The Burden Of Proof in the Trail of Blood

Those who oppose the concept of Baptist church perpetuity seem to think that by proving some Baptists originiated in 17th century England they have, thereby, disproved the concept of a "Trail of Blood". May I say that if all that was ever written about about English Baptist history were accepted as truth it would only prove one thing - that the churches about which the writers had historical information were what the historians said they were.

It would prove nothing about all the events that happened about which the historians have no record. In other words, when a man sets out to disprove Baptist church succession on historical grounds he sets out to do the impossible.

It is impossible to prove a universal negative; which is to say, it is impossible to prove that Baptists have not had a continued existence since the time of Christ. To do so a man would have to possess infallible omniscience in the realm of human affairs between the days of Christ and the present.

In 1652 John Spittlehouse wrote a book titled, "A Vindication Of The Continued Succession of the Primitive Church of Jesus Christ (now scandalously termed Anabaptists) from the Apostles unto this present time. In Answer to three following Assertions, Extracted out of the Writings of Mr. John Brain and chiefly out of his book entitled - The Churches going in, and Coming out of the Wilderness [etc]"

The very title of this book is a refutation of the theory that the English Anabaptists originated in the early 17th century; for a man could hardly make the claim that the Anabaptists had a continued existence from Christ if people were still living who would have been old enough to know better.

In this book Spittlehouse clearly sets forth the futility of any attempt to disprove the doctrine of church perpetuity on the basis of the absence of historical records. He says,

"Object[ion]. You will say, Where was there any one visible Society of Saints, which did practise according to the Apostles' Rules and Precepts.

Answ[er]. The not-appearance of a visible body or Society of Saints to public view of Antichrist, etc. does no more prove, that the true Church had no visible estate in itself, then [sic] the Sun ceases to be a Sun, during the absence of the light thereof; neither is it more to be imagined, that the true Church, during its hidden, or wilderness condition, did desist from practicing according to the Apostle's Rules, and precepts, (so far as the well being of such small societies did require) then [sic] it is to imagine, that there was not two or three saints left living upon the face of the earth, which I suppose you will not affirm."

Mark Osgatharp

 

Though some have, I do not argue that Carroll's booklet "The Trail of Blood" was based on sound history. Christian, however, is quite another story. He does, from an historical perspective, at least cast serious doubt on the Restorationist approach to Baptist history.

The only burden that lies on me is to prove that the Son of God promised a continual succession of baptized churches till the end of the world. For the man who takes the New Testament as the authoritative guide to the words of Christ, that task is easily accomplished.

Once Christ's promise of church perpetuity is established, the burden is on the nay-sayers to prove that Christ failed in His promise.

From the word of God we learn that God created one man, Adam, and that all subsequent men sprang from him. As a man I bear the marks of humanity within myself and therefore am under no obligation to prove my descent from Adam.

Likewise, a true church of Christ bears it's indenty within itself and is under no obligation to prove it's descent from the church at Jerusalem which is the mother of us all.

All historical investigation serves only to give us some glimpses into the fulfillment of Christ's promise to His churches. It does not, however, prove or disprove the promise of Christ and is, therefore, no basis upon which to rest our doctrine of ecclesiology.

I have no doubt that many successionists will feel awful funny when they find that some churches they proclaimed as their forefathers in the faith were, in reality, damnable heretics.

However, I am just as certain that the Restorationists will be equally dumbfounded when God unfolds the true "Trail of Blood" and they find that it marches through the waters of holy baptism, down the annals of time, and into villages, hamlets, and corners all over the this terrestrial ball,

"even unto the end of the world."

Amen.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Matt,

"The extant evidence" does not mitigate against church succession. If every thing for which the Restorationists contend is factual, it proves only what occured in a small number of churches. The largest part of what actually took place in history will remain secret until the day of judgemnt. Therefore, the argument against church succession is, at very best, an argument from silence.

However, anyone who has closely studied the issue from both sides knowns full well that all for which the Restorationists contend is not accurate. While I would not contend that a church by church history of the successsion can be documented, I would contend that a history of the general movements can.

Let me ask you a question: have you ever studied John T. Christian's writings; namely, his "History of the Baptists", "Did They Dip?", and "Baptist History Vindicated?" Unless you are the rare person who has access to all the original documents of Baptist/Anabaptist/Waldensian history or unless you are privy to some writings I know nothing about, you are in no position to judge this issue until you have read these writings of Christian.

I fully understand that a lack of historical evidence does not authorize anyone to speculate about what happened in history and I understand that some successionists have been guilty of doing this. But the Restorationists are equally guilty of gross arrogance in claiming to have proven what did not happen. They are guilty of leaving the impression that they have disproven succession which is an impossible task.

In other words, the Restorationists are guilty of putting all their stock in a historical record that is human, fallible, distorted, and at very best imcomplete. Written history is simply no basis upon which to rest any of our religious opinions.

This is where faith comes in. Were there not one shred of histosrical documentation in favor of the the continual succession of baptized churches and did all the available historical documentation seem to militate against it, I would still be obligated to believe in it for one reason and one only; that being that the Son of God said:

"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Do you, Matt, understand the siginficance when the Lord says, "Amen"?

Until you can prove that by "baptize" the Lord meant "sprinkle babies" or that by "all things whatoseover I have commanded you" He meant "all things whatsoever the Pope, the Metropolitan, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley, or Alexander Campbell commanded you" I will feel perfectly justified in believing that there has existed a continual succession of baptized churches separate and distinct from Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism, from the days of Christ until now.

Mark Osgatharp

 

If we were speaking strictly of historical documentation, I might tend to agree with you; at least in respect of pre-Reformation history which is, admittedly, very scant.

However, one of the chief arguments of the Restorationists is that the English Baptists were not a continuation of the Anabaptists. This theory is easily refuted from existing historical records; Christian gives a thorough rebuttal of it in his three important works.

Let's say this is true. From a historical perspective it means nothing. If they were the ancestors of the Baptists they were the ancestors of the Baptists - no matter how heretical they were.

But let me make one thing perfectly clear - as a staunch successionist I am not deterred one iota by any historical data. My belief in successionism is based on the Scripture, not on human history.

History, at very best, only proves what some believed and practiced and the Lord never promised us a historical documentation of His churches; he promised only the fact of their continued existence.

At worst, history is biased and laden with downright lies. Most all the records about pre-Reformation groups were written by Roman Catholics who wrote from an extremely biased position. Therefore we ought not put too much stock in what they say when they are criticizing the non-Catholic groups. Rather, we should withold judgment till the Lord Himself lays the record bare.

In the meantime, we are justified, yes, obligated, to believe in the doctrine of church succession simply because the Lord promised it, whether we can document it or not.

Yes, Christian uses primary sources. I cited two of them in the links I gave. HERE is a link to online versions of Christian's works. This link contains Christian's two volume "History of the Baptists" (the first of which deals with Baptist history up to the colonization of America) as well as the book "Did they Dip?" which disproves the theory that Baptists/Anabaptists before 1641 did not practice immersion.

I tried to locate an online version of "Baptist History Vindicated" but could not. A little bit of searching might be fruitful. It can be purchased used at "www.Abebooks.com" but is quite expensive.

You can purchase the two volume "History of the Baptists" new at www.abaptist.org or used at www.abebooks.com

Mark Osgatharp

[ September 16, 2003, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Mark Osgatharp ]

 

Of course it is. But there is a vast chasm between Biblical history and strictly human history. Biblical history is perfect. Human history is flawed by error, bias, deceit, and paucity.

I might add that Scriptural prophecy is history written in advance. Therefore since Christ prophecied a continual succession of baptized churches "even unto the end of the world" we can rest assured that such churches have and will continue to exist. This is true whether or not we have any historical record of them or whether or not the churches with which we affiliate are among them.

There is some truth in this statment, but we must be careful not to confuse the historical record with history itself. History is the sum total of what took place throughout time. The historical record is only what was written down.

Therefore, basing doctrine on the historical record is a vain exercise because at very best the historical record gives only an extremely small view of what actually transpired in history. At worst, is is flawed with unintentional error, bias, and willfull deceit.

Or the historical documentation is flawed as I have noted above. And no matter what the historical record says, the promise of Christ still remains and therefore the fact of succession it undoubtable for all who believe that Christ is the eternal "Amen."

Indeed, man has changed the doctrine of the Lord to fit his own culture and circumstance. But the Lord has not changed His doctrine and will not. As Paul said,

"Let God be true but every man a liar."

Mark Osgatharp