erasmus & Luther, p. 33). In one biography, the author noted the following about Erasmus: "Plato, he soon discovered, was a theologian, Socrates a saint, Cicero inspired, and Seneca not far from Paul" (Smith, Erasmus, p. 53). A historian wrote: "He applied to Plato, Cicero, and Seneca the phrase 'divinely inspired'; he would not admit that such men were excluded from salvation; and he could 'scarce forbear' praying to 'Saint Socrates'" (Durant, The Reformation, p. 289). Stefan Zweig observed: "So far as Erasmus was concerned, there existed neither a moral nor an unbridgeable antagonism between Jesus and Socrates" (Erasmus of Rotterdam, pp. 7-8). McGrath stated: "For the humanist, it was therefore imperative to turn (or return) to the sources of antiquity, whether they were pagan or Christian, in order to learn from them" (Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation, p. 127).


In the article about Erasmus in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, it is noted that Erasmus' "philosophy of Christ" was "a nondoctrinal religion, a religion without a theology" (p. 43). In the book The Age of the Reformation, the author stated that Erasmus "wished to reduce Christianity to a moral, humanitarian, undogmatic philosophy of life" (p. 58). Albert Hyma described Erasmus as a "forerunner of modern liberal Christianity" (Dolan, Essential Erasmus, p. 10). Abraham Friesen referred several times to "Erasmus's Neoplatonism" (Erasmus, pp. 2, 32, 36, 37, 129) and noted: "Erasmus's Neoplatonic paradigm allowed him to regard the visible as similar in kind to the ideal, no matter to what extent it had been corrupted" (p. 36). "In his admiration for Origen, Erasmus was influenced by the Greek Father's Neo-platonism, and his program of interior piety was further indebted to the Neo-platonism that he encountered among such humanists as Pico della Mirandola and John Vitrier" (Great Thinkers of the Western World, p. 130).

 

[Logos1560]

I see huge parallels between the Latin Vulgate-only crowd of centuries ago and the KJVO crowd today.

KJV-only advocates avoiding dealing with the actual parallells between the arguments that Roman Catholics used for a Latin Vulgate-only view and the similar arguments used for a KJV-only view.

 

[Logos1560]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Did you provide any sound evidence for your opinion?

Does a KJV-only theory in effect place the Final Authority in the hands of a special, exclusive group of religious leaders--the Church of England textual critics and translators who produced the KJV from varying textual sources and by revising earlier English Bibles?

The Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition.

Your posts did not answer my question. You dodge and avoid my question, and you evade dealing with the actual arguments used for a Latin Vulgate-only view that I documented in another post.

You in effect post information that has no bearing on my view of Bible translation, which is the same view as that held by the early English translators including the KJV translators. Are you accusing the makers of the KJV of being non-Bible believers because they indicated that no translations could be imperfect and that translations that have some imperfections and blemishes are the word of God in English?

I have already clearly informed you before that I have not recommended the Critical Greek Text nor any English translations made from it.

Therefore, all your accusations against the Critical text provide no sound answer to my question and to sound evidence for a KJV-only theory.

 

[Logos1560]

the Reformation Bibles like Luther’s German Bible, the French Olivetan, the Italian Diodati, the Portuguese Almeida, the Spanish Reina Valera, the English Geneva Bible

There are textual differences and translational differences between Luther's German Bible and the KJV.

There are a few textual differences and many translational differences between the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV.

None of those Reformation Bibles agree with the KJV 100%.

How do those Reformation Bibles that are not the same as the KJV provide any sound evidence for a man-made KJV-only theory?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The ESV is now published with the Apocryphal books included and you can pick up a copy at the Catholic book stores, but you won't find the King James Bible there. Here is the Catholic site -
http://catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2009/01/esv-w-apocrypha-deuterocanonicals-is.html

So would you discount the reliability of the original KJV for including the Apocrypha?

 

[Yeshua1]

Your posts did not answer my question. You dodge and avoid my question, and you evade dealing with the actual arguments used for a Latin Vulgate-only view that I documented in another post.

You in effect post information that has no bearing on my view of Bible translation, which is the same view as that held by the early English translators including the KJV translators. Are you accusing the makers of the KJV of being non-Bible believers because they indicated that no translations could be imperfect and that translations that have some imperfections and blemishes are the word of God in English?

I have already clearly informed you before that I have not recommended the Critical Greek Text nor any English translations made from it.

Therefore, all your accusations against the Critical text provide no sound answer to my question and to sound evidence for a KJV-only theory.

Why do you not recommend either the CT, nor any versions translated from that?

i can see you saying the MT/Bzt greek text superior, but is not the CT still the word of God to us, and thus any modern version off that also englsish word of God?