Trail of blood, accurate history of Baptist churches?

Thankyou so much rlvaughn for your info.I have read some of the material you have referred me to.Please understand I was not beating up on the trail of Blood as an easy target.My intent was to ask for alternative sources which you were gracious enough to provide.As I read through this thread I saw all of the critisism without good alternative sources.Since I am not a church historian I simply requested help which you supplied. Again thankyou and God Bless you for your help.

 

Plain Old Bill, I did not intend to single you out as "beating up" on the Trail of Blood, though it could look that way since I was responding to your post. I just meant that in a general way. Sorry about that.

 

To pick up on my earlier 'Preservationist' comment, Mark, what would you think of the following hypothetical scenario:-

1. In the 320s, there is a congregation in Roman Gaul faithfully adhering to Biblical principles eg: salvation by faith alone, believers baptism opposed to 'works', paedobaptism and baptismal regeneration, etc. This is the only congregation worldwide to do so...

2. In 340, a man in Iberia obtains access to some of the Scriptures in his own language and as a result undergoes a valid conversion experience.

3. 340s - the same man plants a congregation in Iberia which flourishes and holds to the same tenets as the Gallic church in #1, despite there being no contact between the two congregations.

4. 360s - the last members of the Gallic church to subscribe to the tenets in #1 die without having founded any new congregation. The Iberian church continues to flourish and adhere to the original tenets and go on to plant further congregations...

Would you accept that the above picture, although not strictly-speaking Successionist, is nevertheless Biblically valid (following Matt 16:18), as at no time does there cease to be a faithful witness to the Gospel despite there being a technical human break in the transmission or Succession of that witness?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Matt,

Your scenario is not Biblically valid. Because.....

This statement is out of sinc with the tenor of the Scriptures, which never anticipate a time in which the gospel witness will be reduced to one congregation. For example, we are exhorted to demonstrate our love before "all the churches" - a Scripture which could hardly be obeyed if there were only one church in existence or even if there were many churches scattered abroad without knowledge one of the other. But you continue....

.

This is wholly hypothetical and contrary to the model found in the Scriptures. Christ commissioned His people to evangelize, baptize, and instruct "even unto the end of the world." Nowhere does the Scripture indicate that people would be converted or brought into baptism and church fellowship some other way. The whole concept of conversion occuring or a church originating with "no contact" between pre-existing churches is simply not found in God's word. But you procede....

No, I would not accept the above picture because it is not Biblically valid. You say it conforms to Matthew 16:18 but it does not. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus intrusted to the church the "keys" of binding and loosing membership (see also Matthew 18). Therefore, your mythical Iberian church could have no valid keys into God's kingdom, not having received them from a pre-existing church.

I don't doubt for a moment that there have been movements started by men apart from pre-existing churches. What I do doubt - in fact, what I absolutely deny - is that such a movement ever results in a Biblically valid church.

The so called "Brethren" are a good example of this. They started in Germany in the 18th century when a group of people (Lutherans if I remember correctly) under the leadership of Alexander Mack took upon themselves to establish a church. By their own profession, they had examined every church known to them and concluded that there were no true churches (this in itself was a denial of Christ's promise of prepetuity).

They appointed one man to begin the practice of baptism and concealed his identity so no one would attribute him with having started a new denomination - though in fact he was guilty of doing just that. The movement grew and we know them today as the German Baptists, Dunkards, and Brethren - a strange concoction pacifism, rabid Pharisaism and left wing modernism.

Every time man attempts to work outside of God's prescribed plan it results in heresy, confusion, and every evil work. This is why there all sorts of vile, wild, and strange doctrines propogated in our day and time, even by so called "Baptist" churches; evolution, universalism, modernism, charismaticism, Calvinism, etc., on and on till it's nausiating. As John said,

"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us."

Mark Osgatharp

[ March 07, 2004, 04:01 PM: Message edited by: Mark Osgatharp ]

 

Hi Mark

I take your point - up to a point! Certainly I accept that at any given time there would have been more than one true congregation - I was flying a kite with regard to method of preservation (would you be more accepting if the Iberian Christian - let's call him Silvanus - had received instruction post-conversion from a team from the Gallic church a la Saul-Paul?)But could not your critiscism be equally levelled at John Smyth, who, after all, baptised himself?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

If your hypothetical Iberian had received instruction and baptism from emmissaries of another church that would constitute succession. But again, I firmly deny that any conversion ever occurs apart from the testimony and envangelism of the Lord's churches; the idea of him being converted before having received instruction is totally unbiblical. As Paul said,

"How shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach except they be sent?"

Of course it could as well as against many other upstart and split off groups who, though flying under the "Baptist" banner have no more relationship to Christ than a does a dog. Which is why I said in my previous post:

Mark Osgatharp

 

So how would you say that our various current Baptist churches originated, other than John Smyth? And what about Saul's conversion and Apollos?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Baptist churches have originated in a number of ways. Some originated prior to John Smyth, some with John Smyth, and some after John Smyth; some with succession, some without. Some were born out of splits and heresies and others had the truth and then apostacized from it.

The only way we have of knowing which churches are legitimate is (not by tracing their ancestry through historical records, which is impossible) but by examining their current doctrine and practice in light of the Scriptures. I can't prove that I am a man by documenting my genalogy to Adam; but I know I am human because I possess the characteristics of humanity. But you ask,

Saul had heard the gospel at least from Stephen and probably from others of the church whom he persecuted. After his conversion he was sent to Ananias to receive baptism and then joined himself to the existing church. Saul's experience is perfectly consonant with successionism.

As for Apollos, he was apparently converted and baptized under the ministry of John the Baptist. Later he came into fellowship with the first church at Ephesus and then with the church at Corinth. Apollos' experience is perfectly consonant with successionism.

However, Paul did find a group of disciples at Ephesus who were in some respects short of understanding and who likely, but not certainly, had some influence from Apollos before he came in contact with the first church at Ephesus.

In any event, Paul gave them proper baptism and established them in the faith. This group of 12 became the second church at Ephesus. This is a good example of what happens when people act without succession and the Biblical way to correct the problem.

Mark Osgatharp