Recently I was reading this article:
http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/sorenson-ch10-1.html

and it states:

"By the time of his death, the theology of Erasmus had shifted closer to that of the Ana-baptists than that of Rome."

There's ONE slight problem... King James was against papists, anabaptists, puritans, and so many denominations. That's not a bad thing of course, it rendered James unbaised (which is why the King James Bible isn't plagued with biased footnotes).

James writes in the Basilikon Doron:

In your prayer, be neither over strange with God, like the ignorant common sort, that prayeth nothing but out of books, nor yet over-homily with him, like some of the vain Pharisee puritans, that think they rule him upon their fingers... And for keeping your conscience sound from that sickness of superstition, [which is called Morbus animi], ye must neither lay the safety of your conscience upon the credit of your own conceits, nor yet of other men’s humours, how great Doctors of Divinity that ever they be: but ye must only ground it upon the express Scripture: for conscience not grounded upon sure knowledge, is either an ignorant fantasy, or an arrogant vanity. Beware therefore in this case with two extremities: the one, to believe (with the Papists) the Churches authority, better nor your own knowledge: the other, to lean (with the Anabaptists) to your own conceits and dreamed revelations.

I have to agree with King James, the puritans thought they ruled God, the papists did everything upside-down, and the anabaptists were full of "dreamed revelations." (There were even a few that denied Christ in the flesh).

Now, King James' doctrines fully agree with the baptists today,
He writes that we are "Saved by faith" (not works):

"But because no man was able to keep the Law, nor any part thereof, it pleased God of His infinite wisdom and goodness, to incarnate his only Son in our nature, for satisfaction of His justice in His suffering for us: that since we could not be saved by doing, we might, at least, be saved by believing." - King James, Basilikon Doron

And, all angels, visions, and "God speaking to people" has ceased:

"...all we that are Christians, ought assuredly to know that since the coming of Christ in the flesh, and establishing of his Church by the Apostles, all miracles, visions, prophecies, and appearances of Angels or good spirits are ceased. Which served only for the first sowing of faith, and planting of the Church. Where now the Church being established..." - King James, Daemonologie

Note: God still heals and answers prayers (obviously), and the Holy Spirit can spit verses at you, BUT, God the father does NOT speak with a voice to us since the Bible has everything God needs to say (hence the Church is established).

So, I think it would be contradictory to call Erasmus an anabaptist when King James didn't heed them (then I guess he didn't like papists either to be fair). I think Erasmus was just sitting on the fence and not sure what he really believed (kind of like spurgeon).

Any thoughts? I would have only assumed the author of the article would be aware of what King James believed in, before stating that Erasmus was an anabaptist to fit his beliefs. King James himself was not an anabaptist, but he wasn't an Anglican either (the Church of England was a lot different back then through the changes Queen Elizabeth did). James was just your average ordinary Bible Believing Christian.

[MC1171611]

By the time of his death, the theology of Erasmus had shifted closer to that of the Ana-baptists than that of Rome.

I didn't see anything that said Erasmus was an Anabaptist, nor did I see any rebuttal in your post to the idea that he might have been. The quote says that his theology was closer to that of the Anabaptists than it was to that of Rome. So is my theology, for that matter, as should be that of any Born Again Christian, but I'm not an Anabaptist.

[George]

Aloha DevonR,

I have reviewed your Post (comments) about David Sorenson’s statements made in Chapter 10 of his Book: “Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation”, and while I agree with much of what you have said (and especially appreciate the quotes from King James) I believe that, early on (in your review of Sorenson’s statements), you reached the wrong conclusion.

Your Thread Title: “A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist” is misleading, simply because a review of the article demonstrates that no where’s in the article does brother Sorenson ever say (or claim) that Erasmus was a Anabaptist!

The article that you referred to is found on another of brother Brandon Stagg’s web pages (The King James Bible Page), and is taken from Chapter 10 of David Sorenson’s book <> “Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation”. {bold & underlines = G.A.}

Erasmus, King James, and His Translators (Part 1 of 3)
By David H. Sorenson

This is from chapter 10 of the book Touch Not The Unclean Thing: The Text Issue and Separation, ISBN 0-9711384-0-0, Copyright ©2001 David H. Sorenson, used with permission. Available from Northstar Baptist Ministries, 1820 West Morgan Street, Deluth, MN55811-1878 and from Amazon.com.

[Part 1: Erasmus]

“Because the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, it is evident as Erasmus began to search the Scriptures, they had a profound effect upon his life. By the time of his death, the theology of Erasmus had shifted closer to that of the Ana-baptists than that of Rome. This will shortly be documented.”

“Reading some of the quotations of Erasmus in his later years is insightful. They reveal a man who had shifted from conventional Roman Catholic theology to one much closer to a biblical position.”

“However, what is most amazing is that in Erasmus's later years, he came very close to becoming an Anabaptist. Though he never joined with them, his theology became somewhat parallel with theirs.”

“One church historian, Walter Koehler, has gone so far as to assert that Erasmus "was the spiritual father of the Anabaptists" (22). Another historian, Leonhard von Muralt, credits Erasmus with having "prepared the way for Anabaptism and provided material for the construction of their teachings" (22). Friends of Erasmus thus warned him that he was moving dangerously close to an Anabaptist position (36).”

Brother Sorenson then goes on to document some of Erasmus’s statements that clearly indicate that he certainly wasn’t what you would call a “Typical Catholic” of his time, or, for that matter, our time either.

“Perhaps more than anything else, Erasmus began to advocate baptism by immersion after conversion. Though this was called an Anabaptist heresy by the Catholics and Protestants, it was simply Bible teaching. The third edition of his Greek New Testament of 1522 differed from the second only in its introductory notes. There, Erasmus advocated that Christian youth be taught biblical instruction first - before they were baptized. He even advocated re-baptism for those already sprinkled as infants (45). Moreover, he came to believe that baptism was to be by immersion. In his annotations (i.e., commentary or notes) on Matthew 28, Erasmus wrote, "After you have taught them these things, and they believe what you have taught them, have repented their previous lives, and are ready to embrace the doctrine of the gospel (in their life), then immerse them in water, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost" (51, emphasis mine).

“That teaching concerning baptism is perilously close to, if not synonymous with, Fundamental Baptist theology. It certainly was Ana-baptist doctrine. Balthasar Hubmaier was an early Anabaptist leader. He essentially quoted Erasmus's statement above to establish his own point regarding baptism by immersion in his book of 1526 entitled Old and New Believers on Baptism. After having quoted the above-mentioned statement by Erasmus, Hubmaier noted,” "Here Erasmus publicly points out that baptism was instituted by Christ for those instructed in the faith and not for young children" (53). “In his annotations (i.e., commentary or notes) on Matt. 28:18-20, Erasmus also went on to write,” "The Apostles are commanded that they teach first and baptize later."

Brother Sorenson summarizes Desiderius Erasmus’s life in the following:

“Erasmus in Summary”
“Erasmus is a fascinating character in the lineage of the Received Text of the New Testament. His Greek New Testament, without doubt, was the catalyst which sparked the Reformation. He was a Catholic at the beginning of the Reformation. However, as he continued to search the Scriptures, he increasingly became less and less Catholic in his position. By the time he died in 1536, he had virtually become an Anabaptist in his theology. To his demerit, he never officially left the Catholic Church. However, when he died, it was not in the arms of Rome. Rather, in 1534, he returned to Basel, Switzerland, and two years later died in the midst of his Protestant friends, "without relations of any sort, so far as known with the Roman Catholic Church." [9]

“To try and deflect attention from the apostasy of the critical text by pointing out that Erasmus was a Catholic reveals a lack of knowledge of who he was, what he did, and what he believed. Like virtually all of the Reformers, Erasmus originally was a Catholic. However, unlike the rest of the Reformers, he never formally left the Catholic Church. His crusade was with his pen. Accordingly, his own writings show that he changed to a position that even the persecuted Anabaptists used to support their theology. The Catholic establishment became a fierce opponent to him by the time of his death. Though not a separatist, by the time he had published the third edition of his Greek New Testament, the charge of Roman Catholic apostasy can no longer be applied to Erasmus.”

I have reproduced what David Sorenson actually said to demonstrate that nowhere in the 10th. Chapter of his book did he ever claim that Erasmus was an Anabaptist. To conclude otherwise is an error of discernment on your part. My criticism of your Thread is not meant as a reproof or rebuke; it’s more in the nature of a warning, or at most an admonition. It’s just that when someone makes a statement about what someone else has said or claims - we have to be circumspect and absolutely certain about that which we speak, otherwise people will question our ability to discern and understand issues.

As MC1171611 has said: "I didn't see anything that said Erasmus was an Anabaptist", and neither have I. In all of what David Sorenson presented in the 10th. Chapter of his book I can see no "contradiction" in his statements concerning Erasmus.

Well... I suppose he didn't call Erasmus AN anabaptist, but it's still cutting the pizza pretty close.

Sorenson should write an article about how King James didn't like all of those denominations, rather than justify Erasmus. I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian - but if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus.

I believe people should focus on how King James carefully administered the KJV to FIT correct doctrines, if the textus receptus said anything "bad," it surely would have been corrected. I don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this), but, King James wanted to give the gospel to the English speaking people - indeed a wonderful gift from King James... which makes me wonder why people who don't agree with King James' very good theology (especially for just coming out of catholicism) use his Bible...

[MC1171611]

Well, it's not "his Bible," for starters. God wrote it: He just used King James to get the ball rolling just like He used Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib to do other things. Thankfully, His Majesty King James I was much more of a Bible Christian than either of those other two yahoos.

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Well, it's not "his Bible," for starters. God wrote it: He just used King James to get the ball rolling just like He used Nebuchadnezzar and Sennacherib to do other things. Thankfully, His Majesty King James I was much more of a Bible Christian than either of those other two yahoos.

Amen to that!

King James was an extraordinary Christian, he lived a chaste life, grew his hair short, wrote amazing works, and ensured we had an English Bible; unbiased and pure! (Douay-Rheims adds volumes of useless foot notes).

What I meant was, people who don't agree with King James (like a lordship salvationist concerning works salvation opposed to only faith), why don't they use the NIV instead? Some lordship salvationists do use the King James Bible, which, seems like an oxymoron to me.
Although I suppose it's good in an odd way, any lordship salvationist DARING to quote from the KJV, I quickly quote King James on being saved by faith, it sure silences them. It's like saying, why would I use a translation from the pope?

To give this thread some more worth, here are some writings of King James that I meticiously modernized:
http://christkeep.com/articles/texts...editation.html
http://christkeep.com/articles/texts/daemonologie.html
http://christkeep.com/articles/texts...kon_doron.html
[The Basilikon Doron is patchy since I could only find varying sources - Masonic references were also added which shouldn't be there, as for Daemonologie, I'm still modernizing some difficult archaic words]

And something not seen too often, Sonnets by King James [which I didn't bother to modernize since it would take me a VERY long time]:
http://christkeep.com/articles/texts/james_sonnets.html
(They awfully remind me of Edward de Vere's sonnets and plays like Venus and Adonis, quite secular - but that's poety)

Originally Posted by DevonR

I don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this)...

Please Lord, not another one...

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Please Lord, not another one...

I was thinking the same thing. We got another Bible doubter.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

[George]

DevonR [quote]

" Well... I suppose he didn't call Erasmus AN anabaptist, but it's still cutting the pizza pretty close.

Sorenson should write an article about how King James didn't like all of those denominations, rather than justify Erasmus. I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian - but if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus.

I believe people should focus on how King James carefully administered the KJV to FIT correct doctrines, if the textus receptus said anything "bad," it surely would have been corrected. I don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this), but, King James wanted to give the gospel to the English speaking people - indeed a wonderful gift from King James... which makes me wonder why people who don't agree with King James' very good theology (especially for just coming out of catholicism) use his Bible..."

DevonR,

Your quote:
“Well... I suppose he didn't call Erasmus AN anabaptist, but it's still cutting the pizza pretty close.”

“I SUPPOSE”??? I produced enough evidence from David Sorenson’s statements to totally refute your assertion concerning: “A contradiction concerning Erasmus being an anabaptist”, and all you can do is to grudgingly admit – “I suppose”? Why not own up (like a man) and admit you were WRONG? Hmmm?

Not only that, but right after your weak admission you come right back with another un-called for and unfounded attack and personal “smear” against Desiderius Ersamus – “I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian - but if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus”. I don’t know what your “problem” is with Erasmus, but I do know that unless you can PROVE what you “THINK” - you shouldn’t be judging a man whom you have already have proven (by your prior allegations) that you obviously don’t know that much about!

WHY make the statement: “I don't think Erasmus was a bible-believing Christian”? Only God can judge people’s hearts [1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chronicles 6:30; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Psalms 44:21], so what are you doing judging another man’s heart who lived 450 years ago? [Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.] WHY “judge” him at all, since you have already demonstrated that you really don’t know that much about him? Don’t you remember the Lord’s COMMAND?

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

And WHY “smear” a man who hazarded his life (on more than one occasion) in order to bring the word of God to the common man? ”if God can use a talking donkey, I'm sure he can use Erasmus”. Comparing Erasmus to a “JACKASS” is not a very honorable way to treat a man whom God used – regardless of his “shortcomings” {which, by the way – We ALL Have!}

Have you forgotten that God has used “murderers” - Moses & David; “adulterers” - Judah & David; “harlots” - Rahab & Tamar; “persecutors” - Saul, i.e. Paul, “doubters” - Thomas; “disobedient” – Peter; and literally thousands more of His people (ALL of whom have been imperfect and sinful) and yet God has seen fit to use these imperfect and sinful men to fulfill His will. So the question arises - WHY are you going out of your way to castigate and vilify a man, whom God has obviously used (regardless of his obvious “shortcomings”)?

By your comments on this Forum, it’s obvious that you don’t appreciate people maligning King James (to which, I am in complete agreement with you), then WHY do you persist in maligning Desiderius Erasmus? God obviously used both of these men to fulfill His will (regardless of their “shortcomings”)

You said:
“Sorenson should write an article about how King James didn't like all of those denominations, rather than justify Erasmus.”

WHAT do you care about “What” David Sorenson writes? WHAT concern is it of yours? God has given brother Sorenson the Liberty to follow His lead according to His word as the Holy Spirit guides him, without someone (like you) coming along and falsely criticizing what he has said, and then demanding that he write about something that you are concerned about. If you have that much concern, then you ought to write a book, or a booklet or pamphlet on the subject - but, since you have no power or authority to exercise ‘dominion” over brother Sorenson, you should seek out God’s will for your own life and not worry about WHAT another brother in Christ is doing!

Again you stated:
”I believe people should focus on how King James carefully administered the KJV to FIT correct doctrines, if the textus receptus said anything "bad," it surely would have been corrected. I don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this), but, King James wanted to give the gospel to the English speaking people [IMG]file:///G:/DOCUME%7E1/GEORGE%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image001.gif[/IMG]- indeed a wonderful gift from King James... which makes me wonder why people who don't agree with King James' very good theology (especially for just coming out of catholicism) use his Bible...”

If that is what you believe, then “focus” on it. In the meantime I am going to focus on the Holy words of God (not a man), and not worry or concern myself with the man, whom the Bible Publisher’s named the Holy Bible after - more than 300 years after it was ONLY known as just – THE HOLY BIBLE!

The fact that you “don't believe the KJV is perfect (I have many reasons for this),” means absolutely nothing to most of us on this Forum (Join “The Skeptics Club”). Most modern day Christians are in complete agreement with you – so you have plenty of company. Of course, since most modern day Christians have no idea WHERE the word of God is (or WHAT it is), and since they have NO “FINAL AUTHORITY” in all matters of faith and practice, it makes it quite easy for us to dismiss whatever they personally believe - since WHATEVER they believe is determined by their personal opinions, suppositions, speculations, or feelings.

You have voluntarily joined the AV1611 Bible Forums - Guess what? We love and cherish God’s Holy words – found in the Perfect and Holy King James Bible. If you disagree with us, well fine – it’s still a free country (for a little while longer). But if, shortly after coming here, you falsely accuse, malign, and smear a man whom God used in the preservation of His Holy word – well, don’t be surprised if some of us are going to contend with you and take you to task, both for your misstatements and your critical attitude.

Jude 1:3 Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

[chette777]

I agree George.