"The Trail of Blood..."

If "Trail of Blood" successionism is true, how come the early PB confessions strongly denied all connection with the Anabaptists? Also, it's always sounded too close to the RC Apostolic Succession doctrine for me... (Been there, done that, swallowed the wafer...)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Mark,

I would offer two other possiblities:

d. He believes that the evidence is tainted either innocently or maliciously (speaking of Christian).

e. He believes that the evidence does not warrant the interpretation you provide.

I am not McBeth, but I am a historian who knows that the evidence often presents itself as ambiguous or even contradictory. Also, I have seen enough tinkering with evidence and quotes taken out of context to be cautious about statements like those you quote from Christian which seem to be unreproducable.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

Ho hum.

Mark Osgatharp

 

The Baptist confessions of the 16th century did not deny connection with the Anabaptists. They were the Anabaptists.

When they said they were "falsely called Anabaptists" they meant that the term "Anabaptist" was a slander and not an accurate discription of their character. They did not presume to "rebaptize" anyone. Their intention was to give real baptism to those who had previously received a bogus baptism.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Mark,

Seems to me that your responses to Daniel were vague and not to the point.

 

Matt,
Been there.. done that... swallowed the wafer.. Great line, but because other groups claim apostolic succession and yet have embraced heresay doesn't make Baptist apostolic succession any more or any less true.

 

Hello, Where can you get a copy of "The Trail of Blood"? I checked Amazon.com and it's not there.
Sincerely
Ol Trapper

 

Danny,

McBeth either:

a. ignores facts that are inconsistent with his history or

b. is ignorant of facts with which he should be familiar or

c. both of the above.

See my post on the origin of the Baptists for starters and if you'd like I can give you more.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark, What kind of primary source information do you have to point out the wrongness of Dr. McBeth's book on Baptist history? I haven't seen you provide any concrete examples of that.

 

I have given three primary sources of information in this forum which disprove McBeth's theory of Baptist origins which was first propogated by William Whitsitt and Henry Dexter over 100 years ago, and has been taken up by many other authors since that time. This information was either ignored or dismissed in a Cavalier manner. Here are the links if you want to review the information.

The Origin of the English Baptists

John Smyth

Twisted Historical Logic


Mark Osgatharp

 

Ah, but Mark these aren't primary documents, they are commentaries and as such are secondary sources. I have yet to come across any primary sources to back up the Trail of Blood claims

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Ah, but Matt, these are primary sources. All three are direct quotes from people who lived in the times in which the events under consideration happened. Just because John Christian quoted them doesn't make them secondary sources.

Mark Osgatharp

 

IMHO, a redeeming factor in favor of JM Carroll is that he did not initiate the idea of publishing the Trail of Blood.

As OT's on this forum know, I use and also provide copies of the work.

I would be in general agreement that it is not as in depth as other historical works; however, if we look at the pamphlet we find that Bro. Carroll was not backward in identifying the sources he used.

Now, we can all independently digest each of these sources and determine the validity of the pamphlet.

PB's still deny being landmarkist in alignment of church history. I would think this is related to other more significant divisions between PB's and most Landmarkers such as the view of soteriology. If this suggestion could be shown to be true, then a PB would not be able to fellowship with someone like Carroll anyway whether their view of church history was in line or not.

Bro. Dallas

 

Squire,

Should not McBeth, Torbet, and Whitsitt be subjected to the same scrutiny? I have tried as much as I can to investigate the sources of all these Baptist writers.

Why is Christian singled out as being suspect? I have a lot more confidence in a man such as he than those with liberal theological leanings, such as Torbet, Vedder, and McBeth.

Christian has been accused by other authors of making his case on secondary information. Those who make this charge either have not read Christian or don't know the difference between primary and secondary information.

I read Morgan Patterson's book against Baptist successionism. In it he charged Christian with mis-quoting a source when, in fact, what he identified as a mis-quote was obviously a mis-print.

Ironically, Patterson's book also had a serious misprint. And yet it was written and printed in a day when printing methods were much more advanced than in Christian's time! I have to wonder if the Lord intentionally set that one up!

Mark Osgatharp

[ September 15, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Mark Osgatharp ]

 

Interesting that we call it trail of blood when it should be called trail of doctrine!... Unfortunately throughout time there has been true and false... With the false outnumbering the true... There is even a scripture in the Bible that states... Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women will take a hold of one man, saying. We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach!... The sons and daughters of the false outnumber the sons and daughter of the true but they are still sons and daughters of God as the trail goes back to Jesus who saved them and John the Baptist who was the forerunner of Jesus Christ... That is how I see it brethren!... Brother Glen

 

That is a good Scripture quote IMHO. Church truth, again, imho, does not particularly question whether anyone is saved or not.

Note also the Song of Solomon:

bro. Dallas

 

Matt,

The links I gave you above do not relate to the Cathars. I have already stated that I have no historical evidence to prove the doctrine of the Cathars.

The links I gave related to the history of the 17th century English Baptists and serve to disprove the theory that Baptists were not the same as Anabaptists and that Baptists were merely schism out of English separatism. And they are primary documents.

Mark Osgatharp