Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricky D'Angelo
|
CORRECTION/UPDATE/HUMBLE APOLOGIES:
I just downloaded the two different "editions" (as the Open Library refers to them). They may be two different editions, but they are also two separate volumes--Volume I and Volume II. The first one listed, Volume I, is dated 1965, and Reference Book Publishers is credited as the publisher: the second one is Volume II, with Williams & Norgate as the publisher, and dated 1909.
These books are not advocating primitive Christianity in the present day. Rather, they discuss what the author refers to as primitive Christianity--i.e., the history, basically, of the early church (the author demarcates that period as ca. 30-600).
Oh, and these books that I called "short books" . . . well, volume I is about 500 pages long; volume II is a little over 500 pages long. They looked like tracts or pamphlets to me, from the thumbnails of the book covers.
I really appreciate this post. This is a subject in Christianity that I really enjoy thinking (mainly) and reading about. I don't claim any special knowledge about it, however. In fact, I didn't recognize the name of the author of this little book, which I probably would have had if I were better read on the subject. I would like to share some thoughts that I've had on the subject, however.
I don't ever remember reading of any of the more prominent people involved in the Reformation Movement really taking the position that they wanted to
restore primitive Christianity. In fact, the term "Reformation," if I understand it correctly, was used in order to convey the idea that "this movement is to
reform the existing Church (the Roman Catholic Church) and not intended to start any new churches" (I've heard that the moniker "Protestant," even, did not come from the idea that people were "protesting" the Catholic Church, but from some other concept, which at the moment slips my mind). Many, maybe most, of the Reformers claimed to be Roman Catholic until the days that they died. Despite the Reformers' stated intent, the Reformation Movement did lead, directly or indirectly, to the creation of thousands of new denominations, sects, etc. of which most, if not all, are opposed to the Roman Catholic Church. Some of those arising in the latter part of the Reformation Movement may actually have now a desire and goal of being restorationist. Here my knowledge is especially weak, but I know that there are groups with names like the "Full Gospel" church, the Primitive Baptist Church, various "Apostolic" churches,
et al.
There are actually several churches/denominations in the U.S., at least, that claim to be "Restorationist" (some of the ones that I mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph may actually have been "born" in the United States, I just don't know)--saying that they wish to go back to the way things were set up in the days of the apostles in the first century, in everything concerning the church, as well as in other religious matters. Off the top of my head, there is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and there is the "Restoration Movement" (often referred to as the Stone-Campbell Movement ("Stone" being Barton W. Stone and "Campbell" being Alexander Campbell)). However, over the years, denominations such as the Disciples of Christ, which had their historical roots in the Restoration Movement, seemingly have abandoned the Restorationist goal and mindset.
Then, there are denominations today which to me appear to be wanting restorationism buffet-style--picking this or that that they want to try to restore and, so, return to primitive Christianity in those particular matters, while leaving other things off of their plates, so to speak. Most denominations have traditionally not had the office of "elder" (or the office has been relegated to people serving as informal counselors within the churches) and their creeds and catechisms have nothing to say about them whatsoever. There is one person, in particular, who has started a movement to restore the position of elder to what it was supposed to be, i.e., according to the New Testament. But it seems like his desire, and certainly that of the movement, is limited to restoring that one matter. I've seen, in denominational/parachurch/ministry publications and on their websites, a "Head Covering Restoration" effort (the first few verses of First Corinthians chapter 11 instruct women to have their heads covered while "praying and prophesying"--they believe this to be an artificial head covering and that it should be worn in every worship service, in churches at least). All of this effort is seemingly to the exclusion of a sense of urgency to restore anything else.
Thanks for allowing me to share my thoughts. I'm anxious to see what the writer of this little book has to say. Maybe something that I have written has piqued your interest and lead to you to download the book. If anyone wishes to make a discussion of this, please remember that it will have to be taken to some other forum (I think that there is a religious/political thread somewhere for just such topics).