Trail of Blood link

Well I for one feel the Trail of Blood presents an accurate version of Baptist History, howbeit in brief laymen form. With all due respect to Brother Bob, where exactly is the Trail of Blood inaccurate?

 

The Trail of Blood takes some of the worst heretics in Christian history (groups that would have been thrown out of any contemporary baptist church) and tries to baptize them into being post-Reformation, free-church Protestants. It does so because of the viciously Anti-Roman Catholic context in which it was written.

Joshua

 

Or else the viciousness of the papist monarchy painted all non-catholics with the heresy brush, and in the subsequent distorted catholic descriptions.

 

Good book!

 

It never seems to amaze me how that we have in the Baptist ranks persons who are quick to believe the Catholic version of our history. This is the same group that destroyed anything that would upset their conquest. This is the same bunch that said and I quote " That no man shall dare to possess a Bible without the license of the bishop".
Now I can't research all of Bro Carrolls materials he used. But I for one choose to believe he was doing his best and was honest in his endeavors. The one quote that says it all to me is this, Cardinal Hosius[Catholic, 1524] President of the Council of Trent:
"Were it not that the baptist have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number that all the Reformers"

 

Ok you have convinced me. The quotes a fake and the pope is omnipotent, Mary is the mother of God and the Baptist have no history prior to about 1600s and began in England with John Smythe.

 

I have read The Trail of Blood several times, and have just reviewed it again. I just don't see where it is a "Catholic version" of our history, or even sounds remotely Catholic. I have to agree with Joshua that it is "viciously Anti-Roman Catholic", in which I don't find anything offensive about this statement.

I, too, would like to know of any inaccuracy found in this book.

 

To Dr. Bob

You said: "Should we post a "caveat" about Trail of Blood at this point? It is an enjoyable read, but highly inaccurate and should not be taken as "real" history . . .

anymore than reading writings of Peter Ruckman would be honest about the NIV! "

My response: Could you be more specific about Dr. Ruckman and what if any information you may have as to what Dr. Ruckman has wrote about the N.I.V. that may be in question. No need to go into any great length but I thought that by you making such an allegation about Dr. Ruckman, you either know Him Personally, or have Debated with him,( ? ) or are you in a habit of just making such statements about someone without knowing them at all.

Shain1611

[ January 09, 2003, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Shain1611 ]

 

It's an excellent book, and it's sitting right next to "History of the Waldenses" by Rev. J.A. Wylie, LL.D. Baptists have historically had a consensus (until recently it seems) that not only was the RCC wicked, but that the throne of the pope would seat the Antichrist.

Jason

 

Thanks for the link Gina, I find the Trail of Blood to be a valuable resource. dwd, great sarcasm!

 

Thanks Mark. I have noticed that Leon McBeth is highly tooted here and without question he has an interesting book. But, let me quote you his first sentence in chapter 1.
"THe Baptist emerged as a distinct denomination out of the left wing of the English Protestant Reformation."
Then he adds
" Influences from the continent, particulary from the more bibical groups of the Ana-baptist, may have played some role in their origin".
He definetly has a hard time giving credence to any history prior to 1609. That is ashame.
Now I am not a college grad with church history as my major but I can read and have read many books both pro and con to our history. This is what I have found. the Catholic Church would love for us to drop our long history and paint us all as hereitics and apostates. I refuse

 

You're welcome dwd. I think you and I would get along great!

 

Hello,

I am new here. My guess is I am not going to make alot of friends as I see the people on this site are not to kind to Catholics. I can assure you that if we met in real life you would probably like me and we would get along fine. But such is life. God did not put us in close proximity with one another and you will only know me by what I do on the keyboard. That will not please you I fear but I must speak.

I am much interested in this Trial of Blood topic and will in the comming hours and days point out some of the blatant errors that this book contains. Not errors according to Catholic historians but errors proven fomr writings of people such as the Donatists and those who opposed what the Donatists believed for instance. Also there are many misconceptions of Catholicism on this board and those I will gladly refute, such as Mr. DWD's comments above:

"Ok you have convinced me. The quotes a fake and the pope is omnipotent,"

Now, we know well that the Pope is a man and is not omnipotent. Perhaps you have some support for these wild accusations. He is of course the successor of Peter, the rock on which the Church is built. I know it offends you that Christ is called the rock in Hebrews and we also call Peter the Rock. Does it also offend you that we call prophets and apostles the foundation of the Church even though 1 Cor 3:11 call Christ the foundation of the Church. Does it offend you that Christians are to be the light of the World even though Christ is called the light of the world. When you understand these things then you will understand Peter being called the rock.

"Mary is the mother of God"

Don't make too much of this. Your blowing it out of proportion. Elizabeth says in Luke 1 "How is it that the Mother of my Lord should come unto me?". This doctrine is not a denial of Jesus eternal nature as a part of the trinity but an affirmation of his humanity. The word became incarnated. God became man. Was God separate from the man such that Mary did not bring God in to the world when she gave birth to Christ? Certainly not. God was born in to the world as a man. It is as simple as that. When we are born our souls are created by him who makes us breath. Does this mean that our mothers are only the mothers of our flesh. Is the soul separate from the body at birth? No. It is one and therefore what makes us up, body and soul, is what our Mother's bear. The same is true of Christ. Jesus was God and man. Body, soul, and divinity. Not separate. It does not mean that Mary had to be God or a God to be the mother of God. Or that Jesus-God began with Mary. It just means she brought he in to the world. Hope that helps.

"and the Baptist have no history prior to about 1600s and began in England with John Smythe. "

Well, the Trail of Blood theory isn't it. If someone else has any other suggestions I am all ears. I will go in to the fallacies of the TOB theory shortly. Mr. Carrol may well have meant well. I am not his judge and so I will make no accusations about his frame of mind. But there are huge holes in his understanding of Catholicism and the writings of the people he so causually calls baptists and the people who opposed there heretical doctrines that no Baptist would agree with. It is admirable that you should want a link back to Christ for it says that his people are " a light on a hill for all men to see" and if the Baptist Church did not exist before 1600 there is certainly a problem with that statement. We shall see.
Blessings.


A9MPJR

 

Whether or not the Pope is the successor of Peter is very debatable. Peter may have led the church in Rome, it doesn't naturally follow that the Roman Church should should lead the world. Additionally, Christ did not say "Peter, you and your sucessors are the Rock on which I will build my church." I believe that it is generally accepted by fundamentalists/evangelicals that the "rock" Christ referred to was not Peter himself but rather, his confession that Jesus was the CHrist, the Son of God.
Finally, to address the "dislike" of Catholics. I hope that it is a dislike of that faith not the individuals, however, after centuries of persecution by the Roman Catholic church it is difficult to put aside the martyrs and embrace each other's faith.
I sometimes watch EWTN (Catholic network) and a show on the other night : "EWTN GLOBAL SHOWCASE
TIMEWATCH: MYTH OF THE SPANISH INQUISITION (60:00) NEW!

This program shows how historians now evaluate the Spanish Inquisition since the opening of an investigation into the Inquisition’s archives; it also includes commentary from historians whose studies verify that the tale of the darkest hour of the Church was greatly fabricated." The program is being rebroadcast tomorrow (1/15 at 1pm est).
When the Catholic denies its murderous past it makes it even harder to reconcile.

 

Hi, thessalonian. Welcome to the Baptist Board. I hope you will make friends here, but I am sure that you are aware that most Baptists are highly critical of Roman Catholic doctrine. For many of us that has nothing to do with personal friendship. Most of my Hispanic friends are Catholics.

I hope you will not attribute the following comments to unkindness toward Catholics, but I must inform you that there is a structure to the Baptist Board, and rules governing where individuals may post. Rule No. 1 states:

I would recommend that if you want to pursue the subject of the Trail of Blood, that you start a topic on it in the "All Other Discussions" forum. Thanks for your cooperation. The entire list of Baptist Board Posting Rules may be found here: http://www.baptistboard.com/postingrules.html

rlvaughn, moderator