The Trail Of Blood

No, it's based on flawed nineteenth-century history that has been dismissed for a while by historians. Baptists should be proud of their actual heritage without having to re-invent it by co-opting various heretical or fringe groups from Church History that lack all or most major Baptist beliefs.

I've found this position, which was taught at my old Bible college, to be a work of fiction that can often fuel the anti-Catholic, anti-ancient church, anti-Protestant, anti-universal church, and sometimes pro-Baptist brider positioning among certain Baptist groups. I have found these positions to be quite unhelpful and often uncharitable. Similar to the newer view of KJVO, it is a very defecient view of divine providence, and perhaps one day God will enlighten some people, like he did Elijah, that they aren't the only ones who haven't bowed their knees to Baal.

For those who hold this view without the positions above, then I suppose it's harmless and just believing in bad history. This would be common as there is plenty of bad history out there. I've learned that most of the time revisionist history and post-revisionist history is good history, but those terms can also apply to views like the Trail of Blood. I suppose the difference is the agenda of the historians, and the nineteenth-century popularizers of this view wanted support for their peculiar baptismal views.

BJ

 

Well stated, Mr. Jones!

 

I agree with Brandon.

I grew up reading the ToB... thinking it to be factual..
But in my freshman yr at college, I began looking at church history (on my own... not even a class) I started going to our college library and doing the research myself, and what I found out was the ToB wanted so much to keep us out of the RC church, that it put us in with other heretics...

It overemphasises the importance of your church's history... IOWS it leaves you feeling that if you don't belong to a church that came from a long line of churches back to Christ, then you don't belong to a true church.

I have heard preachers preach that. Tell me, what does that have to do with my salvation? I have heard sermons on how the RC is the whore of babylon, and if you belong to a church that came out of the RC, you are the children of a whore... not God's children....

Then they turn around and preach eternal security, salvation through faith alone....

IOWS they contradicted themselves. My salvation has nothing to do with my church's history. It is personal, between me and Jesus.

 

A deeply flawed view of Baptist origins.

Too many troublesome groups doctrinally to even consider its real. Besides Baptists aren't the only people that will be in Heaven.

In the views of Baptist origins I am a strong believer that Baptist arose from English Separatists (as opposed to Anabaptists, which had an influence.) The ToB is unnecessary and historically myopic.

Outside of that, Brandon did a super fab job explaining everything.

 

Apparetnly the issue touches a nerve with Brandon, but I do agree that it takes some historical acrobatics to get reformation-era (or post-reformation) "Baptists" in the same family with pre-reformation "Anabaptists", even though there are some similarities and soft links between them. But that doesn't have to stop us from appreciating the stand the Anabaptists took against tyranical church/state. We should also appreciate the Waldenses who were martyrs for "sola scriptura" long before the reformation.

 

Pinoy states:

Have you asked the same question to the RCC, the Oneness Pentecostal, the Mormons, etc.? They all claim the same thing, and even more so.

The fact is that no one can prove history through the Bible. So what are you expecting? Can you prove through the Bible that the Reformation existed? This is the type of question that you are asking, which really is ridiculous.

The theme of Carrolls book is sound: That in every age existed assemblies of believers, adhering to similar beliefs that the Baptists of today do, though they be called by different names.
I can agree with that statement.

I can also agree with many of the sentiments expressed here, that in the Trail of Blood, there are mistakes, and history that was inaccurately recorded. Carroll wasn't a perfect man. His heart was in the right place.

Go back one century ago, and read the Protestant commentaries of that era: Barnes, Matthew Henry, etc. Virtually every one of them will identify the Great Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 as the RCC. Carroll has done nothing different than all of the Protestant leaders of his era. Why should he be criticized for that?

In every century since Christ and the Apostles God has never left himself without a witness.

 

I was able to attend the same seminary where Carroll had, almost 100 years previously, authored the ToB. In listening to a tremendous church history prof explain the whole business also happened because we didn't know very much about some of these groups when Carroll was writing.

He constructed a trail based on some minimal documentation available and left it there. In part I don't believe the ToB would be valid today because we have so much more info than he did when writing.

Ironically, when I was going through my late grandfather's library (he was a pastor) I found numerous volumes on the ToB incuding one of the original little red pamphlets and a book of sermons on the ToB. Funny to read btw...good convo here.

 

English Separatists, then Puritans and then Particular Baptists. I quite agree. :thumbs:

 

Even if one could prove Baptist origins back to the disciples or the church(s) in Acts? What good would that do a person if they do not have a saving faith in Jesus Christ? This argument has always seemed parallel the Jewish leadership desire to draw a line back to Abraham, as a means of God's favor. Both have nothing to do with faith in Jesus.

I do agree with all the posters. There is no evidence that Peter was the first President of the SBC. Another thing I have never understood, are those who view the Reformation as something negative or evil. It seems to me a vast improvement over what these Protestant churches originated from.

Of all the theories that is most ridiculous, the Baptist bride takes the cake.

 

I quite agree. But the Trail of Blood is far from taking a Baptist Bride position.

 

There isn't?!?!

Well thanks a lot saturneptune for busting my bubble

 

The Trail of Blood is no more ridiculous than Israel being preserved throughout history even through today. God has a remnant in every generation. The world and the religions of the world have not a clue.

This is fulfilled scripture--Mt.16:18, Eph. 3:21.

See also: They that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. Jesus has kept His promise of another Comforter to see His children the fire and the flood. He is faithful even when we are not.

Behold the Bride, the Lamb's wife.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

No doubt the true NT church was preserved along side the Catholic from Christ until the Reformation. What that present day group is, if it still exists, who knows? What difference does it make? Our faith is not a product of geneologies.

Baptist Bride? Hogwash

 

Saturneptune, I couldn't agree with you more.

I think this is the problem with groups like the churches of Christ and so on.

The concept of the true church is not one visible entitiy, IMO.

The church of Christ is composed of all the saved that comprises in the invisible entity. Christ alone knows that number, and that number is not confined to Baptists.

 

Haven't heard it said any better TCG. Well done.

 

Hello, brothers and sisters, I am posting from London. I found an internet cafe on Leicester Square (the theater district) and thought I'd check in.

Sorry guys and gals you're all going to have to do better that simply make flat statements. The TofB is flawed? I want details. The Baptist Bride is hogwash? How come?

Most of you have been debating on this board for a long time and have been willing to provide proofs in great detail on a number of issues. I hope you will do the same here. So far, I haven't seen much.

I admit to some Landmark tendencies. I hold the perpetuity, but not necessarily succession. I hold to the existence of groups which held to NT doctrines since Jesus' time. We weren't always called Baptists.

Either way, I also hold that Baptists today (with some obvious exceptions) hold to doctrines and practices most closely approximating those taught in the New Testament. In short, Baptists hold the truth regarding Baptism.

I can hear you saying, okay, take your own advice and provide some details and proofs. Unfortunately, my internet cafe session is nearing and end and I will have to sign off very soon. I will rejoin the discussion at the next earliest opportunity. Special greetings to my brother saturneptune, who serves in the same church as I. Cheerio, blokes (and bloke-esses).