Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam became, in the opinion of many, one of the greatest evangelists of the Christian humanism. For it is often said by many that he laid the eggs which Luther and Calvin hatched. This is what I will briefly write about, that is, his theological philosophy.

Erasmus changed his prime directive in life after his meeting and correspondence with John Colet, who sought to bring the English students closer to the Christian truth by introducing the study of Greek in the cathedral schools, in 1499. As a result, Erasmus turned his studies from a mere intellectual form to that concentrated effort of spiritual revival within the Church by the means of his humanist writings and teachings.

Although many reforms were necessary within the Church, the most obvious was that of the preaching which he writes: “When the preacher ‘preaches’ of serious matters the audience is fast asleep, but when he ‘speaks’ of old wives’ stories they presently awake and prick up their ears and gape after it.”¹ It is this matter which started Erasmus on the road to reform within the Church, for he had no inclina­tion whatsoever to depart from the doc­trine of the Church. Rather he aimed for tire restoration and purification of the monastics orders and the abuses which resulted.

With these abuses firmly acknowledged within his mind he set forth to the library of Premonstrotension monastery of Parc, near Louvain. There he found the man­uscripts of Valla called “Annotationes of the New Testament” and his critiques. After studying these notes he took upon himself the task of restoring the New Testament in its purity. That is, he translated the New Testament from the Greek into simple every­day terms which made it more up to date. But his motivation behind this act was not that of a spiritual form but rather a philosophical endeavor. For he felt that every Christian should study the New Testament in its purity and original mean­ing to better understand the ancients, or­ators, poets, and philosophers, especially Plato. For this he received his degree in theology, 1506. This was the start of his new theological philosophy which was aimed against the old views of the Church which he writes: “It is a great and wilful conspiracy on the part of the conservatives to suffocate good learning and make the old ignorance triumph.”²

To put Erasmus’ theological philosophy in the proper light we will first look briefly at his true character that is brought out through his writings and not the false front that he put on to those who sym­pathized with his cause.

“My mind is such that I think nothing can rank higher than friendship in this life, nothing should be desired more ardently, nothing should be treasured more jealous­ly.”³ It was because of this view in relation­ship with his fellow man that he never took sides until he was forced to do so with Luther. When this event occurred he wrote the following: “There are those who sow the seeds of dissension between their town­ships in order to fleece the poor unhindered and to satisfy their gluttony.”⁴ This he said even though he claimed that he never read any of Luther’s works. As a result, he did everything within his power to stop any publication of Luther’s works, and in general, all those who opposed his philos­ophy. This is brought out in his book, The Praise of Folly.

In this writing he calls all those men who do acts which he detests the most foolish of all men. It is from this time forth he sets himself upon a pedestal in regards to his theology and all else is heresy. This is brought out more clearly when he says, “I am sure I am the only person that both can and have made it good.”⁵ That man judges wisdom by foolishness in such a degree that there is scarcely anyone to be found that is subject to many errors. Also, men that write against each other in regards to theology do it in their vain attempt to obtain fame. And that they will obtain fame by those things which are written because they are received by the common man with delight. This is expressed by Erasmus when he states: “Praises that proceed from the mouths of men that praise themselves are lies.’’⁶ But why is it Erasmus has found himself one of the most wise among men and all others fools? This he answers by saying: “Nature, so providently ordering it, lest this mischief of wisdom should spread further annoying mankind.”⁷ This has become his authoritative basis for his writings later on in life.

After studying the Scripture in his at­tempt to achieve the true meaning of them that men may return once again to the simple teachings of Christ, he came across such texts as Jeremiah 10, Solomon 15, 7 and 1, and I Corinthians 1. It is from these texts that he concludes the following: “All Christian religion seems to have a kind of alliance with folly and in no respect to have any accord with wisdom.”⁸ In answer to this statement made by Erasmus I Corin­thians 1:18 will put his attempt of simplifi­cation and generalization of Scriptures and of his understanding in the proper light. “For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish, foolishness; but unto us which are saved, it is the power of God.” So now one will ask, were all of Erasmus’ labors a vain attempt to understand the Scriptures, and if this is so then Erasmus had no part in the Reformation in this respect. The answer to this question can be found in 1 Corinthians 1:21. “For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased by the foolishness (referring to how the world saw it) of preaching to save them that believe.” The thing that makes his view on the Christian religion so striking is that these texts, I Corinthians 1:18 and 21, were the same ones that he used to prove his point. It was in this same manner he interpreted all of Scripture and developed his Theological Philosophy. But he was in no means ashamed of these views for he often said, “You see how much I have comprehended in a little.”⁹ But what about those times Erasmus came across a place in Scripture which seemed contrary to the doctrine of Christ or the divinity of His nature? To this he would answer and say the apostles have made the mistake and not I. To prove this he would use I John 4:1. “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: Because many false prophets are gone out into the world.” However, if this be the case, in Galatians 1:12 it tells us that the Scriptures are not of man but are of Jesus Christ. And if this be true, which it is, then Erasmus himself is denying the divinity of Christ and His nature, that is, He is the Word, John 1. Well, so much for Erasmus, for this paper is about this Theological Philos­ophy and also of the statement so common­ly said, “Erasmus laid the eggs which Luther and Calvin hatched.” With this in mind we shall examine his views on reli­gion and what he felt it should be.

Erasmus felt that Christ can be either a good or a bad influence on man depending on how he sees Him. This is why it is so necessary for man to understand the simple teachings of Christ, and that His purpose here on earth was to set an example to all men on how they should walk. Only by this means could man see that which is good and model his life after it. It was this form of thinking that Erasmus shows in Julius Exclusus through the sanction of Peter who voices Erasmus’ views of man’s salvation and not his own. “Well then, did you win many for Christ by the holiness of your life?”¹⁰ This was the question that was asked of Julius, pope of the Roman Catholic church at this time. In this ques­tion put to Julius it is implying that Christ died for “all men” and that man is cap­able of choosing and doing godly things according to how he sees fit. This is a direct denial of Ephesians 2:8 and 9, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: It is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” It is at this point Erasmus would say, yes, but it is up to man whether or not he accepts those gifts or not. With this in mind he developed his version of ‘free will’ and appealed to the people as a humanist. “I have an idea that the people at any rate can be cured.”¹¹

It was at this time Luther wrote to Eras­mus and wanted to know just where he stood, for it was Erasmus’ nature to take sides for the one with whom he could be most secure. It was through this correspondence that Luther wrote, The Bondage of the Will, which said that the human will is bond to sin and is not free like Erasmus maintained. “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not none: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God” (Romans 3:10 and 11). This is the state of the natural man apart from the grace of God which Erasmus denied on the basis of John 15:7, Matthew 19:16-20, and Mark 10. But as Luther pointed out this is the state of the believer in relationship to God only after he has been totally and completely ingrafted into Christ which is the work of God and in no way of ourselves.

After this series of correspondence Eras­mus did not admit to himself his error but rather wrote the following: “Holy Scriptures contain secrets into which God does not want us to penetrate too deeply, because if we attempt to do so, increasing darkness envelopes us, so that we might come to recognize in this manner both the infathomable majesty of divine wisdom and the feebleness of the human mind.”¹² The irony of this whole matter is that Erasmus could not understand something so plain­ly brought out in Scripture throughout but could fully comprehend the Trinity. “The mystery of the Trinity was so clearly ex­pressed that a mathematician could not chalk it out more plainly.”¹³ As a result, Erasmus went back within the fold of the Roman church, from which he claims he had never been apostate, and worked for material reforms rather than spiritual. His encounter with Luther and some of the other reformers left a bad taste in his mouth and continued his belief that their followers were inspired by the devil for he could tell it by the expression upon their faces.

It was because of this bitterness toward the reformers that Erasmus set forth to condemn those people within the Roman church. Some of these groups which he condemned followed after the reformers but were afraid to leave the church and did not take their stand for the truth strong enough to be excommunicated while others still continued in their own folly. Erasmus wanted to reach a compromise between these two groups within the church. For example, he condemned all those cardinals who called themselves successors of the apostles when they did not even have a perfect knowledge of the Old and New Testament. Also he condemns all those men who try to understand such divine things as the creation, original sin, and the virgin birth.

Erasmus’ reforms were by no means limited to his church but also to the state and people. To the state he condemns all those “wicked” princes for using the flock of Christ (all men) for their own selfish needs and desires through war. And that they murdered Him — Christ — by the evil example of their lives through pestilence. To the people, he condemns them for performing pilgrimages to the Holy Land to pay for their sins but he does not, however, condemn indulgences. If there is a difference between the two I fail to see it. And lastly he condemns all those who change Holy Writ according to their own pleasure and purpose. Yet with all this so-called divine inspiration which Erasmus claimed he had he still refers to the law of God as the law of Good Works.

Those men who say that Erasmus laid the eggs which Luther and Calvin hatched is a direct attempt to belittle their works of reform, only through the grace of God, and to give the initial work of reformation to a man who did everything he dared to present such acts. All those things which Erasmus had done during the reformation were a direct result from his own egotistic and vain nature. However, we must give credit where credit is due in reference to those men who did hatch and are hatching those eggs which Erasmus laid. That credit must go to those men who were and are responsible for bringing heresy into the reformed churches. The reasons why I use the present tense is because Erasmus’ Theological Philosophy can be plainly seen in Explo ’72 and Key ’73, and all those churches who back such movements. Such common beliefs as: “Accept” Christ as your personal Savior and you will have eternal life. Or, Since I have accepted Christ my life is better. I have given up drugs and now get high on Him by the Spirit. Such concepts of the Christ Luther and Calvin never knew but Erasmus did. I am sure that you can think of many more examples, but the fact remains those churches who call themselves reformed and hold to such heresy do not have anything whatsoever to back those beliefs when it comes to the Word of God.

Footnotes:

1. Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly (The University of Michigan Press, 1966 — translated by John Wil­son), p. 75.
2. John Huiyinga, Erasmus and the Age of the Reformation (New York: Harper and Row Publishing, 1957), p. 137.
3. Ibid, p.12.
4. Ibid., p.154.
5. Erasmus, p. 22.
6. Ibid., p. 9.
7. Ibid., p. 38.
8. Ibid., p. 143.
9. Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly (The University of Michigan Press, 1966 — translated by John Wil­son), p. 119.
10. Paul Pascal, translation, The Julius Exclusus of Erasmus (London: Indian University Press, 1968), p. 50.
11. Ibid., p. 90.
12. Ernst F. Winter, translator and editor, Erasmus — Luther Discourse on Free Will (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Company, Inc., 1961), p. 8.
13. Erasmus, p.108.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Erasmus, Desiderius, The Praise of Folly, translated by John Wilson, The Uni­versity of Michigan Press, 1966.

Huiyinga. Johan, Erasmus and the Age of the Reformation, Harper and Row Pub­lishing, New York, 1957.

Pascal, Paul, translation, The Julius Exclusus of Erasmus, Indian University Press, London, 1968.

Winter, Ernst F., translator and editor, Erasmus — Luther Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Pub­lishing Company, Inc., 1961.