The Trail of Blood

As a work of revisionist history to defend a theological position that distances Baptists from any associations with the Catholic church, it is a fairly bad document. A better document that supports the same theological view is John T. Christian's A History of Baptists. These views came out of the restoration movement of the 1800s where every denomination was competing to be the "One true church" with origins in the NT that were not corrupted by the "apostate" roman catholic church and the protestant churches that came out of it. In the process, they link Baptists with groups such as the Montanists, Novatianist and Albigensians that were persecuted by the Catholic church but bear absolutely no resemblence to modern baptists, have no connections to each other and would likely be considered heretical by modern baptist churches.

Most baptist history scholars and a large majority of baptist do not believe there is adequate historical data to defend the historical opinions of John T. Christian and J.M. Carroll who wrote the Trail of Blood. I believe the best historical evidence shows that baptists originated from the puritans in the anglican church in the 1600s with strong influences but no direct lineage from the Anabaptists. This view is most commonly represented by the Baptist historian Leon McBeth. Here is one article by him by the Baptist History and Heritage Society that supports my view.

These two views above are the primary views of baptist origins and it is an area of division among baptists where entire conventions/associations hold to one view or the other and separate on those lines.

 

It is the BBF's belief.

 

The claim of valid doctrine is because it is based on the bible, not because of who taught it to us. The "Trail" theories base their authority on succession or Tradition. Most baptists are sola scriptura or base their doctrine on the Bible alone, not on who passed it on to them.

 

If a church is keeping in line with scriptures, they are following what the foundation of the church taught regardless of the bloodline.

Also keep in mind that not every single event in every persons life in history has been written down. We only have what history we do have. We go by it and interpret by it. Besides God, who really knows the full extent of what went on for 2000 years?

David

 

I agree with you about the basis of doctrine. I support Carroll's study, but I also believe that our authority and doctrine comes from the Bible, which has detailed instruction to the N.T. Church in the epistles. Those were local bodies, autonomous and self supporting, and they did send money to help other churches that were in need when the Apostles requested it.

And the N.T. Church is nothing like what the Catholic church became. It is a good thing a remnant kept the real model of the church intact.

Debbie Mc

 

I read the Trail of Blood, and it asserts that the Baptist religion was never a part of the Catholic church and did not break off from it but grew separately from them. That's why I have never considered myself a Protestant.

 

same here, I have never considered myself a Protestant. I don't even want to have ties to churches that exonerate anyone but The Lord.

I respect Martin Luther's realizations, and I am glad that the Protestants broke off, but most of those churches that did are now Laodecian in nature, and One World Church in attitude. Ever hear the words "You need to be born again" at one of those churches? The local Methodist minister scoffed at being born again in a column in the local newspaper...he actually made fun of the term.

Be Ye Separate from the world.

Debbie Mc

 

Grew up in the Methodist Church...heard it all the time.

 

When Jesus said of the church he would build, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," what did he mean?

Did he mean that there would be a succession of New Testament churches, with each new congregation coming out of another? (Successionism)

Or did he mean that there would never be a time when a NT church did not exist? (Perpetuity).

Is there no group of Christians that we can claim kinship earlier than the English Baptists or Dutch Baptists? What about the Welsh Baptists of the 4th century that I've read about?

Are successionism and perpetuity to be taken by faith, even if one cannot give historical evidence for them?

A former pastor gave this example: If you see wagon wheel tracks going into a pond, and tracks coming out of the pond on the other side there's a strong chance that the wagon existed, even if you didn't see it go in or come out.

 

A church doesn't have to originate with the apostles to be a church. Does your church practice the ordinances, do you hear from God's Word, do you enjoy fellowship? These are all practices of the church.

Ecclesiologically, a church does not have to "originate with the apostles" to be legitimate because all churches, who preach Christ and observe His commandments are anchored to the rock which began the church et al.

Additionally I would go so far to suggest that the greatest representation of the church isn't the one on the corner with the high steeple, but it is you and I. The tremendous blessing of the new covenant is that it took us out the Temple and put the Temple into us.

The Trail of Blood is a unique aspect of Baptist ecclesiology and has been widely disputed. (Personally I believe the Baptist church formed out of the English Separatist movements with Anabaptist influences.) Makes for good conversation, particularly about this exact subject...what makes a church a church.

 

One of the implications of the Trail of Blood is that only those groups who teach and believe the doctrines taught by Christ and the Apostles can call themselves a true New Testament Church. And those groups are today known as------Baptists or what we call churches of like faith and order.

This is a hard pill for many modern Baptists to swallow, for it would eliminate Roman Catholics and all denominations which trace their roots to the Reformation.

It might not be too hard to hold this view about denominations which practice baptismal regeneration. But on the questions of the correct view of baptism and the Lord's Supper, eternal security, there is a tendency to describe those views as just different, not wrong.

One description I have heard, even from some Baptists, is that we are all just "branches" of the Universal Church.

Are any of you brave enough to describe the historic Baptist distinctives are correct doctrine and practice, and those who differ are just plain wrong. And that they are "societies" who may have true believers as members, but do not qualify as a New Testament church.