I. Introduction
This paper seeks to present Erasmus’ connection to the Protestant Reformation. In particular, the following subjects will be considered: First, his character as a reformer; second, his concern for reform; third, his concept of reform; and fourth, his contribution to this reform movement. Then this article will conclude with some challenges. Extensive bibliography will also be provided at the end of this treatise designed for further studies.
II. Erasmus’ Character as a ‘Reformer’
“Erasmus laid the egg, but Luther hatched it.” This is what the monks of the day said of Erasmus in his relation to the Protestant Reformation.[1] And the egg that Erasmus had laid that Luther hatched became contributive to the birth of the Reformation. Thus, some historians consider Erasmus a Reformer[2], though it is doubtful if Erasmus would call himself a Reformer in its strict sense, as he said: “the egg I laid was a hen, and Luther hatched a gamecock.”[3] Erasmus did not want to identify himself with the Protestant Reformation, despite the fact that he was seeking to reform the Roman Catholic Church. His unwillingness to be identified with the Reformation could be explained by his disagreement with some of Luther’s reforms, especially the idea of predestination in the doctrine of justification, which Erasmus believed was a monstrous idea.[4] Moreover, Erasmus preferred to live a life of independence. When Luther invited him to join his movement, Erasmus refused, “arguing that to do so would endanger his position as a leader in the movement for pure scholarship which he regarded as his purpose in life. Only as an independent scholar could he hope to influence the reform of religion.”[5] Consequently, “Luther felt that Erasmus was avoiding the responsibility due either to cowardice or a lack of purpose.”[6] Similarly, William Farel, a French Reformer who took refuge in Switzerland “because of the controversy that was aroused by his writings against the use of images in Christian worship”[7] in France
Moreover, Erasmus as a reformer was “pictured as unable to accomplish what he undertook, while Luther is set forth as doing what Erasmus was impotent to do.”[10] “Erasmus desired reform within the Church, but he was not the man to lead in accomplishing the reform. He was not a leader of men; his influence is to be found elsewhere.”[11] Nevertheless, it is undeniable that Erasmus contributed to the birth of the Reformation. One has put it this way: “It is, perhaps, difficult to determine the extent of the influence of Erasmus in preparing the way for the movement for reform in the Church, but it is an acknowledged fact that he did in some measure influence the movement in its initial period.”[12]
III. Erasmus’ Concern for Reform
Erasmus was born in 1466 at Rotterdam , the Netherlands University of Paris Europe ,] Erasmus developed his philosophy of Christ that led him to criticize his Church.”[16] This so-called ‘philosophy of Christ’ is seen in Erasmus’ Enchiridion Militis Christiani, which he wrote in 1501. Brian Midmore says: “Erasmus set out his ‘philosophy of Christ’ with its central theme to ‘make Christ your goal’. It was an appeal to a Scriptural practice of the Christian life, exhorting the reader to: believe God and his Word; take the way of virtue which is the way of Christ; express your faith in moral behaviour; resist sin manfully and then go on the offensive against Satan; and compare the rewards offered by God and Satan.”[17]
As Erasmus delved into the Scripture, he began to see more and more the impurity within his church which created a concern in his heart to reform the Church. He started to become unsatisfied with the moral condition of his Church. Graham says: “Luther was not the first to challenge the leaders of the Catholic Church, for in the early sixteenth century, Erasmus led a movement to reform the Church. Although Erasmus laid the foundations for Luther's Reformation, he did not break with the Church because he would not sacrifice his belief for changes in doctrine and practice.”[18]
IV. Erasmus’ Concept of Reform
Undoubtedly, Erasmus was concerned to reform the church, but his concept of reform was only moral and not really doctrinal. This truth can be proven from his writings themselves. In his book, The Praise of Folly (written in 1509), he criticizes the corrupt system of his Church, and attacks those religious leaders who abuse their authority. He even questions the sale of indulgences which damaged the image of the church. Likewise, in his Sileni Alcibiadis (written in 1515), which is “one of his most direct assessments of the need for Church reform,”[19] Erasmus “criticizes those that spend the Church’s riches at the people’s expense. Riches should not be held above everything else. The true point of the Church is to help people lead Christian lives. Priests are supposed to be pure, though when they stray away, no one condemns them. He critiques the riches of the Popes, believing that it would be better for the Gospel to be most important. Furthermore, the Word of God should be most important for people.”[20] Erasmus really desired to change the Church, but only in a moral sense. This is how he differs from Luther, whose concern was not only moral but also doctrinal as well. When Luther nailed his 95 Thesis, he was not just calling for a moral change within the Church; he was also calling for a doctrinal change. Though at this time Luther’s doctrine of justification by faith alone was not yet very clear, and yet this doctrine was the ground of his call for a moral innovation. Midmore states:
“In his ninety-five theses Luther echoes Erasmus’ appeal for a change in religious practice. The essential difference is that Luther’s appeal is underpinned by a change in doctrine. Erasmus initially supported Luther when the issue was religious practice. When doctrinal issues surfaced, however, Erasmus broke with Luther. Erasmus believed the church alone had the right to change doctrine and that the existing doctrines of the church should be purified. Luther, however, eventually took the opinion that if the church rejected true doctrine, especially a central one (in his view) such as justification by faith, then it had lost its right to be called the church.”[21]
Robert G. Kleinhans, in his article—“Luther and Erasmus, Another Perspective,” asserts that though “both Erasmus and Luther were concerned with restoring Christianity and reforming the church; they differed in their interpretations of the essence of Christianity and the manner of reform.”[22] He adds: “The only [crucial] difference between the Roman Catholics and the theologians of Wittenberg
Furthermore, Erasmus’ concept of reform was not founded on the sola scriptura principle. While he acknowledged the authority of the Scripture and gave it primacy, he still held to the authority of the Church. Luther, on the other hand, appealed for reform on the basis of the Scripture alone. To quote Midmore again: “Erasmus, though he believed the Scriptures and the Fathers, was always constrained from adopting the radical position of Luther by his concern for unity and his honouring of the Church.”[24] It should also be remembered that Erasmus by nature was not a theologian; he was “a Renaissance rationalist who placed reason above Scripture. Therefore the truth of Scripture was not that important to him.”[25]
Finally, Erasmus’ idea of reform was not rooted in the experiential conversion. This statement implies that Erasmus was not truly saved which, of course, is difficult to sustain. However, the fact that he was unwilling to accept the doctrine of justification by faith alone suggests that he was not saved. But one must be careful to say that Erasmus was not saved at all, for later he held to the doctrine of justification by faith. Kleinhans argues: “The evidence strongly suggests that Erasmus’ theology was considerably altered during the years 1522-23. This change consisted primarily in the incorporation of a new theme into his theology, the theme of justification by faith.”[26] However, in Erasmus’ understanding of justification, the word ‘alone’ is missing, which is extremely important to this doctrine. This again raises doubt to Erasmus’ conversion. Luther himself, in his The Bondage of the Will (1525), asserts that Erasmus was a supporter of Pelagians who denied the total depravity of man in salvation and believed in the freedom of the will. Though not stated explicitly, in that book, Luther almost called him an unbeliever because of Erasmus’ view of salvation. Erasmus’ own writing itself, Diatribe (1524), as it reveals his soteriological doctrine, will put his own conversion into question.
If Luther’s assessment of Erasmus was true, then Erasmus’ reform was not true at all, for there would be no real reformation without biblical regeneration. This is where Erasmus greatly differs from the Reformers. He was seeking for a greater piety within the Church but outside the experience of salvation. This also explains why Erasmus’ reform was corporate, rather than personal or individual. Midmore puts it this way: “Erasmus promoted the corporate renewal of the church, but Luther promoted the salvation of the individual.”[27]
V. Erasmus’ Contribution to the Reformation
“In writing of the influence of Erasmus on the Reformation, D’Aubigne said that it had been overrated by some and underrated by others. Erasmus never was and never could have been a reformer; but he prepared the way for others.”[28] To understand Erasmus’ contribution to the reform movement, it is important to keep in mind that Erasmus belonged to the Renaissance humanists who created “an intellectual atmosphere which fostered certain Reformation movements such as a revival of biblical studies, the rejection of scholasticism, and the undermining of the ecclesiastical authority of the Roman church.”[29] In this section, Erasmus’ contribution to the Reformation will be considered.
Erasmus’ Greek New Testament (1516) can be considered his greatest contribution to the Reform movement. This work was a result of his being a biblical humanist who not only sought a revival of classical but of Christian antiquity as well.[30] He wanted to go back to the Scripture and to its original language, as he was convinced that one could not study well the Scripture without knowing the original language.[31] This is the Christian Humanist cry ad fontes (to the sources). Later, Luther used this Greek New Testament for his German translation, and so did William Tyndale for his English version.
Erasmus’ moral concern for reform may also be regarded as his contribution to the Reformation. Abraham Friesen states: “This attempt to ‘reform the morals of men’ is certainly a if not the central thrust of Christian Humanism.”[32] His writings especially The Praise of Folly added fire in the belly of the Reformers. Nash says: “One cannot doubt that his [Erasmus’] condemnation and ridicule of religion as he found it prepared the way for more ardent and heart-felt spirit of Luther’s reform movement.”[33] He goes on to say: “If we consider the great revolution that somewhat later renewed the Church, we cannot help acknowledging that Erasmus served as a bridge to many minds.”[34] For this reason many historians call Erasmus the intellectual father of the Reformation. Be that as it may, his relation to the Reformation “is in no way comparable to that of Luther, Zwingli, Farel, Calvin, Knox, and others of lesser importance.”[35] One historian suggests that “the most important relation of Erasmus to the Reformation is seen in the influence he exerted as a preparation for its coming.”[36] Erasmus was the “John the Baptist” of the Reformers who prepared their way. Nevertheless, as Nash says: “We cannot maintain the position taken by some, that without Erasmus Luther would have been impossible. The Reformation did not inhere in, nor proceed from Erasmus.”[37]
VI. Concluding Challenge
What challenges or lessons can be drawn from this study? What is the implication of these fifteenth or sixteenth century events to twenty first century people?
First, a reformer should have courage to stand for the truth. Erasmus knew how corrupt the Church leaders were, but he had no courage to challenge them in such a way that Luther did. He challenged them to some degree through his writings, but was not brave enough to leave his Church. One has rightly said: “Erasmus sought peace and unity if necessary by compromise, Luther sought the truth if necessary at the price of peace.” It can also be added that a reformer should not only have courage but also leadership. Erasmus was reforming the Church, but he was not willing to take a lead for this reform. He was playing safe.
Many churches today need to be reformed and these churches need reformers who, like Luther, are willing to stand for the truth at whatever cost. In this post-modern world, churches desperately need pastors who can say Luther’s words: “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and not by Popes and councils who have so often contradicted themselves, my conscience is captive to the word of God. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me.”
Second, real reformation comes from the Scripture. Thus, there will be no reformation without the Scripture. Even Erasmus’ concern for reform came from his understanding of God’s Word. His philosophy of Christ that led him to criticize the Church was a product of his knowledge of the Bible. But a more accurate example would be the reform of Luther. How did Luther have a burden to reform the Church? It was through the Scripture. It was through the eyes of the Bible that he saw the need for reformation. How sad it is that many pastors today seek to reform their churches without the use of the Scripture. Influenced by post-modernists, these pastors have begun to lose their confidence in the Bible, doubting its sufficiency and relevance to bring real reformation in this twenty first century era. But the Scripture that Luther used that brought Reformation is the same Scripture that we have today.
Finally, real reformation is rooted in experiential regeneration. That is, there will be no true reformation without biblical regeneration. Erasmus’ concern to change the Church was commendable, but it did not succeed. Why? Was it because of his lack of courage and leadership? Or was it because his reform was not grounded on experiential regeneration? The latter explains the reason well. It is impossible to have real reformation without real regeneration, and that this real regeneration is in the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Since Erasmus rejected this doctrine of sola fide, his reform cannot be considered a true one. Many preachers today sincerely seek reformation, but like Erasmus they just end up with a moral reform, because there is no preaching and teaching on the justification by faith alone. If true reformation is desired, there must be a Reformed teaching on justification. This is what Luther did! Nevertheless, it is important to say in conclusion that providentially, it pleased God to use Erasmus despite his weaknesses to lay the foundation of the Protestant Reformation for the realization of the redemptive plan of God in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. This shows that God is in control even in the Reformation.
[2] see Dickens, A. G., and Whitney R. D. Jones. Erasmus the Reformer. London : Methuen University of Cambridge London London
