# Where were the orthodox believers in the middle ages?



## CuriousNdenver (Jun 14, 2010)

Can anyone point me to a source or share thoughts that will trace orthodox believers from apostolic times up to the reformation? 

I have wondered for many years where the true believers were during the very dark ages.

Related to this, what are your thoughts on the spiritual status of the average peasants during this time? From what I understand, many parish priests didn't know Latin and didn't have access to a Bible. So - what did they tell these poor people? COULD they even be saved?

Were there pockets of true believers scattered about? Any information will be great!

Thank you!


----------



## Theoretical (Jun 14, 2010)

I've only gotten through a few of the lectures so far--the Intro, Anselm, and the Eastern Orthodoxy ones--but I've found Carl Trueman's Medieval Theology course on iTunesU to be excellent for discussing the leadership and clergy. It might not help with the issue of the laity, but could cast some light.

Dr. Carl Trueman - Trueman : Medieval Church


----------



## Casey (Jun 14, 2010)

"Dark ages" is a derogatory label.

This book demonstrates that the theology of the Reformation was not new:
Amazon.com: Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought…
Arranged topically, it give primary source translations of two streams of theological thought -- one that would be solidified at Trent (thus proving themselves schismatics), the other which would manifest itself in the Reformation. As you can see, it was a mixture (as it always is), but the truth was there and taught by these men.

This book deals with the footwork of the Reformation:
Amazon.com: The Reformation in the Cities: The Appeal of Protestantism to Sixteenth-Century Germany and Switzerland (9780300024968): Steven Ozment: Books
Admittedly, by the time of the Reformation the state of piety was deplorable, often perverse (much like our own time). Though the Reformation was essentially a theological battle for the true catholic and orthodox faith, it's easy to see the appeal of reform when you read what the priests were up to.

Neither of these books make for light reading.


----------



## Philip (Jun 14, 2010)

First of all, the term "dark ages" applies properly only to a period of history for which we no or few records. In terms of the European middle ages, the term really applies to a couple of peripheral areas (Britain c. 410-600, Germania up until Charlemagne, Scandinavia before the Vikings).

Second, much of mainstream Catholic theology during the Middle Ages was orthodox at heart. Anselm of Canterbury has already been mentioned (_Cur Deus Homo_ is the basis for the reformation doctrine of double imputation), but we may also think of (despite Van Til's protests) Thomas Aquinas, whose soteriology put an emphasis on grace that is strikingly similar to Calvin.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Jun 14, 2010)

> I've only gotten through a few of the lectures so far--the Intro, Anselm, and the Eastern Orthodoxy ones--but I've found Carl Trueman's Medieval Theology course on iTunesU to be excellent for discussing the leadership and clergy. It might not help with the issue of the laity, but could cast some light.
> 
> Dr. Carl Trueman - Trueman : Medieval Church


 Thank you! That sounds very interesting.



> "Dark ages" is a derogatory label.



No offense intended. It is how I have heard this time referred to in my education.



> First of all, the term "dark ages" applies properly only to a period of history for which we no or few records. In terms of the European middle ages, the term really applies to a couple of peripheral areas (Britain c. 410-600, Germania up until Charlemagne, Scandinavia before the Vikings).
> 
> Second, much of mainstream Catholic theology during the Middle Ages was orthodox at heart. Anselm of Canterbury has already been mentioned (Cur Deus Homo is the basis for the reformation doctrine of double imputation), but we may also think of (despite Van Til's protests) Thomas Aquinas, whose soteriology put an emphasis on grace that is strikingly similar to Calvin.



Thank you. Let me clarify the time frame that I am most interested in learning about: From about 400 AD to 1200 AD. 

I am wondering both about the church as a whole and the effect on the peasants. I don't meant to imply that none of the church leadership during this time were true believers or orthodox, but many heresies did come in at this time and the church got away from the apostolic model and became a burocracy complete with corruption, greed and unholy living. Things like transubstantiaion, prayer to the saints, elevation of the pope to holiness and infallibility, purgatory and justification by faith with works became standard fare.

While I am sure there were faithful clergy, what was going on with the rest of the church? How did it stray so far from the early days? Do we have documentation of pockets of faithful believers?

If even the parish priest did not have access to the scriptures, how was he able to teach the people? If he didn't know the scripture, how was he able to live a holy life in fellowship with God?

Thanks


----------



## Theoretical (Jun 14, 2010)

Also, if you would like an overview of the medieval worldview, then read The Discarded Image by C.S. Lewis. It was his last book, is fairly short, and is a masterpiece of scholarship still used in even secular literature and history settings for the Medieval worldview.


----------



## Philip (Jun 14, 2010)

> I am wondering both about the church as a whole and the effect on the peasants.



It really varied from place to place. In Ireland, for example, you had a very decentralized church where the monastery was the focal point, not just of church life, but of community life. In Germany, on the other hand, missions took generations and often ended up with weird syncretism (though in all fairness there was a bit of that in a lot of places) with saints substituted for the old gods. In the early parts too, there was competition with Arians.



> While I am sure there were faithful clergy, what was going on with the rest of the church? How did it stray so far from the early days? Do we have documentation of pockets of faithful believers?



How does any church stray? How did the PCUSA go wrong? It's a matter of hearts and minds, ultimately. Sometimes false teachings sprang up for profit (simony was the number one sin in Papal decrees during this period) other times through confusion (part of the debate over justification can be traced back to errors in translation from Greek to Latin).

As for pockets of true believers, of course they existed, we just don't always have records. However, you may be interested in reading about the lives of the Medieval "saints", whose "mysticism" often anticipated reformation teachings. Some good ones to start with would be Francis of Assisi and Bernard of Clairveaux, both of whom, I think, were true believers in spite of some of their more radical teachings.



> If even the parish priest did not have access to the scriptures, how was he able to teach the people? If he didn't know the scripture, how was he able to live a holy life in fellowship with God?



It was a hard time for Christians, to be sure. Throughout the period there were calls for greater education and equipping of the clergy, which is why universities like Oxford, Cambridge, and Paris were founded. By Luther's time, that situation had been somewhat remedied (plus the Bible was in much wider circulation due to our friend Gutenberg, who also printed indulgences).


----------



## Prufrock (Jun 14, 2010)

CuriousNdenver said:


> Can anyone point me to a source or share thoughts that will trace orthodox believers from apostolic times up to the reformation?
> 
> I have wondered for many years where the true believers were during the very dark ages.
> 
> ...


 
There is always great temptation to ask this and related questions; and that is okay, so long as we're not looking for a specific kind of answer -- otherwise, we play right into the Romanists' hands. When we ask, "Where were the true believers during the very dark ages," my mind goes to Elijah, who, in the midst of another "very dark age" had to ask God the same question, exclaiming that he alone remained in Israel worshipping the true God. Jehovah silenced him, however, assuring that he did, indeed, yet have a remnant of seven thousand men who had not bowed the knee to Baal. Now, if Elijah was not even aware of the faithful in his own day, it should come as little surprise if we would not be able to find the faithful of one thousand years ago. What we can do, instead, is look and see that there was still the visible, professing body, claiming at least the rudiments of our faith (and often much more than that), and have faith that God has always had a people truly within, even as he does now. The church did not exist in as much splendor as it would after the Reformation, but one does not have to look far to see the marvelous working of the Spirit of God, even when that fruit was mixed with corruption: one can see it in the piety of Bernard, in the prayers of Aquinas, in the doctrine of Gregory of Rimini, and in the spirituality of the various forms of piety -- one can see it in far more places than this; and so, even when we don't see the assemblies or the pastors, we implicitly see the evidence of the root when we see even the occasional bursting-forths of the fruit. However, what is even better: while there certainly was much that was wrong in the Middle Ages, there was also much that was good which we do not often have the opportunity to hear about, as many others have alluded to in this thread.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Jun 14, 2010)

> Dr. Carl Trueman - Trueman : Medieval Church



This is wonderful! Thank you so much - I can't wait to listen to all of these.



> There is always great temptation to ask this and related questions; and that is okay, so long as we're not looking for a specific kind of answer -- otherwise, we play right into the Romanists' hands.



This is a good point. I was just hoping to find some resources that would give a window into what it was like for the laity who were true believers during this time. 



> How did the PCUSA go wrong? It's a matter of hearts and minds, ultimately.



This made me stop and think. I worshipped with a PCUSA congregation when I first moved here, and this particular congregation was evangelical and faithful and had to face the difficult choice of staying in the denomination or withdrawing. It was actually hard for them to find a pastor through those channels. Perhaps some of the early believers faced a similar circumstance?

I have read some of Francis of Assissi and Thomas Aquinas' story and walked away thinking especially with Thomas Aquinas that he knew our Lord. 

Thanks for all the great suggestions for further study!


----------



## Philip (Jun 14, 2010)

> It was actually hard for them to find a pastor through those channels. Perhaps some of the early believers faced a similar circumstance?



Except that for a medieval, there wasn't a choice. Your priest was appointed by the local bishop with the consent of the local lord, who often paid the salary. We also have to remember that for a medieval Christian, church was bound to community---you couldn't go to the church down the road because a) all the community went to the local parish b) it was likely half a day's journey anyway (the RC Church still operates on the parish model, by the way). Only the very rich had the luxury of choosing their pastor.


----------



## JBaldwin (Jun 15, 2010)

When I took a class in French church history, we covered this topic related to France. There were little pockets of believers throughout France from the time of Christ all the way up to the reformation. A man named Ulfilas who died around 383 AD brought the gospel to the Goths (french), divised an alphabet for the Goth language and translated the Bible. I have long ago lost my notes from this class, but I recall that there were groups of french believers in the Alps region throughout the middle ages, and these folks had the scriptures in some form in their possession.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 16, 2010)

The one big sticking point for Protestants is baptismal regeneration. To my knowledge, every theologian from the author of the Didache to Zwingli espoused it. I wish someone could clear up this issue for me; it's the iceberg that keeps sinking my battleship.


----------



## Philip (Jun 16, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> The one big sticking point for Protestants is baptismal regeneration. To my knowledge, every theologian from the author of the Didache to Zwingli espoused it. I wish someone could clear up this issue for me; it's the iceberg that keeps sinking my battleship.


 
To understand this POV, you have to remember the ancient/medieval idea of ceremony. For a person living in the first fifteen centuries, ceremonies and rituals were never empty, nor were they simply "meaningful"---they had power, efficacy. Our culture has divorced ceremony from effect to the extent that much of our ceremony and ritual has become void of meaning. To a person in past centuries, though, there would have been no point in baptism unless it did something. 

We can easily see how this idea became distorted with the doctrine of transubstantiation, so it should not surprise us when it turns up in baptism too. However, our culture (even our church culture) has gone the other direction since the reformation so that now we have a pietistic view that "ceremony is merely symbolic" or "doesn't matter." It's an attitude which is just as wrong as saying that ceremony has the power to save.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 16, 2010)

There's a very comprehensive work which was written with the purpose of answering just this question of where were the true believers all those centuries - the _History of Protestantism_ by Rev James A Wylie. Amazon.com: The History of Protestantism - 4 Vol. Set (9780923309800): J. A.… It covers the Albigenses and Waldenses and Rome's persecution of them, in fact traces the whole story from the beginning of Christianity up to the end of the Reformation. I've only read extracts- I believe it's very long! It was published in 1878.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 16, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > The one big sticking point for Protestants is baptismal regeneration. To my knowledge, every theologian from the author of the Didache to Zwingli espoused it. I wish someone could clear up this issue for me; it's the iceberg that keeps sinking my battleship.
> ...


 
I'm fairly well aware of ancient culture, but baptism and the Eucharist developed dissimilarly. The growth of transubstantion from earlier and more ambiguous eucharistic doctrine is pretty clear. On the other hand, in even the earliest church documents we see a developed doctrine of baptismal regeneration - regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are both temporally and causally connected to baptism. Early Christians seemingly unanimously affirmed not just that baptism "did something," but that it saved people. Thus the third-century reference to martydom as a "baptism of blood" and the fifth-century appeal to infant baptism in the Pelagian controversy point to a long-standing and well-developed doctrine of baptismal regeneration.


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 16, 2010)

I wish I could locate my notes from one of my church history courses in college, back in the Dark Ages  In that course I remember reading on author who stressed that in the Highlands of Scotland there remained grace oriented believers. Some of them even went to the continent as missionaries. I believe that Dr. Joe Morecraft may refer to this in his lectures on the Reformation in England.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jun 16, 2010)

Easy:

The Trail of Blood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 16, 2010)

puritanpilgrim said:


> Easy:
> 
> The Trail of Blood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Kevin (Jun 16, 2010)

JennyG said:


> There's a very comprehensive work which was written with the purpose of answering just this question of where were the true believers all those centuries - the _History of Protestantism_ by Rev James A Wylie. Amazon.com: The History of Protestantism - 4 Vol. Set (9780923309800): J. A.… It covers the Albigenses and Waldenses and Rome's persecution of them, in fact traces the whole story from the beginning of Christianity up to the end of the Reformation. I've only read extracts- I believe it's very long! It was published in 1878.





---------- Post added at 08:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

Yes, there were orthodox believers in the middle ages. They were in the only church that then existed, the Roman Catholic Church.

BTW "dark ages" is a slur on those times coined by those that considered the times "dark" because they had replaced the classics of Greece & Rome with the scriptures.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 16, 2010)

LawrenceU said:


> I wish I could locate my notes from one of my church history courses in college, back in the Dark Ages  In that course I remember reading on author who stressed that in the Highlands of Scotland there remained grace oriented believers. Some of them even went to the continent as missionaries. I believe that Dr. Joe Morecraft may refer to this in his lectures on the Reformation in England.



Are you referring to St. Columba who built the "School of Discipleship" on the Island of Iona around 563?


----------



## JennyG (Jun 16, 2010)

Kevin said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> > There's a very comprehensive work which was written with the purpose of answering just this question of where were the true believers all those centuries - the _History of Protestantism_ by Rev James A Wylie. Amazon.com: The History of Protestantism - 4 Vol. Set (9780923309800): J. A.… It covers the Albigenses and Waldenses and Rome's persecution of them, in fact traces the whole story from the beginning of Christianity up to the end of the Reformation. I've only read extracts- I believe it's very long! It was published in 1878.


Really? I haven't read it but I always thought I might. Can you tell me why?


----------



## LawrenceU (Jun 16, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I could locate my notes from one of my church history courses in college, back in the Dark Ages  In that course I remember reading on author who stressed that in the Highlands of Scotland there remained grace oriented believers. Some of them even went to the continent as missionaries. I believe that Dr. Joe Morecraft may refer to this in his lectures on the Reformation in England.
> ...


 

No. If my memory serves me correctly the reference to the Highlands was a distinct example of the church existing prior to the arrival of Columba; not to take away from that great man's work.


----------



## Philip (Jun 16, 2010)

Kevin said:


> Yes, there were orthodox believers in the middle ages. They were in the only church that then existed, the Roman Catholic Church.



Unless you lived outside Western Europe---sometimes we forget about the long histories and traditions of Eastern Orthodox and "Nestorian" Christians.



> BTW "dark ages" is a slur on those times coined by those that considered the times "dark" because they had replaced the classics of Greece & Rome with the scriptures.


 
Not always. "Dark Ages" properly refers to those localized periods when written records are few because people were too busy surviving to write things down. The 5th-6th centuries in Britain (Arthur's time) are one of the clearest examples.


----------



## Kevin (Jun 16, 2010)

JennyG, It is not a recognised work on the topic. He is writing a polemical work that has as its goal "proving" that the "true church" was never part of the established church. This is of course nonsense. To make his case he must claim all sorts of heretical sects as proto-reformers. 

In his zeal to prove that a corrupt church (as it indeed was, from time to time, and from place to place) was in fact no true church he treats certain synagogues of satan as if they are gospel preaching reformed churches. For this reason (and others) you will never find Wylie treated as a credible source by any reformed church historian.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Jun 17, 2010)

Wow! I am so glad I found this forum...you are all a great help!!! I wish I had more time to dig into things that I do right now...it is an interesting subject. 

JennyG, I am inclined to believe there were pockets of the faithful that must have had at least portions of the scripture, but I will be wary of that particular source since it sounds like a slanted presentation. Because the writer was biased does not mean that everything he presented is false, so it might be worth a look - after the other resources.

Years ago I borrowed a small book that described similar situations - isolated pockets of "reformers or protestors", but I can't recall the name or locate it now.

It is particularly interesting to me, as I am partly descended from French Huguenots and Swiss reformers who helped found a very early church at New Amsterdam, NY.



> I'm fairly well aware of ancient culture, but baptism and the Eucharist developed dissimilarly. The growth of transubstantion from earlier and more ambiguous eucharistic doctrine is pretty clear. On the other hand, in even the earliest church documents we see a developed doctrine of baptismal regeneration - regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit are both temporally and causally connected to baptism. Early Christians seemingly unanimously affirmed not just that baptism "did something," but that it saved people. Thus the third-century reference to martydom as a "baptism of blood" and the fifth-century appeal to infant baptism in the Pelagian controversy point to a long-standing and well-developed doctrine of baptismal regeneration.



But - where is this in scripture? IF it DOES something, how does that fit in with salvation by GRACE? Because the early church THOUGHT it DID SOMETHING - that does not necessarily make it so - does it? My limited understanding has been that we are spiritually baptized into Christ (and thus His death and resurrection) and raised to new life and that baptism is the outward symbol.

I heard R.C. Sproul say something once about how even sincere believer's can be mistaken. He used Credo / Padeo baptism as an example and emphasized that only one can be correct, but those of each view truly believe they are correct and have some suupport in scripture for their positions. I liked the way he put it because he acknowledged that this is ALL the result of SIN, and none of us are exempt from it. ...we know in part He went on to say that we may have the correct understanding in this point and be wrong in yet another point. I can't say it nearly as well as he did, but it reminded me to be humble and tolerant in issues that are not completely critical to the basic faith....


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 17, 2010)

We should be thankful for believers who existed outside, or on the periphery of the establishment-church during long periods of time in church history.

However, we should remember that God preserved his church in the midst of decline and declension and imperfect apprehensions of the truth. This has always been so. Were there not 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal in northern-kingdom-Israel? Yes. God preserved his church also among the weak, sinful, error-rid and error-prone clergy and laity of the Roman church, and in the East, etc. We would even confess that there are believers in those places today, because their faith as individuals is superior to the faith confessed on paper and officially by those communions.

God uses weak, broken vessels for the accomplishment--or preservation--of his purposes.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 17, 2010)

Wylie's scholarship may well be at fault, but I have a lot of sympathy with what I believe to have been his agenda. He was writing in Britain at a time when the resurgent Roman church was spreading out her tentacles - re-establishing bishoprics, building churches and so on - at a horrendous rate, for the first time since the Reformation, and making no secret of her ambition to regain the country for the pope. The shock of Newman's desertion and the fifth-column inroads of the Oxford Movement were fresh.
Rome called protestantism a new doctrine, and itself the true church, claiming an unbroken continuity with that of the Apostles. 
Wylie set out to show that far from being the invention of the Reformation, the protestant faith had never been absent from the world, and had NOT continuously resided within the pale of Rome - in fact had neither been kept alive nor handed down through her means.
I don't know whether or not he would have said there were NO true believers within that church.
I won't read it if it's not sound, but I still think he's deserving of honour for his mammoth labour to stem the rising roman tide


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 17, 2010)

Melanie, I'm not saying that baptismal regeneration is a true doctrine. I'm saying I'm not aware of any opposition to it before the 16th century, which is problematic for anyone trying to propose a line of proto-crypto-Protestants running through history.


----------



## CuriousNdenver (Jun 17, 2010)

CharlieJ said:


> Melanie, I'm not saying that baptismal regeneration is a true doctrine. I'm saying I'm not aware of any opposition to it before the 16th century, which is problematic for anyone trying to propose a line of proto-crypto-Protestants running through history.



Thanks. I didn't think you interpreted it as true doctrine, but maybe Contra_Mundum's thought below puts in in perspective a little bit? It is hard to comprehend...I thought on that today and wonder if the believers during this time expected converts to be baptized and through the years began to associate that baptism with regeneration - though erroneously? Maybe if one was not baptized then but claimed faith, I think they would have not accepted their faith as genuine? Of course if the church had not strayed from the true faith - the word PROTESTANT would not have been needed!  But that line of "proto-crypto Protestants" that you mention is what I have been hoping to find documentation on. 



> However, we should remember that God preserved his church in the midst of decline and declension and imperfect apprehensions of the truth. This has always been so. Were there not 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal in northern-kingdom-Israel? Yes. God preserved his church also among the weak, sinful, error-rid and error-prone clergy and laity of the Roman church, and in the East, etc. We would even confess that there are believers in those places today, because their faith as individuals is superior to the faith confessed on paper and officially by those communions.
> 
> God uses weak, broken vessels for the accomplishment--or preservation--of his purposes.


 AMEN!


----------

