Excerpts from the Trail of Blood

I consider that book to be little more than propaganda.

In classifying ancient groups of believers as baptists, we would also be forced to call Pentecostals and everyone else who practice believers baptism as baptists, something which Baptist succesionists would throw a fit at! John MacArthur a baptist? "Bible" churches actually baptists? Never!

 

Thank you, "Ars."

We can start from here: "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John." John 1:6

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ars:
How many of us didn’t realize that the History of the Baptists goes far beyond that of the reformation. Here is an excerpt from the Booklet written by J. M. Carroll.

Trail of Blood Following the Christians Down Through the Centuries or The History of Baptist Churches From the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

an excerpt from the book review at the LINK...

Book Review of: Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>
This understanding of church history was popularized in the United States by J. R. Graves in the mid-nineteenth century and especially by J. M. Carroll's booklet, The Trail of Blood, published in 1931.

Baptist successionism, or Landmarkism, also typically incorporates a denial of any concept of the church as the universal body of Christ made up of all Christian believers, and a rejection of all other (nonbaptist) church bodies as genuine churches.

McGoldrick's method is first to define in terms of theology and practice what it means to be Baptist, then to examine the historical groups down through the centuries that have been claimed by Baptist successionists. He gives particular attention to those sects which are mentioned as Baptist forebears in The Trail of Blood.

McGoldrick is to be commended for not contenting himself with the pronouncements of later historians but instead has sought out the primary sources which describe the beliefs and practices of the groups he examines. He carefully subjects these documentary sources to critical evaluation regarding their reliability.

To cite McGoldrick's conclusions is to call the roll of the heroes of Baptist successionism, but in each case the claims made for them by successionists are found to be unsubstantiated:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>...the evidence shows that the Montanists and Novatians were schismatic Catholics, not Baptists;

<LI>St. Patrick operated under the auspices of the bishop of Rome and did not adhere to the Baptist conception of church, sacraments, or ministry;

<LI>the Paulicians were not Baptists but separatists from Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy, they were anti-Trinitarian, and held an adoptionist Christology;

<LI>the Bogomils were an extension of a dualistic strain of Paulicianism whose theology was not even Christian, much less Baptist;

<LI>...there is no positive evidence that Peter de Bruys, Henry of Lausanne, or Arnold of Brescia or their followers were Baptists;

<LI>...the Albigenses inherited the extreme dualism of the Bogomils and "held almost nothing in common with modern Baptists" (p. 67);

<LI>...and the medieval Waldenses were similar to the Roman Catholic order of Franciscans,

<LI>...while the later Waldenses were more akin to Presbyterians and Methodists than Baptists.

<LI>Although the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century might seem on superficial consideration to be genuine ancestors of the Baptists, McGoldrick demonstrates that they held different views than Baptists on the doctrines of revelation, Christology, soteriology, and ecclesiology, and that there are no real genetic links between the Anabaptists of the continent and the Baptists of England.
[/list]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Roadrunner:
John MacArthur a baptist? "Bible" churches actually baptists? Never!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roadrunner, I assume this is tongue-in-cheek, if not, at the thread I started at the LINK, could you tell me what Baptist Distinctive MacArthur doesn't affirm?

Thanks,

CNM
Could you be a Baptist and not know it?

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

Although some of McGoldrick's arguments are compelling, his arguments, as are Carroll's, are historical in nature and subject to review, revision, and correction. In the future, one could take positions of some present-day Baptists and prove that Baptists were not Baptists. If that were all the information available, one could not disprove the hypothesis, barring future discoveries to the contrary. In other words, for McGoldrick to be correct, we must assume that all the information available to us now IS all the information.

Church perpetuity will ultimately stand or fall on scriptural rather than historical arguments.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Although some of McGoldrick's arguments are compelling...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Bro. vaughn I take that to mean you now have the book, is that correct?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
...his arguments, as are Carroll's, are historical in nature and subject to review, revision, and correction.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True... I'm sure McGoldrick would acknowledge that. There may be some striking differences between the two men. I don't know much about Carroll, but from what little I've read regarding him, he was a preacher and a son of a preacher. Now as noble as those callings are, can you note any other facts about him that would indicate his expertise as a historian?

McGoldrick on the other had is a professional historian. He has been a professor in the department of history at Cedarville University(a Baptist and conservative Christian liberal arts college, btw) in Ohio since 1973 and taught previously at John Brown University and West Virginia University. He received his B.S. and M.A. degrees from Temple University and PhD. from West Virginia University. He has written several scholarly books and articles and is the member of a number of scholarly societies and conferences, in other words a recognized scholar in his field.

The book referenced is published by an academic publisher which means the primary audience will be other historians who can(as you say)... "review, revise, and correct." That is, if they can find errors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
In the future, one could take positions of some present-day Baptists and prove that Baptists were not Baptists.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The superficiality by which many Baptists affirm Baptist distinctives make me wonder TODAY, if they should be regarded as Baptists.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
If that were all the information available, one could not disprove the hypothesis, barring future discoveries to the contrary. In other words, for McGoldrick to be correct, we must assume that all the information available to us now IS all the information.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes well, excuse me my friend but that is a convenient copout. We MIGHT be able to also discern that the Jehovah's Witnesses are Baptists(in some stretch of the term) if we allow some deference to their peculiarities and not be so darn picayunish about doctrine.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Church perpetuity will ultimately stand or fall on scriptural rather than historical arguments.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Church perpetuity YES, Baptist perpetuity NO; Baptist perpetuity still has to find Baptists to be valid. But, I'm glad you brought that up! This book disposes of the theological/exegetical side of Landmarkism.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>


ORDER at LINK:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>The Doctrine of Church: a Baptist View [/list]

From the author: This book seeks to show by a careful study of the New Testament that the church which is the body of Christ consists of all believers of all ages. Also proof is given that this is the true historical viewpoint of the mainstream of Baptist scholarship. A critique of the Landmark movement is included.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

cordially,

CNM

[ July 10, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

Dear CorpseNoMore,

It seems like we just had this discussion a few weeks ago. If I remember correctly neither of us convinced the other to change their minds, but just in case there are some reading now, who didn't read those messages before I will address a few of your remarks.

As to McGoldrick's book, it is clear from the Introduction, that he has an ax to grind. He starts out with the premise that Baptist Perpeturity is wrong and THEN goes out to disprove it. I have the book and have read through it several times. Each page has errors, mistakes, and assumptions. I do not think it is near as scholarly as most think it is.

As to J.M. Carroll's scholarship, remember the "trail of blood' was written for Baptist laymen in the pew, while McGoldrick's book is written for scholars. Also Carroll was a scholar in his day. Consider these facts:
He graduated from Baylor University in 1878, winning special awards in oratory and scholarship.
H. He delivered the commencement address at Baylor University in 1884 and was given an honorary master of arts degree.
I. He pastored Southern Baptist churches in the Texas counties of Anderson, Burleson, Grimes, and Washington and in the Texas cities of Corpus Christi, Lampasas, Taylor, and San Antonio.
J. He was the founder and president of San Marcos Academy and president of Oklahoma Baptist University and Howard Payne College.
K. He was the founder and a very influential leader of the Education Commission of the Baptist General Convention of Texas and held many other important positions within the Southern Baptist Convention.
L. His best known writings were "Texas Baptist Statistics" (1895), "A History of Texas Baptists" (1923), and "The Trail of Blood" (1931). He also served as a contributing writer to the book "Dr. B. H. Carroll, the Colossus of Baptist History" (1946).
M. He was an amateur omithologist (?) and owned one of the biggest bird egg collections in Texas.

I fail to understand what Thornbury's book as to do with this discussion. Many non-landmarks such as R.B.C. Howell, John Waller, Spurgeon, . . . held to Baptist Perpeturity. Also Thornbury's is a former landmarker and he has a strong ax to grind.

While I would probably not agree with everything the Waldenese, Anabaptists, Lollards, Novanians, Dontaists, etc. . . believed, I do not agree with much of the pratices of most Baptists today. Yet I still consider most of them New Testament churches.

By His Grace,

Ben

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
Dear CorpseNoMore, It seems like we just had this discussion a few weeks ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does it seem like that because it was so memorable? Actually I believe it has been several months, it was before the shutdown and reconfiguration.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
If I remember correctly neither of us convinced the other to change their minds...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well... here's the deal Ben. Landmarkers, from what I've experienced on the WWW, have a predisposition to NOT believe ANY historical refutation of their position. This, I suspect, is because of the theological necessity that drives their evaluation of the empirical data. Which is to say, it precludes them from accepting any historical evidence.

I don't say that to be insulting, but it's seems to be pretty factual. Many-a-times on this very board has someone said something like... "...it doesn't matter what historical information is brought out against Baptist perpetuity... 'cause, Jesus said it and I believe it... yada, yada, yada..." Never once apparantly considering the possibility of their exegesis and theological presuppositions being in error.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
...but just in case there are some reading now, who didn't read those messages before I will address a few of your remarks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, likewise, that is always my consideration when posting.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
As to McGoldrick's book, it is clear from the Introduction, that he has an ax to grind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll grant that there is, at times, some polemical overtone to it, but that is pretty much always the case when a Christian historian writes. The conscientious ones, like McGoldrick, try to keep it down to a minimum. There is a consideration, however, that Christian historians have to deal with that non-Christian ones do not. Namely, is the topic under investigation hurtful & destructive to the Church of God when propogated amongst her people, because it is either divisive, bad-doctrine, or both? In the case of Landmarkism, the answer, imo, is yes to all those questions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
He starts out with the premise that Baptist Perpeturity is wrong and THEN goes out to disprove it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, for his motive (if there is one, see my previous answer) beyond that you'll note the massive bibliolography in the last third of the book. McGoldrick is not a young man (he just recently retired because his wife is in poor health.) The point is, I suspect, he has read and researched more volumes on this subject alone, than some folks on this board have on all subjects combined. Be that as it may, the bottom line is he is hardly new to the issue. He has already been on the emotional rollercoaster of abandoning a long cherished belief. I empathize with you that you are still in that process.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
I have the book and have read through it several times. Each page has errors, mistakes, and assumptions. I do not think it is near as scholarly as most think it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah... you said that before, but ya know what? I have yet to come accross a scholarly rebuttel to the book. If you know of one on the WWW, or in a academic journal that I can access at a library please point me to it. I'd truly love to read it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
As to J.M. Carroll's scholarship, remember the "trail of blood' was written for Baptist laymen in the pew...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes well, so is a Chick tract, but I hope you don't peddle those. Be that as it may, aren't laymen entitled to TRUTH, albeit in non-technical terms.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
Also Carroll was a scholar in his day. Consider these facts:....{Ben provides lengthy J.M. Carroll resume}<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Ben, I learned alot about him just from this post. That is quite a list of accomplishments and certainly more than I've ever done. Nevertheless, very few of them have any direct, and only the loosest indirect, relationship to his expertise as a historiographer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
I fail to understand what Thornbury's book as to do with this discussion. Many non-landmarks such as R.B.C. Howell, John Waller, Spurgeon, . . . held to Baptist Perpeturity. Also Thornbury's is a former landmarker and he has a strong ax to grind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Because the Landmark principle (as I've already intimated) is a theological construct in search of historical justification. Thornbury's book is relevent because it so thoroughly disassembles... what I call local-church-onlyism, that the necessity for Baptist perpetuity evaporates. If there were Baptists thoroughout history, it would be interesting, but not much more without the Landmarkism to drive it. As to Thornbury's ax... I tell you what... buy the book and expose him, if you have the nerve.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by J.R. Graves:
While I would probably not agree with everything the Waldenese, Anabaptists, Lollards, Novanians, Dontaists, etc. . . believed, I do not agree with much of the pratices of most Baptists today. Yet I still consider most of them New Testament churches.
By His Grace, Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes well, he didn't say that none of them were Christians, just none of them were Baptists. Any church, that proclaims the Word, administers the sacraments(ordinances) according to the New Testament, and practices some reasonable level of discipline is a New Testament Church, Baptist or not.(When I say proclaims the Word, I mean, compatible with the four latin solas of the Protestant Reformation, Sola-Gratia, Sola-Fide, Solus-Christus, Sola-Scriptura.... when I say discipline I mean primarily a method for distinguishing the regenerate from the unregenerate.)

cordially,

CNM

[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

No, Corpse, it is not just a convenient copout. It is something to make us think about the nature of historical argument - same as scientific argument, we can think the world is flat as long as there is no data to say otherwise. Second, I have made no claims for Carroll and his ability as a historian. Third, I will try and take some time and put together some references from the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists that show some glaring errors by the trained and recognized historians. They couldn't even get the 20th century right, and we are supposed to trust them back to the 1st?? I have nothing personal against McGoldrick, Patterson, McBeth, etc., and I think I am a member of some of the same historical and/or research societies as they. But let's realize they don't always get it right.

 

Corpsenomore,
Yes, my statement was tongue in cheek, and was designed to show the catch 22 in the thinking of these modern day baptist successionists.

It goes like this: in order to make ancient groups 'baptist' they have to dumb down the word. (In the sense that anybody who practiced a believer's baptism, and believed salvation by grace thru faith is a baptist.)

But if they then use the same definition and applied it to *modern* groups, then a whole flood of people suddenly become baptists who they themselves deny are true baptists.

As far as I know JM denies none of the baptist distinctives.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
No, Corpse, it is not just a convenient copout. It is something to make us think about the nature of historical argument - same as scientific argument, we can think the world is flat as long as there is no data to say otherwise.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

h-yeah... I uh... am feeling a little incredulous right now. Certainly, historical research is always ongoing and historians make errors. But that is a given, at least it is for me.

Now there are two arguments to deal with, as we've both alluded. The historical one needed to be dealt with because J.M. Carroll and others have asserted a kind-of historical model. If there are errors in the McGoldrick book(and I suppose there are a few) they can be pointed out. I suggest the same thing to you that I did to Ben...

...I have yet to come accross a scholarly rebuttel to the book. If you know of one on the WWW, or in a academic journal that I can access at a library, please point me to it; I'd truly love to read it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Second, I have made no claims for Carroll and his ability as a historian.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you do indeed possess the McGoldrick book, you then know, the "Trail of Blood" was used as the foil because it contained the most popular groups among Landmarkers, and because it is the one that is most present in the public mind. McGoldrick felt that any groups not recognized by Carroll's treatment were not generally consequential enough to the Baptist perpetuity position to merit notice, though he did, in fact, include two examples not in the "Trail of Blood"

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Third, I will try and take some time and put together some references from the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists that show some glaring errors by the trained and recognized historians. They couldn't even get the 20th century right, and we are supposed to trust them back to the 1st??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again... this is a two-edged sword my friend. Any endemic pitfalls in historiographic research is at best equally risky for all parties, in which case it would be a wash. At the worst, I would suspect that Landmarker historians, being more generally given to suspician of other Christians than non-Landmarkers, are more likely to have fewer objective-checks on their research. Can you disabuse me of that prejudice?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I have nothing personal against McGoldrick, Patterson, McBeth, etc., and I think I am a member of some of the same historical and/or research societies as they. But let's realize they don't always get it right.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the ball is in the court of those who disagree. We, the anti-Landmarkers, are wont to cry... "show us the refutations!" I agree with you that the issue is primarily theological, but the historical claims of Carroll and such needed to be refuted nonetheless.

With the theological problem acknowledged, I again note, as I wrote to Ben...

"...the Landmark principle (as I've already intimated) is a theological construct in search of historical justification. Thornbury's book is relevent because it so thoroughly disassembles... what I call local-church-onlyism, that the necessity for Baptist perpetuity evaporates. If there were Baptists thoroughout history, it would be interesting, but not much more without the Landmarkism to drive it. As to Thornbury's ax... I tell you what... buy the book and expose him, if you have the nerve."

cordially,

CNM

[ July 11, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

Sho', Corpse, yall aint' a gonna find no schoolarly reeboottals to McGoldrick, Thornbury, or them otherns, since there be no schoolars among us. We's all cuntry bumpkin preachin sons of preachers, as well as biassed deevisive hicks. Least ways I did quituate the thurd grayde.

[ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Hey Bro. vaughn, thanks for the Hee-Haw skit. One things for certain, there are no shortage of comedians in the pulpit these days.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Sho', Corpse, yall aint' a gonna find no schoolarly reeboottals to McGoldrick, Thornbury, or them otherns, since there be no schoolars among us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your modesty is quaint, but a little boring.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
We's all cuntry bumpkin preachin sons of preachers, as well as biassed deevisive hicks. Least ways I did quituate the thurd grayde. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your sarcasm leads me to believe I was in error. Can I take that to mean that you regularly fellowship with SBC, Presbyterian and pentecostal brethren?

I will take this post as a concession until you indicate otherwise.

cordially,

CNM

 

NO, you cannot take the last post to mean anything!

I object to your subtle attempt to establish McGoldrick's data based on the lack of scholarship of former Baptist historians. Over and over we can read wonderous praises of the Carroll's, John T. Christian, and other landmarkers. Then when history is discussed, they were not scholars, not trained historians, nor using scientific methods. I just read A Short Biography of Rolfe Barnard by John Thornbury. In it Thornbury says that B. H. Carroll was "...a giant in every respect. He was thoroughly orthodox, a brilliant scholar, and a commanding preacher." Either he speaks out of both sides of his mouth or he has since changed his mind. Surely a landmarker could be neither thoroughly orthodox nor a brilliant scholar. If the scholarship of McGoldrick, McBeth, Patterson, Tull, Thornbury, etc. is so far superior to others you won't have to tell us all the time. By the way, I think Thornbury's 'Doctrine of the Church'is the best presentation available from that viewpoint. Everyone interested in Baptist ecclesiology should have it.

The reference to the mistakes of non-Landmark histories may be a two-edged sword, but I am not afraid of it. I do not claim any infallibility for Landmark historians, and know they have made many errors. I do not deny the fact that some Landmarkers "stick their head in the sand" when confronted with facts they don't like. But it is not true that their errors make them nincompoops and that non-landmark errors are excusable. Check out the
Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists. Look at the names and scholarship of the compilers and committee. Then look at the sections by state that give historical information of local associations. First of all, that SBC associations would be categorized as "extant" and non-SBC associations as "extinct" reveals an arrogance I can't begin to comprehend. But since the book is about Southern Baptists, I try to think that somehow the writers meant they are extinct as far as the Convention is concerned. But then I read in the text that these associations have ceased to exist, and I have their minutes collected in my library, I wonder - what is going on???? The conclusion is that you cannot rely on any information in the ESB concerning non-cooperating local associations. (Some of the information is correct, but if you don't already know that, you won't know what to believe. In fairness to some of the committee, the mistake they made was not necessarily poor research done personally on their part, but attaching their names to poorly done research) What does this have to do with the Trail of Blood? Not much - just a demonstration that the professional historians and recognized scholars can make some pretty big gaffs also. Since you are penning part of the strength of anti-Landmark books on scholarship, it does have some relevance.

[ July 12, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
NO, you cannot take the last post to mean anything! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well! That only took you an hour, so my gloat was short lived.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I object to your subtle attempt to establish McGoldrick's data based on the lack of scholarship of former Baptist historians.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You left me with the inference that seemed to indicate that you regarded McGoldrick and J.M. Carroll's work to be on equal footing. Perhaps it's time for you to speak plainly on your assessment of "Trail of Blood."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Over and over we can read wonderous praises of the Carroll's, John T. Christian, and other landmarkers. Then when history is discussed, they were not scholars, not trained historians, nor using scientific methods. I just read A Short Biography of Rolfe Barnard by John Thornbury. In it Thornbury says that B. H. Carroll was "...a giant in every respect. He was thoroughly orthodox, a brilliant scholar, and a commanding preacher." Either he speaks out of both sides of his mouth or he has since changed his mind. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You seemed to infer you either have Thornbury's book, or have read it, so I won't offer you any quotes at this time. As I recall, Thornbury's general attitude toward B.H. Carroll was positive. Since Thornbury's book is theological he is not making any objections toward B.H. Carroll as a historian.

Thornbury seemed to infer that B.H. Carroll, tried to make the best theological sense out of the Landmark view, because he was likely embarrassed by how some landmarkers have butchered Ephesians. BUT... B.H. Carroll himself offered exegesis that was really beneath his ability and which itself was a contortion of the right sense of the Body-of-Christ.

I really don't recall any disparagement by Thornbury of B.H. Carroll. I myself have used a B.H. Carroll quote in internet debate, in which B.H. Carroll defends the propriety of using creeds and confessions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Surely a landmarker could be neither thoroughly orthodox nor a brilliant scholar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your sarcasm is a non-sequitor, all of us are wrong about something. I find rlvaughn to be one of the most intelligent, insightful, and articulate posters on the BaptistBoard, and because of that I am utterly dumbfounded as to why he defends a peculiar novelty like Landmarkism. Nevertheless, I do NOT write him off for it.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
If the scholarship of McGoldrick, McBeth, Patterson, Tull, Thornbury, etc. is so far superior to others you won't have to tell us all the time.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think your overreacting, in fact I know you are. (1) I was simply contrasting McGoldrick with J.M. Carroll. (2) When we had this debate before, I was implying as a general matter, contemporary historiographic scholarly standards are more rigorous than when the vast majority of Landmarkers (that have been quoted here) wrote.

It's my sense, that sometimes with regard to theologians, we can say that many of the ones from yesteryear were better, it's rare we can say that with historians, for the very simple fact that methods get more accurate, and the benefits that are learned from the mistakes of others become part of the perfecting of the science. (That's somewhat true of theology, but less starkly so I think.)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
By the way, I think Thornbury's 'Doctrine of the Church'is the best presentation available from that viewpoint. Everyone interested in Baptist ecclesiology should have it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I agree, although it's made me hungry to get J.L. Dagg's two volume set, and J.P. Boyce's systematic Theology. But I wouldn't want the readers to get the impression from your comment that this was just a nice presentation of an opposing view. From what I've been able to discern (with my meager skills), I would say it's, devastating to the Landmark view. His arguments & exegesis are so cogent, penetrating, and thorough I cannot see how it could be refuted... disputed yes, but refuted, not likely.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
The reference to the mistakes of non-Landmark histories may be a two-edged sword, but I am not afraid of it. I do not claim any infallibility for Landmark historians, and know they have made many errors. I do not deny the fact that some Landmarkers "stick their head in the sand" when confronted with facts they don't like. But it is not true that their errors make them nincompoops and that non-landmark errors are excusable.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a difference between scholarly carelessness, which all will be guilty of from time to time, and propaganda . Once again I think it would be useful for you to state plainly your view of "The Trail of Blood."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Check out the
Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists. Look at the names and scholarship of the compilers and committee. Then look...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't know what to make of this, nor do I want to devote mental energy to something that looks like para-church politics. I'm not in the SBC, never have been, and don't expect that I ever will be. I don't see that it is a worthwhile organization. My primary view of the SBC is that it should dissolve. I will take your word for the errors, and for the unethical way that they are presented.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
...What does this have to do with the Trail of Blood? Not much - just a demonstration that the professional historians and recognized scholars can make some pretty big gaffs also. Since you are penning part of the strength of anti-Landmark books on scholarship, it does have some relevance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure... fine... scholarly errors can be rebutted by scholarly refutation. I'm not saying that a person has to have 27 degrees and be recognized by every society in American academia, and have been knighted by Queen Elizabeth. I'm just saying that a refutation has to be of sufficient gravitas to be taken seriously, not just some Chick tract, or ad hominem diatribe about how the real Christians(landmarkers) can't trust the bastard daughters of the great whore church.

wow! that felt good, may I have another? I'm gonna provoke you more often Bro. vaughn,

cordially, and exhilarated,

CNM

[ July 13, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

"You left me with the inference that seemed to indicate that you regarded McGoldrick and J.M. Carroll's work to be on equal footing." No, I do not consider these to be of the same type work. I can only guess that Carroll's purpose was edification of Baptist churches by providing a small, readable booklet on their history. To classify it as propaganda is harsh. That would not only question his research (which you are free to do) but also impugn his motive (which I think you should not do).

"As I recall, Thornbury's general attitude toward B.H. Carroll was positive." etc. etc. My use of Thornbury's reference to B. H. Carroll is singular in nature. Anti-landmarkers, such as Thornbury, will forget and give high praise to the scholarship of (some) landmarkers. Then when they get to history they have to undo that by reminding us that they are not scholars.

"I was implying as a general matter, contemporary historiographic scholarly standards are more rigorous than when the vast majority of Landmarkers (that have been quoted here) wrote." I agree as a general matter, but that does not automatically negate their research nor their conclusions. On theology - in my opinion theological studies require a spiritual element not present in historical studies. A spiritual dearth in our country could at least partially explain our improvement in historiography and our decline in theology. (Not that the improvement in historiography is connected to the dearth, but that such studies are not affected by it)

"But I wouldn't want the readers to get the impression from your comment that this was just a nice presentation of an opposing view. From what I've been able to discern (with my meager skills), I would say it's, devastating to the Landmark view." I did say it is THE BEST!

"There is a difference between scholarly carelessness, which all will be guilty of from time to time, and propaganda . Once again I think it would be useful for you to state plainly your view of 'The Trail of Blood.'" See above with my comment about your comment about propaganda.

The reference to the "Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists" was not about the SBC per se, but about scholars - many of the same ones in the forefront of anti-landmarkism.

[ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
...To classify it as proganda is a harsh. That would not only question his research (which you are free to do) but also impugn his motive (which I think you should not do).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps my use of the the term "propoganda" is misleading. I mean to use it as ideological promotional literature as opposed to something useful contributed to the body of knowledge, (like a post on an internet forum.)

I do not mean to infer that anyone is intentionally lying. Rather, I'm merely implying that if one starts with their conclusion, they may permit evidence in support of it that is of a highly dubious nature, simply out of necessity.

Since Landmarkers, start with the premise that they are the only true churches, it is logical to assume they feel no moral or spiritual obligation to the rest of the Church of Jesus Christ, since they don't believe it exists anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
Anti-landmarkers, such as Thornbury, will forget and give high praise to the scholarship of (some) landmarkers. Then when they get to history they have to undo that by reminding us that they are not scholars.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well possibly they should go after motive instead of credentials. The point I've been making is that an objective-Landmarker is an oxy-moron, is it not? I don't say that as a gratutious insult, it just stands to reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I agree as a general matter, but that does not automatically negate their research nor their conclusions.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suspect you are writing in a theoretical sense here. If not, perhaps you would care to show where McGoldrick has dismissed out-of-hand some compelling research done by a Landmarker writer.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
I did say it was THE BEST!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forgive me if I seem ungrateful for your compliment, but the BEST bronco-buster in Boston, the BEST ballet-dancer in Galveston, the BEST snow-skier in the U.S. Virgin Islands, while complimentary in form, lack a certain force that would give the honor value enough to take to the bank.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rlvaughn:
The reference to the Encyclopedia of Southern Baptists was not about the SBC per se, but about scholars - many of the same ones in the forefront against landmarkism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your reference is a little oblique and it seems to want to create a distraction. If you have some evidence that would discredit some particular person as dishonest or sloppy it might be useful to post it.

But, the burden would still be there of refuting the conclusion that various ancient schismatics were not Baptists and then a positive case as to why they should be regarded as Baptists would need to be made.

More than that, I would be interested in a exegetical/theological rebuttel of Thornbury's book.

cordially,

CNM

 

"I mean to use it as ideological promotional literature..." Calling the 'Trail of Blood' promotional literature is fine with me. At least you and I are not guilty of promoting what we believe on the Baptist Board.

"...I'm merely implying that if one starts with their conclusion..." Where else can we start? The problem is when we let our prejudices keep us from learning.

"Well possibly they should go after motive instead of credentials." Motive is much harder to pin down than credentials. "The point I've been making is that an objective-Landmarker is an oxy-moron, is it not?" I believe that an objective anything is an 'oxymoron'. Try putting whatever you are after the word objective and see if it fits.

"I suspect you are writing in a theoretical sense here." You suspect correctly.

"Forgive me if I seem ungrateful for your compliment, but the BEST bronco-buster in Boston...while complimentary in form, lack a certain force that would give the honor value enough to take to the bank." Forgive me if I cannot be too overzealous in the praise of a theory with which I disagree. Only one who isn't a landmarker can say that the book is "devastating to the Landmark view." But I do think I can agree that he is cogent, penetrating, and thorough.

"If you have some evidence that would discredit some particular person as dishonest or sloppy it might be useful to post it." I will accuse none of dishonesty. I don't know anything about the 'why'. If you will get the 4 volumes and notice the editorial committee and general committee you will have the names of those that I would say were sloppy - though some probably only by default. Here are a few names that might be most relevant to Baptist History and landmarkism: Robert A. Baker, W. Morgan Patterson, H. Leon McBeth, James E. Tull, and Duke McCall. As far as evidence, if you like I will post some on here, although it could get lengthy and impractical. I will be glad to make copies of statements from the ESB and copies of original documents and mail them to you. If you want this, e-mail me.

"But, the burden would still be there of refuting the conclusion..." I have not attempted to remove the burden. I am saying that I have sufficient reason to be cautious of the conclusions of some of these fellows based on documented evidence of their poor research in the past. This DOES NOT give me liberty to dismiss their research out of hand, but it DOES give me reason to be careful of known sloppistorians.

"More than that, I would be interested in a exegetical/theological rebuttel of Thornbury's book." A scholarly 'rebuttel' might be beyond the scope of this board, but it is certainly beyond the time I have to do it now. It is a bird of a different color, and should also go in a different forum. Perhaps in the future we can take up a topic specifically on it.