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

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 said:

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 said:

Mark said:

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 said:

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.

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.