Opinions on the Trail of Blood by J.M. Carroll

[Landmarkheritage]

Would you recommend it, I have not read and I would like some opinions on whether or not it is worth a read.

[BrotherTony]

There is a lot of information in this book, but, I find it being misused by the "Landmarker" sect of Baptists trying to support their ideology that there's an unbroken line of Baptists all the way back to the time of Christs ministry. I personally don't recommend this book.

[SureWord]

The book is the Baptist version of "apostolic succession".

[R Sauter]

It is pseudo-church history and rightfully belongs in the circular file IMO!

One ought to go and take an honest look at the beliefs and teachings of some of these so-called "Baptist Forefathers" (Montanists, Donatists, Waldensians, Albigensians, Novations, Etc.) and ask whether they would really want to associate themselves with such heretics?

Perhaps you would be better off learning some REAL Church history instead?

I am a Baptist without reservation and without apology but I fully reject the Baptist Perpetuity nonsense!

[Landmarkheritage]

15 hours ago, R Sauter said:

It is pseudo-church history and rightfully belongs in the circular file IMO!

One ought to go and take an honest look at the beliefs and teachings of some of these so-called "Baptist Forefathers" (Montanists, Donatists, Waldensians, Albigensians, Novations, Etc.) and ask whether they would really want to associate themselves with such heretics?

Perhaps you would be better off learning some REAL Church history instead?

I am a Baptist without reservation and without apology but I fully reject the Baptist Perpetuity nonsense!

I am aware of these points I have learned church history, I am aware that they are heretics, however i didn’t know the text included them, I never said I agreed with that particular perspective, I may be a landmarkist but I am not going to associate myself with the teachings of Gnostic heresy.

On 12/9/2023 at 7:22 PM, BrotherTony said:

There is a lot of information in this book, but, I find it being misused by the "Landmarker" sect of Baptists trying to support their ideology that there's an unbroken line of Baptists all the way back to the time of Christs ministry. I personally don't recommend this book.

Thank your for your advice, sorry for the delay I have been locked out of my account for extensive periods of time.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Landmarkheritage

[MikeWatson1]

There are other books that elaborate more in detail and more accurately on this history. There is My Church by J M Moody, The Battle for Baptist History by I K Cross and The History of the Baptist's by John T Christian. 

What makes the Albigensis etc...heretical?  

When the Roman Catholics are calling them heretical they aren't measuring against the Word of God but their Catholic teachings..same with the Protestant denominations that called them heretical. 

The RCC and the likes of Methodists, Presbyterians and Anglicans all practice infant baptism and having one bishop overseeing multiple congregations.

I have heard the Waldenses , Albigensis etc have alot of works for salvation, but the problem is their accusers were off beam themselves and they wrote most of the church history.

So what were those groups teaching that was wrong?

[John Young]

On 12/10/2023 at 8:54 PM, R Sauter said:

One ought to go and take an honest look at the beliefs and teachings of some of these so-called "Baptist Forefathers" (Montanists, Donatists, Waldensians, Albigensians, Novations, Etc.) and ask whether they would really want to associate themselves with such heretics?

One need only look to the N.T. churches from those in the bible, and man so called baptist today and ask the same thing. Hence why each it to be independent. Its also easy to look from without a group and make overly generalised comments about the whole while overlooking the fact that independent churches grouped among them were better adherence to the doctrines of scripter than were others within that same general grouping. Much of what made them "part of that group" were not necessarily their perfection as a people but rather their independent nature from the state and universal churches. Books like "Trail of Blood' are less about groups with "perfect Baptist doctrine" and more about allegiance to Christ and the local church as the pervar of that doctrine. Its from that vein and not from the state beast that baptic come from is the point of these books.

[John Young]

On 12/15/2023 at 12:40 PM, MikeWatson1 said:

There are other books that elaborate more in detail and more accurately on this history. There is My Church by J M Moody, The Battle for Baptist History by I K Cross and The History of the Baptist's by John T Christian. 

Another book that I like is the one by D.B. Ray called, "Baptist succession : a hand-book of Baptist history" written in 1871. What is unique about it is that it tracks Baptist history through Baptism records. A copy can be found here: https://archive.org/details/baptistsuccessio00rayd/page/n5/mode/2up

Edited December 16, 2023 by John Young

[MikeWatson1]

22 hours ago, John Young said:

Another book that I like is the one by D.B. Ray called, "Baptist succession : a hand-book of Baptist history" written in 1871. What is unique about it is that it tracks Baptist history through Baptism records. A copy can be found here: https://archive.org/details/baptistsuccessio00rayd/page/n5/mode/2up

Thank you, I'll have a look at those.

It seems to be the key thing with this history...that a whole group is characterised as heretical and some may have some strange beliefs in there, but within these groups were genuine churches who upheld the Word of God.

There is the accusation from reformers and RCC of denying the Trinity and gnosticism. So that is what I am wondering about. But it seems from the books that show the history..is there were groups among these that were mostly pure.

 

Also..like you say..the NT churches counted as Gods churches had their own strange teachings also. Eg.. paganism with the Corinthians... gnosticism with other churches and Judaizers in the Galatian churches .

[R Sauter]

On 12/16/2023 at 5:31 PM, John Young said:

One need only look to the N.T. churches from those in the bible, and man so called baptist today and ask the same thing.

I have read this several times and it is really hard to decipher! Care to try again?

Hence why each it to be independent. Its also easy to look from without a group and make overly generalised comments about the whole while overlooking the fact that independent churches grouped among them were better adherence to the doctrines of scripter than were others within that same general grouping.

If I am reading this correctly, it seems there is a good bit of "IFB Doublespeak" going on here! On one hand, you want to be "Independent" but are you forgetting that there are essential core doctrines that make one distinctly "Baptist?" There is very little from any of these groups that would make any one of them a "Baptist" as we would define them today! The closest is possibly the Novatians who some claim to be "Credo-Baptist" (Adult believers baptism) but this is also highly disputed. I'll retract my charge of "Heretics" to the Waldensians but they are still far from "Baptist."

Much of what made them "part of that group" were not necessarily their perfection as a people but rather their independent nature from the state and universal churches. Books like "Trail of Blood' are less about groups with "perfect Baptist doctrine" and more about allegiance to Christ and the local church as the pervar of that doctrine. Its from that vein and not from the state beast that baptic come from is the point of these books.

I know that "Some" Baptists desperately try to disaffiliate themselves from the so-called "Harlot Church" by any means possible but why do such feel compelled to supplant the Roman Catholic Church with the Baptist Church as the "One True Church" founded by Christ? Could you at least explain this?

[John Young]

9 minutes ago, R Sauter said:

One need only look to the N.T. churches from those in the bible, and **many** so called baptist today and ask the same thing.

I have read this several times and it is really hard to decipher! Care to try again?

 

12 minutes ago, R Sauter said:

there are essential core doctrines that make one distinctly "Baptist

There are doctrines that have been developed systamitized and refined over time that are now considered core baptist beliefs (or of your particular group as it is today). But you can't apply those as they are today to all of those generally identified as independent in the past. You can even take the refined distinct doctrines of the catholics today, look back into history and you see catholics weren't really catholics by today's standard of a catholic!

Rather you have to look at the distinction that history required, that of baptizing Adults and independence from the state/universal church. Those distinctions included doctrinally correct and incorrect churches, all independent of each other. Therefore you cannot use the doctrines of a few churches to claim the whole to be heretical. We know the true churches were among them though they each had diverse beliefs.

[R Sauter]

3 hours ago, John Young said:

 

There are doctrines that have been developed systamitized and refined over time that are now considered core baptist beliefs (or of your particular group as it is today). But you can't apply those as they are today to all of those generally identified as independent in the past. You can even take the refined distinct doctrines of the catholics today, look back into history and you see catholics weren't really catholics by today's standard of a catholic!

Rather you have to look at the distinction that history required, that of baptizing Adults and independence from the state/universal church. Those distinctions included doctrinally correct and incorrect churches, all independent of each other. Therefore you cannot use the doctrines of a few churches to claim the whole to be heretical. We know the true churches were among them though they each had diverse beliefs.

I think we would both agree that there are quite a few knuckleheads out there that we would not want to claim as "Baptist Brethren." I would include Andy Stanley, Stephen Furtick, Rick Warren, and Steven Anderson for starters. 

Where you and I fundamentally disagree is over the notion of a "Universal Church" which I cannot help but shake my head over because Jesus says "Upon this rock I will build my Church" (Singular), Paul said "Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the Church (Singular), and by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body (singular), Christ has ONE BRIDE who will be presented to him without spot or blemish, and on and on we could go. The Church exists universally and all who are in Christ are in this Church. This "Universal" Church organizes and meets locally for teaching, edification, fellowship, and to do the work of the ministry. All who are in Christ should desire to assemble and identify themselves with God's people in a legitimate Local NT Church and those who have no interest in the fellowship of other believers, I will confidently identify as being outside of Christ, still dead in sin, and would tell them exactly this.

I would also state that I was baptized in a Baptist Church but I do not consider my baptism a "Baptist Baptism" but a BIBLICAL baptism. I was baptized by immersion upon a public profession of faith and with this baptism, I identified and joined myself with the "Church of the Living God" and not just "Southside Baptist Church in Millington, TN." I was also "Sprinkled" as a baby in the Roman Catholic Church but that was not a valid, biblical baptism. Eph 4:5 says "One Lord, one faith, one baptism," not a baptism into a Calvary Chapel or Assembly of God, a baptism into a Baptist church if I decide to become a Baptist later on, and a baptism into a "Real" Baptist church because the first Baptist church I was baptized in did not have proper Baptist secessionism going all the way to John the Baptist or whatever! I would therefore accept anyone who has been biblically baptized. Baptisms I would not accept would any flavor of "pedobaptism" and any baptism from Mormons, Jehovah Witnesses, Modalists, or Church of Christ "Water Dogs."

And I would say that there were a good number of things that Baptists believe that are quite consistent with historical Christianity and our Church history includes all of the councils where the NT canon was affirmed and important doctrines such as the trinity, hypostatic union, and original sin were clarified. Also, the "Harlot Roman Church" was not founded by Constantine, The Roman Catholic Church became what it is today over several hundreds of years (going far off the rails after the great schism of 1054) but it got a good start with Christianity becoming the "Official Religion" of the Roman Empire and everyone deciding they wanted to become a "Christian" in order to improve their social standing, career, and political aspirations. Roman Catholicism has also been fairly consistent with what it teaches although they are not entirely honest with it all the time. The Catholicism promoted by Pope Francis is far removed from many of the historic positions of the Roman Catholic Church and there are likely many knowledgeable Catholics out there who would be in agreement with this.

Edited December 18, 2023 by R Sauter