Heresy and Heretics

Yes indeedy. Rip, better known as Rip Van Winkle, has been sleeping for twenty years.

 

Carroll (author of the “Trail of Blood “) wrote of himself,

“Extensive graduate study and independent investigation of church history has, however, convinced [the author] that the view he once held so dear has not been, and cannot be, verified. On the contrary, surviving primary documents render the successionist view untenable. . . . Although free church groups in ancient and medieval times sometimes promoted doctrines and practices agreeable to modern Baptists, when judged by standards now acknowledged as baptistic, not one of them merits recognition as a Baptist church. Baptists arose in the 17th century in Holland and England. They are Protestants, heirs of the reformers.” (Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History [1994], 1–2)

Baptist professor and historian James Edward McGoldrick adds, "Perhaps no other body of professing Christians has had as much difficulty in discerning its historical roots as have the Baptists. A survey of conflicting opinions might lead a perceptive observer to conclude that Baptists suffer from an identity crisis" (Baptist Successionism, 1).

It is simply absurd to hold to a position when the author of that position has himself recanted it

 

before you can define heretic you have to define orthodoxy. So how do you define Orthodoxy?

One think I want to say in DHK's favor is that he has an explicit sense of what he believes is Orthodox and he is consistent with that in every conversation. So reasonably if you say something againt his orthodoxy point of view then your statement is considered heretical.