Trail of Blood book?

Just like I have argued against both Catholists and church of Christ people in the past, it's not about a church organization, it's about individuals in Christ. Idealistically, it's about a united body, but in most of those centuries, when the big powerful churches suppressed everything else, that body had to lie in true-beliving individuals, because there apparently was no real proto-Baptist organization or even independent fellowship of congregations, before the Anabaptists, and even many of them would be stretching it a bit. The closest possible thing I may have heard about that goes all the way back, would be scattered Christian "families" in Israel, and I could never find out more information about these groups, and the commentator may well have just been referring to the local Catholic/Orthodox in the desert.
We cannot just string together every little group the big corrupt churches percecuted and fit them in and say that they were the "New Testament Church". It would be like if the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons and some Catholic schism like Mel Gibson's church had been the only noted non-Catholic bodies around some century (perhaps in the future, even), and someone looks back on them, and because they opposed Rome, they said these were the representatives of the "true NT Church". Oh, and the aberrant theology? That was just slander by the oppressors. They didn't really believe any of that. That's what I see people doing.

 

Very subjective.
Just because YOU cannot, doesn't mean others have not.

 

The anti-Landmarkers have challenged the notion that Baptist heritage comes through such groups as Paulicians, Novationists, Montanists, Waldenses, etc. If we, then, buy your contention that there were no church organizations, but only individual Christians, then you must explain away Jesus' promise that the "gates of hell would not prevail" against his church.

Therefore, even if we cannot agree about which groups were our Baptist progenitors, I don't think one can realistically argue that there were no such groups which we would describe as New Testament churches.

 

My research has shown that there are quite a number of(SBF) Southwide Baptist Fellowship and (GARBC) General Association of Regular Baptist Churches that hold to J.M. Carroll's booklet, The Trail of Blood. I really don't understand why. No major historian would ever hold to this organic sucession of Baptist churches.
The (SBF) you ask, is none other that Tennesse Temple University and the late Dr. Lee Robertson. Go Figure!
Joseph Finn, Ph.D.- American Religious History

 

1. By "organic" succession, I assume you mean "apostolic" succession, which most of us do not hold. Neither do we hold any other kind of succession such as a "baptismal" succession, or other "organic" ties.
2. We do admit that there are historical mistakes in the book. It is not the historical accuracy that is at stake here.
3. It is the essential theme of the book that we believe. Even though he may have made some mistakes in his history, Carroll believed that in every generation from the apostles onward God never left himself without a witness; that is, there were always local, Bible-believing churches outside of the apostate RCC in all ages since the apostles. They believed as we do. They may not have been called by our name. But in essence they were Baptist in as much as the church at Jerusalem could possibly be called "The First Baptist Church at Jerusalem." In reality, all a Baptist is, is one who believes and follows the teachings of the Bible.

 

DHK,

I am in 100% agreement with you that God has never been without true witnesses from generation to generation for 2000 years now, outside of the Great Whore of Catholicism and her many "sisters".

However, we Baptists should not claim it as our own.

Some of these groups had the evidence of speaking in tongues and other more "pentecostal" traits that we usually (sadly) reject.

It would be more accurate to say that local churches or assemblies of like faith and practice as we evangelicals are today throughout every generation right down to the Apostles."


:godisgood:

 

:thumbs:That's my main problem with the book: it lumps together schismatic Christians like the Donatists, reforming Catholic movements like the Waldensians and proto-evangelicals like the Hussites and Lollards with obvious heretics like the Paulicians and Cathars, purely and simply on the basis that these groups were Not Roman Catholic; heck, by that standard the Arians ought to be included in the Trail!

 

How many papal bulls does it take to make one an "obvious" heretic?

Is it possible that some of the martyred saints were not heretics?

If one papal bull is rescinded by another papal bull do some heretics get cannonized or is it beatified, maybe both; but they still spend time in purgatory.

Are both East and West Churches in charge of these matters?

Just who the real heretics might be is an interesting study.

"Let God be found true and every man a liar."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Are you seriously suggesting that gnostic dualists are Christians?

 

He didn't say "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against your organization". So even without a visible organization, that promise would still be true. Hence, my point. Those groups you mentioned don't magically erase all of their teachings and become "Baptists except in name", and congruent with each other, and with what we consider "orthodox" today because "there had to be some organization that continued all the way back".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulicians

Not only was this group "gnostic and Manichaean", but they are named after the leading advocate of unitarian theology! (Besides orthodoxy, Arianism and Sabellianism (modalism), the other main contender was adoptionism or psilanthropism popularized by Paul of Samosata who said Christ was neither divine nor preexistent at all, but rather became the Son (adopted)).

Now, if you're going to say that this is all lies by the Catholics, then picking up on what Matt said (yeah, the JW's would be ones to include Arians in their version of the trail!), perhaps what we know about the Arians was also a lie, and they were also the true "proto-Baptists".

 

Actually, it's not subjective, because the reason I was so interested in them, is because I always wanted to believe such a group existed. This is not the same thing as, and is much easier to believe than the Trail of Blood Theory that connects isolated dots across time and place (and doctrine) and calls it one church.
It would be much more credible for there to be families in the desert (such as the Bedouins) in the same place who kept the faith, then for it to hop from point to point across turbulent Europe, and eventually into America (I notice, it always ends up in this country!)

If you know of such a group in Israel or the area, then by all means, point to some info about it. Again, whoever I heard that from may have just been speaking of the general "Christian" population there, which are mostly EOC, with some RCC.

 

Do some study on just these two groups: Albigenses and Waldenses.
Many claim that the Waldenses existed right from the Apostles onward, and even some Catholics attest to that.

But here is the problem. It is a problem of testimony. Both of these groups have many enemies, just for the very fact that they are evangelical. In fact there was a crusade by the RCC against the Albigenses for the sole purpose of exterminating them.

Since these groups, like Baptists, began to have wide and varied beliefs as they grew and multiplied their enemies would isolate those that had the more eccentric beliefs and say: here is what these groups believe. Whereas those were in reality the minority.

Isn't that true of Baptists today, at least somewhat?
There are Charismatic Baptists. We don't associate with them.
There are liberal or modernistic Baptists that even deny the fundamentals of the faith. We don't associate with them.
There are seventh day Baptists. We don't associate with them.

If the Lord tarries, in another thousand years, could it be possible that some one having a vendetta against Baptists of this day and age would lump us in with Charismatic Baptists? Revisionist history is popular, especially when written by the enemies of true Biblical Christianity. It is what the devil wants. Both the Waldenses and Albigenses did not have heretical beliefs. But there are people who want to paint them that way. So they isolate extreme groups that may have had doctrines at variance with the norm.

If you read some reliable Baptist History books you will come closer to the truth. Thomas Armitage is a well known scholar of Baptist history who wrote two volumes of "A History of the Baptists." That would be a good place to start.

 

The Waldenses, unlike the others, I never said were heretical. They were however, solidly Catholic. They started out in the Alps (Yes, centuries before Peter Waldo), but they simply opposed some of the doctrines Rome was continuing to add. I had gotten the Adventist-Published book The Waldensians in interest, looking at them as possible proto-"independant Protestants", but even this book was honest enough to describe their Catholic practices, and not paint them as sabbathkeepers, as those groups usually do when discussing the Waldensians. It was at that point I began abandoning the Trail of Blood theory, and instead inquiring about the families in Israel as the possible "Church through the ages".

The Albigenses/Catharii are all around described as gnostic. The historical sources never said this about the Waldenses, so if one description was a lie, and the two groups were basically the same "true church", then why wouldn't they have said the same thing about the other?

By hypothesizing "if the Lord tarries another 1000 years", you make precisely the argument I proposed yesterday. 1000 years from now, people might think the JW's were apart of "Protestantism", and speculate that since there were liberal Protestants who denied the fundamentals of the faith, "their enemies" (us) might have casted them as the worst fringe of Protestantism as part of a smear campaign. (When the truth is that the JW's are very different from liberal Protestantism, as well as orthodoxy).

Sorry, but there is just no evidence these groups were Baptist outside of this book and other "Baptist Historians" and others. (I forgot to mention, I have a very old book by C.O. Dodd and AN Dugger called History of the True Religion, which is the sabbathkeeping Church of God version of the Trail of Blood, and hence where Armstrong got his "Mystery of the Church" from. It was after reading that, as much as I was trying to believe in it back then, that I began being forced to admit that this theory was really a stretch and full of holes. And the fact that each group has its own version makes it look suspicious).

These groups may have looked Baptist or other "independent Protestant/non-denominational" in comparison to Rome, since they denied Rome's authority, and some of the doctrines and practices. But that does not make them Baptist.

 

The Wycliffite-Lollards may have ended up sola Scriptura (or at least Scriptura suprema) but they certainly weren't sola fide; the same can be said of the Taborites (the more radical wing of the Hussite movement; the moderates, the Utraquists, were reforming Catholics like the Waldenses or the Franciscans, if they were anything). So the Taborites and Lollards were proto-Reformers of the more Magisterial type, albeit minus sola fide; they certainly did not anticipate the Radical Reformation and should not be regarded as proto-baptistic; if they're proto-anything, the Lollards are proto-Anglican since they were anti-papal and anti-clerical-abuses, regarded Scripture as the supreme authority, but basically wanted to keep pretty much everything else.