Praxis+Theodicy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 7:58 am
Ernie wrote: ↑Mon Apr 14, 2025 1:45 pmI use the term
primitive Christian or
historical Christian to refer to people whose believe and practice align with what was generally believed and practiced in the first three centuries.
I love your definitions Ernie.
For these two terms, I usually use the term
Radical Christian. Radical coming from the Latin "Radix" meaning "root". Radical Christians tend to look to the New Testament and the anteNicene church to inform their faith walk, including Doctrine and Praxis.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness of this thread. Thanks to both Ernie and P&T. I think there's a tension between: (1) choosing terms we would like to describe movements we are part of today, and (2) using terms as they have traditionally been understood in Christianity.
Each of these phrases actually has its own history, defined by others long before our time.
Primitive Christianity
17th–18th century Protestants used "primitive Christianity" to refer to New Testament Christianity, before Constantine and before the church fathers. You can see this in Quakers and Baptists, also in the Restorationist movement.
For instance, Robert Barclay (1676):
"So that it is manifest that we have not founded our doctrine upon the modern traditions of men, but upon the primitive purity and simplicity of the gospel..." (Proposition III, on Scripture)
Restorationists:
“The only guide in religious faith and practice is the Bible, and particularly the New Testament. Our aim is the restoration of the primitive Christian church.” (Christian Baptist, Vol. 1, 1823)
“We have taken for our motto the old apostolic platform—the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible. This is our religion. This is our faith. This is the religion and faith of primitive Christianity.” (Millennial Harbinger, 1831)
Radical Christianity
The term "Radical" has also been used in the same sense - returning to the New Testament, before the ante-Nicene period. The Radical Reformation (Anabaptists) wanted to return to Jesus and the apostles, not the ante-Nicene Church, and Radical has also traditionally been used in that sense. Herold Bender's "The Anabaptist Vision" says things like this:
The Anabaptists, however, retained the original vision of Luther and Zwingli, enlarged it, gave it body and form, and set out to achieve it in actual experience. They proceeded to organize a church composed solely of earnest Christians, and actually found the people for it. They did not believe in any case that the size of the response should determine whether or not the truth of God should be applied, and they refused to compromise. They preferred to make a radical break with 1,500 years of history and culture if necessary rather than to break with the New Testament.
I think early Anabaptists like Conrad Grebel, Menno Simons, Michael Sattler, and Dirk Philips explicitly grounded their faith and practice in the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament, not the Apostolic Fathers or Ante-Nicene Fathers. When they did talk about the early church, it was generally to point out how it declined after the apostles, encouraging us to return to New Testament Christianity.
For instance, in Foundations of Christian Doctrine, Menno Simons says things like this:
“We teach nothing but that which the apostles taught, and practice nothing but what they practiced.”
“The degeneration began already in the days of the apostles… and increased daily after their death.”
(Foundation of Christian Doctrine, 1539)
I find it confusing when David Bercot speaks of radical Christianity as pre-Nicene. In practice, he draws mostly from Scripture and the earliest fathers, which is less different from New Testament practice than later developments, but still gives an authority to later writings that seems the opposite of the traditional definition of "Radical".
Historical Christianity
Praxis+Theodicy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 7:58 amI don't use the term Christianity", because that is often used by Roman Cathokics and Reformed churches to specifically disparage Radical Christians. "Historical" by their usage means acknowledging and treasuring the long line of history and tradition and understanding of the church throughout the ages. Luther and Calvine, etc. specifically wanted to reform the historical church, and when it wouldn't budge, they took great pains to build a church that acknowledged the historical progressions of Christian thought through the centuries. Of particular consternation was how the radical Christians tended to eschew the theological developments of Augustine and the practical progressions brought to the church through people like Constantine and Charlemagne. The term "Historical Christianity" is used to differentiate the Reformed churches from the radical churches of the Anabaptists, spiritualists, etc. Modern Reformed people look down on Baptists, Church of Christ, Anabaptists, etc. because they are trying to go back to a time before these important historical developments took place.
I agree.
And historical usage is also the reason that I prefer not to use terms like "primitive Christianity" or "radical Christianity" to describe movements that emphasize attention to the ante-Nicene Fathers. These terms have long been used to mean something else, and redefining them now can only lead to confusion.
Praxis+Theodicy wrote: ↑Tue Apr 15, 2025 7:58 amIt is worth acknowledging that a good deal of Radical Christians (as opposed to Historical Christians) are non-Trinitarian, because the doctrine of the Trinity was not enumerated in such precise detail prior to the Nicene Counsel. Jehovah's Witnesses are an example of unorthodox Radical Christians. There were many anti-trinitarian sects among the Anabaptists during the Reformation too.
I struggle with calling Jehovah's Witnesses Christians. I think they are heretical, and I don't think the New Testament Church would have accepted them as Christians.
1. Are we discussing the topic? Good.
2. Are we going around and around in a fight? Let's stop doing that.
3. Is there some serious wrongdoing or relational injury? Let's address that, probably not in public and certainly not for show.
