Christianity Through Time: First Century vs Twenty-First Century

Having a keen interest in church history and how Christianity arrived at its present form, I decided to explore several questions on the topic. To assist in this research, I made use of AI. The results were thought-provoking and encouraged deeper reflection.

When people talk about Christianity today, they often assume that their own church tradition closely matches what Christians believed and practiced in the first century. Yet when Scripture is read alongside the earliest historical writings of the church, a more complex picture emerges. This raises three important questions:

(1) Which form of Christianity today best matches first-century Christianity?
(2) Which early Christian practices should be recovered—and which should not?
(3) If someone today wanted to join a church resembling a first-century Christian community, what should they look for?

What First-Century Christianity Was Like

If we limit ourselves to the New Testament and the earliest Christian writings from approximately AD 70–150, we find a remarkably consistent picture of early Christianity. The church was centered on Jesus Christ rather than on systems, denominations, or theological brands. It was guided by the apostles and, later, by elders and bishops who carried on their teaching. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were central practices, not optional additions. Christians lived in close community, sharing resources, caring for the poor, and holding one another accountable. Their faith demanded moral transformation, and they lived with strong expectation that Christ would return.¹

At the same time, early Christianity remained deeply shaped by its Jewish roots. Scripture was read through the story of Israel, now understood as fulfilled in Christ.² What the church was not is equally important. It was not divided into denominations, did not revolve around formal creeds, and did not frame theology around later debates such as “faith versus works.” It was also not a Bible-only religion in the modern sense, since the New Testament had not yet been finalized or collected.³

Why Modern Denominations Don’t Match the First Century

Because of this, Scripture itself rules out the idea that any modern denomination fully matches first-century Christianity. The earliest Christians did not identify themselves by leaders or movements. Paul explicitly warned against divisions and factions within the church, urging believers to remain united in Christ.⁴ Early Christians referred to themselves simply as followers of “the Way.”⁵

This leads to a better question: not which modern church is correct in every detail, but which later traditions preserved the structure and spirit of early Christianity most faithfully.

What Early Christian Writings Tell Us

Several early Christian texts outside the Bible help clarify this picture. A short church manual from the late first century, commonly known as the Didache, describes baptism, fasting, moral instruction, church discipline, and recognized leaders such as bishops and deacons. It also presents the Lord’s Supper as a sacred act rather than a casual symbol.⁶

Early church leaders also emphasized visible unity and structure. Ignatius of Antioch, writing around AD 110, insisted that each city should be unified under a single bishop in order to guard the faith and preserve unity. He rejected individualistic and invisible views of the church, emphasizing instead a gathered community centered on shared worship.⁷ Other early writers describe Sunday gatherings that included Scripture reading, teaching, prayer, baptism, and the Lord’s Supper as a serious and formative act.⁸

Taken together, these sources portray a church that was sacramental, communal, structured, and closely connected to its leaders.

What This Rules Out

By these standards, several modern movements do not resemble first-century Christianity. Modern evangelicalism, with its limited sacramental theology and minimal authority structures, would not have been recognizable in the early church. A Bible-only approach would have been impossible when the New Testament did not yet exist as a complete collection.⁹ Additionally, later theological debates about justification and faith were framed very differently in the first century.¹⁰

Dispensational theology also fails to align with early Christianity, as early believers did not separate Israel and the church or expect a rapture distinct from Christ’s return. Kingdom language in the New Testament is present and covenantal rather than postponed to a distant future.¹¹

Restorationist movements similarly struggle to fit historical evidence. These movements often claim that the church fell into apostasy very early and required complete reconstruction. This conflicts with the strong continuity visible in early Christian writings and introduces doctrines unknown to the earliest believers.¹²

Which Traditions Come Closest?

No modern church is a perfect match for first-century Christianity. However, some traditions preserve more of its structure, worship, and overall character than others.

Eastern Orthodox Christianity often feels closest to the ancient church in worship and daily life. Its services are shaped by Scripture, prayer, and practices that developed very early in Christian history. The church strongly emphasizes continuity, seeing itself as the living continuation of the apostolic community. The Orthodox emphasis on salvation as transformation and union with God aligns closely with early Christian language.¹³

However, Eastern Orthodoxy also includes developments that came centuries after the apostles. Icon theology, while meaningful to Orthodox believers, was not clearly defined in the first century. Some philosophical explanations of God and salvation go beyond the language of the New Testament. In addition, Orthodoxy can feel culturally distant or difficult to access for many modern believers, especially those without historical or ethnic ties to it.

The Roman Catholic Church also preserves many early Christian elements. It maintains a clear leadership structure rooted in bishops, takes the sacraments seriously, and places strong emphasis on unity and continuity with the early church. Its worship reflects ancient patterns, and its belief that Christianity is lived through the whole body of believers echoes first-century practice.

At the same time, several central Catholic doctrines developed later than the first century. Papal supremacy grew gradually and was not present in the early church. Medieval teachings, legal frameworks, and philosophical categories shaped Catholic theology in ways unfamiliar to early Christians.¹⁴ For some, the system can feel overly formal or distant from the simpler, more relational life of the earliest Christian communities.

High-church Anglicanism attempts to hold together early Christian structure with Reformation concerns about Scripture and grace. It retains bishops, sacraments, and ancient creeds, while often being less committed to later medieval doctrines. In many places, Anglican worship intentionally draws from early Christian prayer and Scripture-centred liturgy.

However, Anglicanism is not a single, unified theology. Beliefs and practices can vary widely from one region or parish to another. It also carries assumptions inherited from the Reformation period, which sometimes shape theology more than early Christian thought.¹⁵ As a result, Anglicanism can preserve early forms while lacking consistent substance beneath them.

Some forms of Reformed covenant theology also preserve aspects of early Christianity—perhaps more so than many other Protestant traditions. They take Scripture seriously, emphasize the unity of God’s plan across the Old and New Testaments, and place Christ at the center of biblical interpretation. Their moral seriousness and commitment to disciplined Christian living reflect early Christian values.

Still, Reformed traditions often lack key features of first-century Christianity. Sacraments are usually treated as symbolic rather than central acts of worship. Church authority structures differ significantly from the early episcopal model. In addition, the Reformed understanding of justification developed later, especially after Augustine. It does not fully reflect the way early Christians spoke about salvation, faith, and obedience together—thus reflecting the more holistic soteriology of the early church.¹⁶.

Briefly then: Each of these traditions preserves real and meaningful aspects of early Christianity, but none preserves all of them. Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism best reflect early structure and sacramental life, while Anglicanism and some Reformed traditions retain important theological insights shaped by Scripture. The early church stands behind all of them, reminding modern Christians that continuity matters—but so does humility about what has been added or lost over time.

The Best Historical Answer

The form of Christianity that best fits first-century evidence is the apostolic church before it developed into later Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox forms. This early church was united, sacramental, governed by bishops, centered on Christ’s resurrection and kingdom, and shaped by Scripture read through covenant and fulfillment. Every modern tradition preserves something true, adds something later, and loses something original.

This conclusion does not imply that one must become Catholic or Orthodox, that the Reformation was a mistake, or that the early church was perfect. Rather, it suggests that early Christianity was more relational, communal, and embodied than most modern expressions, and less focused on rigid doctrinal boundary-drawing.

What Should Be Recovered—and What Should Not

Early Christianity still offers valuable guidance. The New Testament presents the church as a visible community with shared worship, leadership, discipline, and care for the needy. Formation and moral training were central, not optional. Baptism marked real entry into the Christian life, and the Lord’s Supper was treated with reverence and seriousness. Prayer, fasting, generosity, and care for the poor were normal rhythms of faith.¹⁷

At the same time, some practices must be recovered carefully. Strong leadership protected unity but could be abused. Liturgy could shape deep faith or become empty routine. Fasting and discipline were beneficial but could become harmful when taken to extremes.

Other practices should not be recovered at all:

► Anti-Jewish rhetoric contradicts the spirit of the New Testament.

► Obsessive prophecy speculation distracts from faithful living.

► Coercive discipline damages rather than restores.

► Magical or transactional religion replaces repentance and trust.

Finally, the idea of a perfect “golden age” ignores the real struggles documented in the New Testament itself.¹⁸

What to Look for in a Church Today

For someone who identifies as a non-denominational Christian with loose Protestant roots, this journey does not require adopting a new label. The goal is depth, continuity, and faithfulness, not switching teams. Christian identity should be grounded in Christ and Scripture, not movements or brands.

Healthy churches:

► Balance Scripture as final authority, respect for early Christian wisdom, and accountable local leadership.

► They are visible, local communities with real relationships, not content platforms.

► Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are practised reverently but without superstition.

► Discipleship focuses on long-term growth, not quick decisions.

► Spiritual practices are simple and sustainable.

► Scripture is read as a unified story centered on Christ.

► Hope for Christ’s return shapes faith without obsession.

► Ethics and witness flow from a transformed life.

Most importantly, no church will be perfect. The goal is not to find an exact copy of the first century, but a community that reflects its spirit.

Conclusion:

Recovering early Christianity does not mean going backward or copying everything from the past. It means deepening commitment, embodiment, formation, and hope while rejecting later distortions and extremes. The first-century church reminds modern Christians that faith is not merely believed, but lived—together—in hope of Christ’s kingdom.

___________________________

If you are curious about other articles on this blog an index can be found at this link: Index 

 

Endnotes

1. Acts 2:42–47; 1 Corinthians 11:17–34; 1 Thessalonians 1:9–10.

2. Luke 24:27; Romans 9–11.

3. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

4. 1 Corinthians 1:10–13.

5. Acts 9:2.

6. Didache 1–16.

7. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8.

8. Justin Martyr, First Apology 65–67.

9. Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995).

10. Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998).

11. George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974).

12. Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971).

13. Irenaeus, Against Heresies; see also John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology.

14. Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (London: Penguin, 1993).

15. Stephen Sykes et al., The Study of Anglicanism (London: SPCK, 1998).

16. N. T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).

17. Hebrews 10:24–25; James 1:27.

18. 1 Corinthians; Galatians; Revelation 2–3.

Bibliography / Further Reading

Primary Sources

• The Didache.

• Ignatius of Antioch. The Letters.

• Justin Martyr. First Apology.

• Irenaeus. Against Heresies.

Early Church History

• Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church.

• Ferguson, Everett. Church History, Volume 1.

• Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition, vol. 1.

Scripture, Canon, and Theology

• Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament.

• McDonald, Lee Martin. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon.

• McGrath, Alister E. Historical Theology.

• Wright, N. T. The New Testament and the People of God.