A common theme in many
Christadelphian writings, particularly in continuous-historic interpretations
of Revelation, is a concept of the ‘faithful remnant’, i.e. the idea that
throughout history there has been individuals and groups who have remained
faithful to “the Truth”. Therefore there have been many attempts to identify “proto-Christadelphian”
groups in the pages of history. For instance, in Eureka J. Thomas refers
to the Donatists, the Novatians, the Albigenses and the Waldenses, the Aerians
and the Paulicans, the Petrobrusians, the Arnoldists, and the Leonists. He also
equates the death of the Two Witnesses with the fate of the Huguenots. Similar
lists can be found within the works of other writers, often dependent upon Eureka.
. . .
One thoughtful solution is the proposition
that, while these groups were not a “faithful remnant” themselves, they did
provide an environment in which the “remnant” could be preserved.” . . . Yet
there is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that proto-Christadelphians
did exist within these groups.
[after surveying the history and
theology of the aforementioned groups]
Conclusion
This has been only a brief synopsis
of some of the dissenting groups sometimes identified as “proto-Christadelphian”
or a “faithful remnant”. However, despite the brevity, it should be apparent
from this survey that these groups could not be called ‘Christadelphian’, as defined
by the BASF. The schisms of the 4th C.E., the Donatists and the Novatians,
were orthodox in belief and differed little from the Roman Church. Though the
Huguenots were persecuted by the Catholic authorities, their beliefs were not Christadelphian.
The fact that these dissenters are hallowed in Eureka is a consequence
of the Protestant origins of the Continuous-Historic interpretation. The Nestorians
do not constitute a superior alternative; while declared heretical, they were
Trinitarian through-and-through.
Those dissenters embodying
Manichean principles can only be considered less “scriptural” than the Roman
Church. These groups are characterized by a radical dualism, often leading to polytheistic
thinking and a Docetic view of Christ that robs the cross of its atoning power.
A rejection of most of the scriptures is also common to these groups;
presumably the only way of reconciling their beliefs with scripture was to edit
it. Reports of violence from these groups may have been exaggerated by their
Catholic adversaries; nevertheless, both sides were guilty of bloodshed. These
groups were proposed by Thomas because they were heretics, dissenting from the
Catholic Church, yet, as the G. and R. Walker point out, “some ‘heretics’
prove, on investigation, to be worse than the orthodox”. (G. Walker and R. Walker,
The Revelation of Jesus Christ [Stoke: Bible Student Press, 1983], 70)
None of these dissenters can be
rightly identified as “proto-Christadelphians”. It also seems unlikely that any
of these groups would have afforded much protection to any
proto-Christadelphian that might have existed. The Donatists or the Nestorians were
just as likely to reject and persecute a unitarian thinker as the Catholics,
and a proto-Christadelphian would have been just as alien to the Cathars as
were the Catholics. The Waldenses alone of all the groups we have considered
had significant parallels with modern Christadelphians. (Thomas Gaston, “Proto-Christadelphians,”
Christadelphian EJournal of Biblical Interpretation [April 2009]: 77, 78,
79, 87-88; the survey of the beliefs and history of the Donatists and other
groups are found on pp. 79-87)
Further Reading:
Listing
of Articles on Christadelphian Issues
Ruth McHaffie, Finding Founders and Facing Facts (Edinburgh,
2001) is a Christadelphian critique of two works attempting to find “proto-Christadelphians”
from the Radical Reformation up until the 1840s with the advent of the
Christadelphian movement (Alan Eyre’s Brethren in Christ and The
Protestors). This is a rare book, but I have a PDF in my possession. Drop
me an email at ScripturalMormonismATgmailDOTcom if you want a copy.
