Excerpts from the Trail of Blood

Bro. vaughn, I think we've milked this thread for all it's worth. Anything else that could be useful would take it too far beyond the scope of this thread. All of this you have intimated so I'm not trying to capture the moment and unilaterally close the matter, I just consider myself as agreeing with you. I do want to start a thread on the doctrine of the "Church" generally, but I'm gonna wait about a week or so. If one comes to the fore in the meantime I will try to participate.

On some general notes to your most recent post...

you quoted and wrote:

"...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... as I've stated before in relation to this issue, and others both on and off the BB, there is no such thing as a non-biased person. However, after saying that, the premise behind historiographic research(as near as I can tell) is supposed to be similar in form to that of archeology. Which implies that one follows where the trail leads.

{With the acknowledgement in full view of universal bias} I am asserting that the ones who are most successful at restraining their prejudices from manipulating the data tend to earn the higher regard as scholars in general. One problem that I see with this, is, in Christian circles the apologetic impulse drives us all.

In McGoldrick's case, what would be interesting to know is when and why did he leave the Landmark position for the Protestant position? If he were persuaded by the theological argument at first, then some critics might make the accusation against him that he was being vengeful toward those who he felt had previously deceived him. Of course, all such musing is utter speculation.

What we KNOW, is that he is a recognized scholar of history and he is a former Landmarker. One could make extrapulation in the other direction from that co-incidence, but that would also be speculative in nature.

I think you might make the mistake that... all who are not Landmarkers are then anti-Landmarkers. But that would also be, I believe, a non-sequitor. Because we should also recognize the non-Landmarker as well.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>I would be curious to find out if there ever was a credible historian(who was unaware of the Landmark view) who came to the independent-conclusion that these ancient schismatics look an awful lot like Baptists. Don't you think that would be interesting, and frankly, telling? I suspect that there never has been such a person, what do you think?
[/list]

cordially,

CNM

[ July 16, 2001: Message edited by: CorpseNoMore ]

 

"I think we've milked this thread for all it's worth." I agree and am willing to stop posting to this thread. I will make a few comments, try to keep them brief, and try not to bring up anything new.

"I think you might make the mistake that... all who are not Landmarkers are then anti-Landmarkers...Because we should also recognize the non-Landmarker as well." I have not made that mistake, and hope my posts do not seem to indicate such. I think I have used both terms in this discussion, but perhaps without definition. I made a conscious decision to call certain fellows 'anti-landmarkers'. I would consider all Baptists who do not hold Landmark ecclesiology to be non-landmarkers; I would consider any non-landmarkers actively engaged in trying to "debunk" Landmark ecclesiology to be anti-landmarkers. I do not feel that is too much of a stretch when applied to McGoldrick, Thornbury, et. al.

"I would be curious to find out if there ever was a credible historian (who was unaware of the Landmark view) who came to the independent conclusion that these ancient schismatics look an awful lot like Baptists." I have two books in my library that are by writers outside the Landmark camp that use a list of "ancient schismatics" that is surprisingly similar to the 'Trail of Blood'. I do not say they are credible, historians, or unaware of the Landmark view - I simply don't know. The 2 books are 'A Concise History of the Church of God' by John M. Penner (Church of God in Christ, Mennonite) and 'The Baptists in All Ages' by Elder J. S. Newman (Primitive Baptist). I know nothing of Penner and only that Newman was a highly respected elder among the Old Line Primitive Baptists. Both are much later than Graves' work, so either of them could have been familiar with Landmark histories [Newman's writings (1912) would have preceded the 'Trail of Blood' and Penner's book (1951) would have followed it]. "Don't you think that would be interesting, and frankly, telling?" Interesting? Perhaps. Telling? Not really, since we have both admitted the general absence of a freedom from bias.