The first protestant

Logos is super powerful. I love the new 8 version. It was asked who was the first Protestant I do not know the answer so I went to the timeline. Typed in protestant came up with a timeline around the 1500's. Ok but what about the Hussites, or Tyndale? In Christian history class, they are considered some of the first protestants. Now whether right or wrong I am just trying to figure out what the best way to search the topic is in the new version 8?

Find more posts tagged with

Desktop App

Comments

MJ. Smith

It was asked who was the first Protestant

Are you asking (a) who was the term "Protestant" first applied to, (b) who was the first who wanted to apply the world-view shift that led to Protestantism to the Church, or (c) who was the first to "protest" the beliefs of the Church ... close to who was the first heretic or schismatic? If you know what you are looking for, I'd be able to help build the search.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009057#Comment_1009057

All of the above please It will help me in future searches

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009063#Comment_1009063

Let me answer one at a time:

First use of the term "protestant" ... for your purposes use the online etymological dictionary https://www.etymonline.com/word/Protestant#etymonline_v_2731 which gives you:

[block

Protestant (n., adj.)

1539, from German or French protestant, from Latin protestantem (nominative protestans), present participle of protestari (see protest (n.)). Originally used of German princes and free cities who declared their dissent from ("protested") the decision of the Diet of Speyer (1529), which reversed the liberal terms allowed Lutherans in 1526.

When forced to make their choice between obedience to God and obedience to the Emperor, they were compelled to choose the former. [Thomas M. Lindsay, "A History of the Reformation," New York, 1910]

The word was taken up by the Lutherans in Germany (Swiss and French preferred Reformed). It became the general word for "adherents of the Reformation in Germany," then "member of any Western church outside the Roman communion;" a sense first attested in English in 1553.

In the 17c., 'protestant' was primarily opposed to 'papist,' and thus accepted by English Churchmen generally; in more recent times, being generally opposed to 'Roman Catholic,' or ... to 'Catholic,' ... it is viewed with disfavour by those who lay stress on the claim of the Anglican Church to be equally Catholic with the Roman. [OED]

Often contemptuous shortened form Prot is from 1725, in Irish English. Protestant (work) ethic (1926) is taken from Max Weber's work "Die protestantische Ethik und der 'Geist' des Kapitalismus" (1904). Protestant Reformation attested by 1680s.

][/block]

Dan Francis

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009063#Comment_1009063

Some have even argued that ST. Francis of Assisi was truly the first Protestant. Luther is arguably the first in that was called so and in that it was his actions that lead to the schism it feels logical to apply it to him. It is also true that there are many people who help set the stage.

-dan

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009063#Comment_1009063

From what I understand, the "easy" answer is that the term "Protestant" comes from the protest made by the Evangelical Princes after the Diet of Speyer in 1529. In the view of the "Protestants" the Diet in 1529 where the Emperor was not present improperly set aside a ruling of the Diet of Speyer of 1526 where the Emperor was there. The ruling in question was one that in 1526 allowed them to make some limited reforms in their territories...

As for who was the first "Protestant" in any other understanding, any answer of that would first require an understanding of what exactly the Reformation was about - something that has been debated since at least the 16th century, with some of the movements separating from Rome and some staying within her. There were countless medieval reform movements. The Cluniac Reforms in the 10th century were important reforms of monastic life. Even before that, the organization of the College of Cardinals was an important reform in papal elections...

This historical-theological judgement is still debated. I would recommend the study (not just searching) of many primary sources as well as some of the better historical writings on the period.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009066#Comment_1009066

For the first heretics, etymology again gets us part of the way:

[block]

anathema (n.)

1520s, "an accursed thing," from Latin anathema "an excommunicated person; the curse of excommunication," from Ecclesiastical Greek anathema "a thing accursed," a slight variation of classical Greek anathāma, which meant merely "a thing devoted," literally "a thing set up (to the gods)," such as a votive offering in a temple, from ana "up" (see ana-) + tithenai "to put, to place," from reduplicated form of PIE root *dhe-"to set, put."

By the time it reached Late Latin the meaning of the Greek word had progressed through "thing devoted to evil," to "thing accursed or damned." Later it was applied to persons and the Divine Curse. Meaning "act or formula of excommunicating and consigning to damnation by ecclesiastical authority" is from 1610s.

Anathema maranatha, taken as an intensified form, is held to be a misreading of I Corinthians xvi.22 where anathema is followed by Aramaic maran atha "Our Lord hath come" (see Maranatha), apparently a solemn formula of confirmation, like amen; but possibly it is a false transliteration of Hebrew mohoram atta "you are put under the ban," which would make more sense in the context. [Klein]

[/block]

So it precedes Christianity, and I'll posit that 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22 is the first reference with the heretics being unnamed.

If you wish a more narrow definition of being officially labelled anathema, I would search for anathema either in Church documents or in a more focused first seven church councils. That brings you to:

[block]

CANON XXXIX

Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.1
[I add Canon XXXVII. of Echellensis’s Nova Versio LXXXIV. Arabic. Canonum Conc. Nicæni, that the reader may compare it with the foregoing.]
Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter. And let all the bishops be divided under the hands of these four patriarchs; and the bishops of the little towns which are under the dominion of the great cities let them be under the authority of these metropolitans. But let every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the bishops of his province, but let none of the bishops appoint him, for he is greater than they. Therefore let every man know his own rank, and let him not usurp the rank of another. And whosoever shall contradict this law which we have established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema.2

Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., “The Captions of the Arabic Canons Attributed to the Council of Nice,” in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, trans. Henry R. Percival, vol. 14, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900), 48.

[/block]

You will then have to read histories of the council to determine who this is targeted against i.e. why it was an issue .... I've got to leave you some of the fun.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009072#Comment_1009072

For the first to hold the ideas that are the underpinnings of the Protestant movement, I believe that the first stirrings are among 11th century theologians - if there are earlier cases, they've left few tracks to be picked up in history of ideas overviews. I would look at who the major influences were on Peter Waldo and Jan Hus ... following those rabbit trails should lead to useful results.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009076#Comment_1009076

Thanks so how would I go about searching for the first stirrings? I am not sure that simply typing Protestant NEAR First is going to bring me with a refined result for that topic

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009084#Comment_1009084

Doing a search on Christian or church history other than mainstream may get you some results. There is a book by EH Broadbent called "The Pilgrim Church" which attempted to look at church history from the eyes of small groups not part of mainstream church history, and traces groups back to the before 300 AD. Unfortunately, this book is not in Logos but I have heard of other books of this type. Perhaps a search for schismatic groups or heretical movements (so called) may yield results.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009084#Comment_1009084

Thanks so how would I go about searching for the first stirrings?

I would search for things like "influence NEAR Hus" or "teacher NEAR Hus" ... and then scan for those pointing back in history rather than forward ...

in my library that leads me to

[quote]

The last precursor of Hus was Matthias von Janow,2 the son of a Bohemian Knight, and an enthusiastic pupil of Milic. In 1381, he was appointed a prebendary of the Cathedral at Prague and a father confessor. Distinguished for his learning which he acquired at the Universities of Prague and Paris—whence his title of “Parisian Master”—converted, while searching the Scriptures, from a vicious life to the service of God, he used both his knowledge and his experience in bravely promoting the Truth. He was a writer and not a preacher. The collection of his works, composed between the years 1388 and 1392 and entitled De regulis Veteris et Novi Testamenti, exercised an unprecedented influence in its day.3

Edmund de Schweinitz, The History of the Church Known as the Unitas Fratrum or The Unity of the Brethren (Bethlehem, PA: Moravian Publication Office, 1885), 25.

so then I'd look for influences on Matthias von Janow ... etc. until I reach a dead end.

then I'd do the same for Waldo

Bernhard

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009102#Comment_1009102

There is a book by EH Broadbent called "The Pilgrim Church" which attempted to look at church history from the eyes of small groups not part of mainstream church history, and traces groups back to the before 300 AD. Unfortunately, this book is not in Logos

Available here: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks10/1000351h.html (Broadbent died in 1945, so his books should be out of copyright in most jurisdictions)

GaoLu

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009165#Comment_1009165

I am pretty sure "The Pilgrim Church" is available as a ready docx for a PB. I have it. Probably cleaned up from GB mentioned above. I am uneasy about uploading it because of copyright possibilities and I had in the back of my mind Logos was once working on producing it.

Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009166#Comment_1009166

I am pretty sure "The Pilgrim Church" is available as a ready docx for a PB. I have it. Probably cleaned up from GB mentioned above. I am uneasy about uploading it because of copyright possibilities and I had in the back of my mind Logos was once working on producing it.

I had not heard Logos was once working on producing it. Yes it is dated, but may help Blair in his study to know what to search for in his Logos resources. I did hear someone else had written an more updated similar book but I dont have any more information on who are the title. "The Pilgrim Church" is an interesting read on minority movements throughout church history and what characterized those movements.

David Thomas

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009216#Comment_1009216

I did hear someone else had written an more updated similar book but I dont have any more information on who are the title.

A resource that some Baptists use to support the claim that Baptist churches pre-date the Reformation is Carroll's The Trail of Blood. However his claims are also repudiated by other Baptists. This Wikipedia article explains some of that research which may provide names of individuals that you could search in Logos to do your own research - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trail_of_Blood

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009102#Comment_1009102

which attempted to look at church history from the eyes of small groups not part of mainstream church history, and traces groups back to the before 300 AD.

There are a number of such books - the Restorationist movement was big on them. One has to read all of them with caution as they tend to be written conclusion first then attempt to justify it. The result is that they range from excellent to garbage - and for people who aren't church historians like myself, it is not obvious which is which unless you track down the references.

EastTN

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009421#Comment_1009421

which attempted to look at church history from the eyes of small groups not part of mainstream church history, and traces groups back to the before 300 AD.

There are a number of such books - the Restorationist movement was big on them. One has to read all of them with caution as they tend to be written conclusion first then attempt to justify it. The result is that they range from excellent to garbage - and for people who aren't church historians like myself, it is not obvious which is which unless you track down the references.

One also has to give careful thought to what it means to trace a "group" back to the early days of the church. In my experience there are generally two somewhat separate but related claims that are being made, and they are not often distinguished well. The first is that the group's beliefs and practices are "primitive" in the sense that they reflect the beliefs and practices of the early church. The second is that there has always been a "faithful remnant" throughout church history that preserved those beliefs and practices.

The American Restoration movement that MJ mentions emphasized the first - restoring the beliefs and practices of the early church - hence the term "Restoration Movement." Other groups place relatively more emphasis on the second, trying to demonstrate that their specific heritage has an unbroken line of descent from the early church. I believe certain Baptists take this approach. They're seeking to identify a historical connection through the "faithful remnant" back to the apostolic church. My sense is that tracing back the "faithful remnant" plays a similar role for them that tracing an apostolic succession plays for other churches.

I've personally found it helpful, when reading this sort to material, to remember that these are distinct claims.

SineNomine

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009421#Comment_1009421

MJ (and others), which books on Christian history (and parts thereof) available from FL do you find the most helpful?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009674#Comment_1009674

MJ (and others), which books on Christian history (and parts thereof) available from FL do you find the most helpful?

I believe others can better answer this as I'm not interested in church history as a whole - I'm interested in overviews on the Eastern church, liturgical history, canon history, history of Biblical Interpretation, history of mysticism ... most of which are not in Logos.

David Paul

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009072#Comment_1009072

For the first heretics, etymology again gets us part of the way:

[block]

anathema (n.)

1520s, "an accursed thing," from Latin anathema "an excommunicated person; the curse of excommunication," from Ecclesiastical Greek anathema "a thing accursed," a slight variation of classical Greek anathāma, which meant merely "a thing devoted," literally "a thing set up (to the gods)," such as a votive offering in a temple, from ana "up" (see ana-) + tithenai "to put, to place," from reduplicated form of PIE root *dhe-"to set, put."

By the time it reached Late Latin the meaning of the Greek word had progressed through "thing devoted to evil," to "thing accursed or damned." Later it was applied to persons and the Divine Curse. Meaning "act or formula of excommunicating and consigning to damnation by ecclesiastical authority" is from 1610s.

Anathema maranatha, taken as an intensified form, is held to be a misreading of I Corinthians xvi.22 where anathema is followed by Aramaic maran atha "Our Lord hath come" (see Maranatha), apparently a solemn formula of confirmation, like amen; but possibly it is a false transliteration of Hebrew mohoram atta "you are put under the ban," which would make more sense in the context. [Klein]

[/block]

So it precedes Christianity, and I'll posit that 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22 is the first reference with the heretics being unnamed.

If you wish a more narrow definition of being officially labelled anathema, I would search for anathema either in Church documents or in a more focused first seven church councils

Given MJ's criterion, Peter is the first schismatic heretic. He pronounces himself anathema @ Mk. 14:71. I pointed this out a couple or so years ago in a thread about a scholar who questioned Peter's state of mind (can't remember the guy's name off the top of my head). Peter does some highly dubious things from the Last Supper on.

That should upset a few apple carts. [:|]

ADDENDUM: Found the thread.

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009102#Comment_1009102

Good ideas Mark

Blair Laird

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009166#Comment_1009166

GaoLu where can I find the pb?

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009674#Comment_1009674

MJ (and others), which books on Christian history (and parts thereof) available from FL do you find the most helpful?

For the specific question of the OP, the problem is that to truly answer it, it would require a much more in-depth understanding of the various schools of medieval thought - much of which is locked away in Latin texts. And even when translated, while it is relatively easy to do a search for various terms, to understand what is truly meant when an author uses that term is significantly less so. Logos may be a useful tool for finding where that term is also used, gathering the resources needed for study faster than it used to be able to be done. But it can way too easily be used for shallow quote farming instead of a deep reading of a text.

The best volume of which I am aware that talks about the various movements within the church which eventually gave us the competing reformations is volume 4 of Jaroslav Pelikan's history - which is unfortunately not available in Logos.

For the early church, I have been impressed with Stevenson's New Eusebius and Creeds, Councils and Controversies for their brief overviews and good selection of primary sources. A much more in depth treatment I highly recommend is John Behr's Formation of Christian Theology. I do wish RPC Hanson's Search... was available too.

For the medieval church, I have not yet found a treatment that clearly communicates the spirit of the medieval church. Part of this is due to it not being an interest (unfortunately) for most of my fellow Lutherans, and the fact that too often we Lutherans look at the medieval church through Luther's training in late medieval nominalism. Part of it is being a bit bewildered at the various flowerings of Thomist influenced views in the almost 140 years since Aeterni Patris. Looking at it from my Lutheran eyes, I see parallels to some of our acritical repristinations, as well as some treatments that seem so modern that they seem to be modernism with a dash of Thomas for flavor... As a side note, one thing this Lutheran found interesting of Benedict XVI was how he seemed to be working towards this. It is still my hope and prayer that both his labors bear fruit and that I would be able to see this fruit...

It is almost embarrassing how many top shelf historical works on the Lutheran Reformation are available. Brecht. Lohse. Althaus. The whole American Edition of Luther.

I must add that the number of high quality primary sources available in Logos has grown immensely since I first became a Logos user in 2002. Classics of Western Spirituality. Popular Patristics, with more volumes on the way. Ancient Christian Writers. Fathers of the Church. The start of Migne.

I could talk also about what is missing. Gonzalez, which is quite readable was available on Vyrso for a while but seems not no longer be there. The much more in-depth Pelikan.

Hamilton Ramos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1009892#Comment_1009892

Hello Ken:

Thanks for a great post. If you do not mind me asking:

What is your conception of deep reading of the text? what variables do you value as key (understand worldview, social religious context, etc.)?

Are there any resources you recommend about deep reading of a text available in L8?

Lastly: from some Wesleyans on to spin off groups, they consider experience important. So they added that to the Anglican view to have a quadrilateral:

Scripture, tradition, reason and experience.

Mr. Frame said in one book that: "experience is the highest form of perception".

Some anti scholastic groups complain that the Bible is a map to a terrain that happens to be God's reality, and that has to be experienced first hand.

Any take on experience?

Thanks ahead of time for your input.

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1028026#Comment_1028026

Oh my. This whole discussion is almost certainly both off topic here and beyond where I would be qualified to speak. But here goes anyway...

When I had a rather liberal religion professor who based on his study of the thought of John Hick was able to talk about what John Hick would say about a topic even before Hick wrote a book or article on that topic, because he understood how he thought about things. While I personally don't care for what Hick says, this remains impressive scholarship - indeed an admirable goal for understanding something you study.

When I was in Seminary, a wise old teacher tried to pass on some advice he had learned at Seminary - that in disputes that you will face, that to get to the heart of the dispute you must first be able to present the viewpoint of your "adversary" in words that your adversary would recognize as what they are saying. Then you have a hope of actually constructively engaging the person as a fellow member of the body of Christ instead of talking past each other.

This is hard enough with living fellow members. It takes patience and time that is all too rare. It is harder with the saints who have gone before us and are at rest.

I have a hard time really viewing myself as "old" but I am old that I am not a digital "native". Just about every tool that I was taught to use to attempt this has as a key part of how it works to slow you down to be forced to deal with what it says instead of just what you think it says. Outline it the text. Diagram key sentences. Read it in a foreign language.

Logos at its best can expand the discussion - letting us bring more into the discussion and enhance our engagement with the text - and I greatly value it for that. But it can also be used to short-circuit the process.

As a Lutheran I cringe at the thought of seeming to have a quadrilateral where Scripture is put at the same level as multiple other sources. And yet I do understand that Scripture is given to us to be read with the whole Church and the Holy Spirit uses all the tools we have at our disposal - and this includes traditional understandings, our reason, and our life experience.

One of our theologians said: "Rightly distinguishing the Law and the Gospel is the most difficult and the highest art of Christians in general and of theologians in particular. It is taught only by the Holy Spirit in the school of experience." (Thesis III of CFW Walther's The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel)

More pointed is Luther himself that "a theologian is born by living, nay dying and being damned, not by thinking, reading, or speculating" (English from Wikiquote which says it is from the Tabletalk. A quick Logos search of my library comes up with a similar quote in the intro to LW 41, where it says it is from WA 5, 163).

These two teachers seem to (rightly in my view) call us to go beyond just "book learning" and bring that into the often messy word were God has placed us - claiming that this is where real theology happens...

While I don't have experience dealing with the "anti-scholastic" groups you mention, I do have the personal temptation to try to separate and put my personal (admittedly "scholastic") experience and ignore the neighbor God has given me, the Church that handed down the scriptures to me, and all the pious teachers who have tried to hand down the faith to me. While theologically I certainly want to echo the Reformation "Sola Scriptura" I also want to state that while Scripture is the final rule and norm, the way the Holy Spirit has chosen to bring Scripture to me is complicated and messy, using people and methods with which I am not entirely comfortable... When I hear too many "anti-scholastic" arguments, it sounds like they are also ignoring this in their desire to have a simple experience. Is this indeed what they are saying?

On the one hand, I have not given this complicated issue the attention it deserves. And yet, I also have stretched the purpose of this forum - and the rules for it - to the breaking point already.

Hamilton Ramos

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1028041#Comment_1028041

Thanks for sharing your mind. Valuable points.

Some power user poster said that some of the best learning done in the forums, was precisely when the guidelines were bent as important points were discoursed (rough paraphrase).

Blessings.