Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Catholic Persecution of Christians


Recommended Posts

  • Members

I basically agree with you, but men will study history.
And all men write with personal bias - we can't help it.

It is indeed a good place to start, but those who finish with it will find themselves short on knowledge and understanding.

A student of history needs to do much Research, but surely you would not leave the sources to those who would corrupt the record?

However, as I pointed out, it is not infallible nor is it inspired - no man should try to teach or support doctrines from anything other than the Word of God.

I have many books on history, both from a secular point, and from a religious point. Amongst those with a religious point, I have catholic and protestant points, and fundamental and baptist points.
Some are light, some are in depth.

Even reading the catholic.histories sheds light on some things, as their historical record is not all corrupted.

The trail of blood is a relatively short little book which is not in depth. That in itself stops the writer giving lengthy explanations of some points, but the vast majority of his information is correct, although limited.

It is a good STARTING POINT for historical study.

Not for doctrine, not for reproof, not for correction, not for instruction in righteousness.

If one were engaging in actual historical study the book could be useful. However, exceedingly few people, Christian or non-Christian, engage in any real historical study. This is why this book, and not only this one but so many others, is dangerous. Those who read it tend to simply take it as completely true, speak of it as such, recommend it as such, and will often verbally spar with anyone who doesn't agree.

 

At one time I was very much into history and loved to study history. Trying to get at the actual truth is most often very time consuming, requires a great deal of reading and further research, including reading much that one might not really want to wade through. The vast majority of people are unwilling, unable or uninterested in such. This is why we have people on all sides of everything who have read or heard one little thing and they fight continually with one another, often over something that's not even true. I can't even count the number of times I've heard/read pastors make inaccurate historical references in their sermons.

 

For the average person, I see this and many other books as dangerous because they will read it and take it as presented, with no follow up.

 

For those willing to do much reading and research in seeking the truth, this book and the others could be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Agreed.

I was once accused by a lady who had been coming for about 12 months of preaching "The trail of Blood" as doctrines.

The funny this.g was the woman had never read it, and i have never preached it, as doctrine or otherwise.
When I have gone through historical information I quote from other books I have, rarely (I want to say never but....) have I even mentioned the name of it in my preaching.

Needless to say, this woman had other issues that I had addressed in her public attack on our church, and this was the last accusation she made before she walked out the door, never to be seen again. I am sorry that she would not learn, and even more sorry that her children were influenced in this way by her.

I know some will defend.this little book almost as much as some here defend .......... But I am not among them. I like it, but always give to people with a caution that it is a start only.
Having said that, I don't remember the last time I gave one out, although we have them available in our bookcase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I know, I have read it.  It doesn't tell you much.  It does say the Montanists were baptists, but my reading of them says they were heretics, Tertullian who joined them later in life taught that all marriage was wrong as it consists of the same act as adultery.  He also wrote that all christian women should be veiled.  They also taught several doctrines that were later incorporated into RC doctrine such as venal and mortal sins.

 

And the Montanists were Baptist by teachings, not all of them. The very same thing is true today, we have many churches out there today that has Baptist on their doors, but there not Baptist by teachings.

 

The RCC tried their best to rewrite history, & tried as best as they could to rewrite history of those churches they persecuted, branding those churches false teachers, & of course, to them they were false teachers, for they were teaching God's true Word.. And your one of them that falls for their lies about the true churches that stood against the Catholics. They are just like their father, liars, & have always been liars.

 

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

And they think the same thing about those Baptist of today that holds to the true teachings of the Holy Bible & calls them exactly what they are, "false teachers that do not even know Jesus."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Montanists were charismatic heretics.  They did insist on baptising any who joined them, but other churches insisted on rebaptising those who left the Montanists.  Charismatics today (many of them) baptise converts, but I don't think you would own them?  

 

Have you ever seen the video of Todd Bentley carrying out a baptism.  He is a spiritual descendant of Montanus.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppLlPgU3bJY

 

According to the trail of blood, this man is a baptist, because he baptises.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

This little book had more verifiable truth in it that you will ever find in Calvin's Institutes.  

 

Hm?  I have read the trail of Blood, and I don't rate it.  I have not read Calvin's institutes.  However I have read part of his commentary on Thessalonians and find it useful, especially when he says: "Now anyone who has learned from scripture what are the things that belong particularly to God, and who, on the other hand considers well what the Pope usurps for himself, will not have much difficulty in recognizing Antichrist, even though he were a ten year old boy.

 

It seems that what a 10 year old boy could see in Calvin's day, many cannot see today.

 

By the way, have you read the Institutes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, the problem of historical record of IFB is the independent part.
Just today the wider group has within a certain amount of variation - no doubt some among the montanists were closer than others.

You can today find totally corrupt IFB churches. If later in history you were to come.across evidence of their practices, it would be wrong to condemn the whole bunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Montanists were charismatic heretics.  They did insist on baptising any who joined them, but other churches insisted on rebaptising those who left the Montanists.  Charismatics today (many of them) baptise converts, but I don't think you would own them?  

 

Have you ever seen the video of Todd Bentley carrying out a baptism.  He is a spiritual descendant of Montanus.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppLlPgU3bJY

 

According to the trail of blood, this man is a baptist, because he baptises.

 

Uhh, that' a den of devils leading people straight to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Hm?  I have read the trail of Blood, and I don't rate it.  I have not read Calvin's institutes.  However I have read part of his commentary on Thessalonians and find it useful, especially when he says: "Now anyone who has learned from scripture what are the things that belong particularly to God, and who, on the other hand considers well what the Pope usurps for himself, will not have much difficulty in recognizing Antichrist, even though he were a ten year old boy.

 

It seems that what a 10 year old boy could see in Calvin's day, many cannot see today.

 

By the way, have you read the Institutes?

 

I did have to read some of these at one time for a class.  What I discovered about Calvin was sad really.  It does not surprise me that you don't rate the trail of blood as non baptist have been attempting to re-write the history of the church longer than liberal American's having been trying to re-write American history.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Montanists were charismatic heretics.  They did insist on baptising any who joined them, but other churches insisted on rebaptising those who left the Montanists.  Charismatics today (many of them) baptise converts, but I don't think you would own them?  

 

Have you ever seen the video of Todd Bentley carrying out a baptism.  He is a spiritual descendant of Montanus.

 

 

According to the trail of blood, this man is a baptist, because he baptises.

 

Sorry to have to say this but you bring teachings to this board that the members our church would allow.

 

And its quite clear, there has always been false teaching among us, as there always will be, & we are warned in the last days they're will be many more of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I did have to read some of these at one time for a class.  What I discovered about Calvin was sad really.  It does not surprise me that you don't rate the trail of blood as non baptist have been attempting to re-write the history of the church longer than liberal American's having been trying to re-write American history.  

 

I am not a non baptist, but we don't have to invent history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am not a non baptist, but we don't have to invent history.

 

Nobody is interested in inventing history.  Just making sure the truth is told.

 

 

I am curious you are not a Baptist, and don't agree with most things Independent Baptists believe in. You tell us that we don't even know our own history.  Your Calvinistic, which is the antithesis of being Baptist.  Why do you come here?  Just to spread hypocrisy and the lies of Calvinism?  

Edited by The Ohio Patriot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Nobody is interested in inventing history.  Just making sure the truth is told.

 

 

I am curious you are not a Baptist, and don't agree with most things Independent Baptists believe in. You tell us that we don't even know our own history.  Your Calvinistic, which is the antithesis of being Baptist.  Why do you come here?  Just to spread hypocrisy and the lies of Calvinism?  

 

I am a baptist, read carefully.  The earliest English baptists were particular baptists.  They degenerated gradually.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am aware of the particular and regular Baptist distinctions however these were not the earliest Baptist.  The earliest Baptist did not adhere to the faults attributed to the particular Baptists.  Particular Baptists were Calvinistic in nature and this is why History re-writers prefer to make this the Genesis of the baptist.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The distinction between particular and general baptists arose because of controversy of Calvins teaching.
Before that split, there was neither particular, nor general, as recognised groups.

To claim that one or the other was "the original" group is incorrect, because until the distinction occurred it was a minor issue among them.

I have no doubt that there were those who accepted the general theme of Augustine's teaching, and those who rejected it among those who called themselves baptists.

But historical acceptance doesn't make it right - it must match with the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...