Please help me to understand if Trail of Blood was merely written to document a history of Baptist churches; is it possible that it has been used by some of its readers to *prove* that the Baptist church is the only true church? I apologize for any naivete that my question implies, but I am aware of many churches today that are named Bible churches or community churches that hold to true biblical doctrine of salvation; the only difference might be in church polity, i.e., elder board rule instead of congregational rule. I would like to clarify my understanding of this book.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
J.M. Carroll book
- Thread starter Ellkaybee
- Start date
pastorjeff
New Member
I feel you may have it correct. I don't think Carrol intended it to be seen this way, but I think some crouds may use it as proof that baptists have literally existed since the apostles. I believe there are all different groups of Christians who can claim that same history. Anyone who holds to sound doctrine can be included as those who have kept the faith.
In the 19th century there was a period in US history, when there was a strongly felt need by some for a more impressive American religious past.
That past did not exist, so certain people started to make it up. Either by downscaling the religious past of others, or by making up from whole cloth an impressive sounding religious history for themselves.
Some (certainly not all) of the anti-catholicism of that century serves as a good example of the first tendency and both Mormonism and Trail of Blood are examples of the second.
"is it possible that it has been used by some of its readers to *prove* that the Baptist church is the only true church?"
"
Certainly.
That past did not exist, so certain people started to make it up. Either by downscaling the religious past of others, or by making up from whole cloth an impressive sounding religious history for themselves.
Some (certainly not all) of the anti-catholicism of that century serves as a good example of the first tendency and both Mormonism and Trail of Blood are examples of the second.
"is it possible that it has been used by some of its readers to *prove* that the Baptist church is the only true church?"
"
Certainly.
To expand upon my remark, Mioque, there was an intense dispute among the Baptists and Campbellites during the Second Great Awakening; who congregationns of Baptists became Campbellites, and the movement split numerous churches.
Both the Baptists and Campbellites claimed to be authentic primitive Christians. My belief is that much of Baptist hagiography was deveveloped as a rebuttal to the Campbellites' assertion that they were the authentic church. (Spurgeon would be an example of a Baptist outside that tradition.)
Both the Baptists and Campbellites claimed to be authentic primitive Christians. My belief is that much of Baptist hagiography was deveveloped as a rebuttal to the Campbellites' assertion that they were the authentic church. (Spurgeon would be an example of a Baptist outside that tradition.)
And Thomas Armitage as a New Yorker.
Armitage seems to be an Anabaptist-influence historian, not a to-the-Jordan-successionist.
"The founders of Plymouth were not Puritans, or Non-conformists, but Separatists, who had paid a great price for their freedom, and had come from an independent congregation in Leyden."
"ROGER WILLIAMS, having adopted the old Baptist principle of absolute soul-liberty and given it practical effect in the civil provisions which he had devised, could not stop there. This deep moral truth carried with it certain logical outworkings concerning human duty as well as its rights, and as his doctrine could not stand alone in his thought, he was compelled to take another step forward. Relieved from all outside authority in matters of conscience, to which he had formerly submitted, he was now directly responsible to God for the correctness of his faith and practice, and by all that he had suffered he was bound to walk in an enlightened conscience. This compelled him to inquire what obedience God demanded of him personally, and threw him directly back upon his word as to his personal duty in the matter of baptism. While an infant he had been christened, but having now put himself under the supreme Headship of Christ, without the intervention of human authority, he found himself at a step on pure Baptist ground, and determined to be baptized on his own faith."
No succesionist that I know of would accept Williams as a true Baptist.
"The founders of Plymouth were not Puritans, or Non-conformists, but Separatists, who had paid a great price for their freedom, and had come from an independent congregation in Leyden."
"ROGER WILLIAMS, having adopted the old Baptist principle of absolute soul-liberty and given it practical effect in the civil provisions which he had devised, could not stop there. This deep moral truth carried with it certain logical outworkings concerning human duty as well as its rights, and as his doctrine could not stand alone in his thought, he was compelled to take another step forward. Relieved from all outside authority in matters of conscience, to which he had formerly submitted, he was now directly responsible to God for the correctness of his faith and practice, and by all that he had suffered he was bound to walk in an enlightened conscience. This compelled him to inquire what obedience God demanded of him personally, and threw him directly back upon his word as to his personal duty in the matter of baptism. While an infant he had been christened, but having now put himself under the supreme Headship of Christ, without the intervention of human authority, he found himself at a step on pure Baptist ground, and determined to be baptized on his own faith."
No succesionist that I know of would accept Williams as a true Baptist.
Thank you for this reply; your last statement is what I have always believed. It just wasn't making sense to me that an extra-biblical book was seen as a "proof-text" for one denomination to be considered the true church. I am now reading a book by Roy M. Reed, The Glorious Church: nine positive ways to identify the New Testament Church. On p. 41, he seems to be saying that the SAVED are the family of God, whereas only people who are in a local, visible institution (the church) are the Bride of Christ. I think he is probably arguing against the notion of the church universal. Has anybody read this book, and if so, does it support the same theory as J.M. Carrol's book? I am sincerely trying to get these teachings sorted out.
pastorjeff
New Member
I haven't read the book, but what your saying doesn't make sence. If only thos in a local visible church are th Bride then that means if I die before Christ comes I will no longer be a part of that. I don't think it's the same theory as Carrol's book. Carol was arguing the Baptist heritage can be traced back to ( john the Baptizer some would say). I will have to read that book to get the idea of context.
Succession of New Testament Churches from the First to today:
Is supported by scripture: Mt. 16:18, Eph. 3:21.
This is not about a name--it is about The Faith (and Practice) once delivered to the saints. Ref: Jude 3. That this Faith and Practice was and is Baptistic is supported by secular history, some of which is pointed out by J.M. Carroll, etal, in centuries other than the 19th.
Note: True Churches are not a denomination. There is no such thing as The Baptist Church.
The problem with most of the debate on this matter is that the sovereign, New Testament Church which is local and visible only, does not fit through the paradigm of the Universal Invisible church/Universal Visible heresies.
More mid-night reading: "The Baptist Bride", O.B. Mink.
Selah,
Bro. James
Is supported by scripture: Mt. 16:18, Eph. 3:21.
This is not about a name--it is about The Faith (and Practice) once delivered to the saints. Ref: Jude 3. That this Faith and Practice was and is Baptistic is supported by secular history, some of which is pointed out by J.M. Carroll, etal, in centuries other than the 19th.
Note: True Churches are not a denomination. There is no such thing as The Baptist Church.
The problem with most of the debate on this matter is that the sovereign, New Testament Church which is local and visible only, does not fit through the paradigm of the Universal Invisible church/Universal Visible heresies.
More mid-night reading: "The Baptist Bride", O.B. Mink.
Selah,
Bro. James
Thanks for all the good replies. We have followed the teaching of Bro. David Cloud for many years now, and his web site was one of several that came up when I was doing a search on Baptist Bride. His site (www.wayoflife.org) was very helpful due to his posting of many articles & resources dealing with Baptist history. I'm starting to get some of my confusion cleared up. Thanks again for your helpfulness.
"Most people believe exactly what they want to believe--regardless of the facts."ANON.
Corollary: We will draw conclusions from unnecessary inferences.
Example: there is evidence that Roger Williams was never a Baptist. Further, that the First Baptist Church in the colonies was one lead over from the British Isles in 1638. Evidence still exists in Newport, Rhode Island.
Such does not fit the paradigm of Church History for many who call themselves historians.
It does fit the paradigm of succession of The Faith Once (for All) Delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. The gates of hell have not prevailed against Her.
Selah,
Bro. James
Corollary: We will draw conclusions from unnecessary inferences.
Example: there is evidence that Roger Williams was never a Baptist. Further, that the First Baptist Church in the colonies was one lead over from the British Isles in 1638. Evidence still exists in Newport, Rhode Island.
Such does not fit the paradigm of Church History for many who call themselves historians.
It does fit the paradigm of succession of The Faith Once (for All) Delivered to the Saints, Jude 3. The gates of hell have not prevailed against Her.
Selah,
Bro. James
Yes, praise God!
To quote further from Jude 3:
"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation . . .and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered to the saints."
What I was puzzling over was the notion that some writers have implied that only members of an unaffiliated Baptist church are the Bride of Christ; the rest of the saved are then referred to as the Family of God. That almost seems like *works* which would glorify man, rather than God. A bit of a question here: "What did all those earlier Christians believe about who was actually included in the Bride of Christ before some of these books were written?
Whatever happened to the idea of using Scripture as our guide for faith and practice? It seems as if too much importance is placed on some of these types of books.
This is not about a name. This is about a Faith and Practice which has been in every century since the first. The word Christian was given by their enemies. The word Baptist is short for Anabaptist. Both are terms applied by enemies.
Anabaptist is a catch-all term applied by the "Holy See" and some of her daughters to those who would re-baptize those who would unite with them. The re-baptizers in actuality regarded the baptism of the "holy see" as invalid--the baptisms of the daughters as well.
This amounted to no small amount of consternation from the Vatican, Germany,Canterbury and other centers of ecclesiastical persecution down through the age.
Anabaptists were burned, beheaded, drowned and exiled for not bowing to the authority of Rome. These are all historical facts which can be gleaned from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Most of the other records were burned. Samuel Morland's, "History of the Evangelical Churches in the Valleys of Piedmont" has survived. He was a "neutral" observer in this matter--if there is such a thing as that--we all have our own set of paradigms.
Another document, History of the Inquisitions, written by a Catholic, is a good source of what happened to heretics.
My point about a baptist congregation in the colonies in 1638 is a counterpoint to those who have stated that the first baptist church in the colonies was started by Roger Williams in 1639.
What I get out of reading about Roger Williams is that he did have a problem with authority for baptism and such, and may have been exposed to some baptistic practices. But he never started anything authentic--he could not have done so without proper authority. Getting a group together and baptizing each other does not constitute the foundation of a New Testament Church--never has.
Again, true Baptists are not a denomination. They do not claim to be able to trace a name back to the first assembly which Jesus started.
It is the "Baptist Faith and Practice" which is traceable throughout history. And She never went by way of Rome, Constantinople, or Wittenburg. She is the fulfillment of Mt. 16:18 and Eph. 3:21.
The problem with all of this is: what I have just stated will not fit through the paradigm of the universal church--visible or invisible.
So this historical fact is rejected as so much over-zealous rubbish of those uninformed and uneducated in the accepted ways of ecclessiastic procedure.
Selah,
Bro. James
Anabaptist is a catch-all term applied by the "Holy See" and some of her daughters to those who would re-baptize those who would unite with them. The re-baptizers in actuality regarded the baptism of the "holy see" as invalid--the baptisms of the daughters as well.
This amounted to no small amount of consternation from the Vatican, Germany,Canterbury and other centers of ecclesiastical persecution down through the age.
Anabaptists were burned, beheaded, drowned and exiled for not bowing to the authority of Rome. These are all historical facts which can be gleaned from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Most of the other records were burned. Samuel Morland's, "History of the Evangelical Churches in the Valleys of Piedmont" has survived. He was a "neutral" observer in this matter--if there is such a thing as that--we all have our own set of paradigms.
Another document, History of the Inquisitions, written by a Catholic, is a good source of what happened to heretics.
My point about a baptist congregation in the colonies in 1638 is a counterpoint to those who have stated that the first baptist church in the colonies was started by Roger Williams in 1639.
What I get out of reading about Roger Williams is that he did have a problem with authority for baptism and such, and may have been exposed to some baptistic practices. But he never started anything authentic--he could not have done so without proper authority. Getting a group together and baptizing each other does not constitute the foundation of a New Testament Church--never has.
Again, true Baptists are not a denomination. They do not claim to be able to trace a name back to the first assembly which Jesus started.
It is the "Baptist Faith and Practice" which is traceable throughout history. And She never went by way of Rome, Constantinople, or Wittenburg. She is the fulfillment of Mt. 16:18 and Eph. 3:21.
The problem with all of this is: what I have just stated will not fit through the paradigm of the universal church--visible or invisible.
So this historical fact is rejected as so much over-zealous rubbish of those uninformed and uneducated in the accepted ways of ecclessiastic procedure.
Selah,
Bro. James
Bro. James: "Again, true Baptists are not a denomination. They do not claim to be able to trace a name back to the first assembly which Jesus started. It is the "Baptist Faith and Practice" which is traceable throughout history."
Another good post--thank you; it, too, helps to clarify some things that had become kind of confusing. Further reading for me in the area of Baptist history is undoubtedly in order.
Another good post--thank you; it, too, helps to clarify some things that had become kind of confusing. Further reading for me in the area of Baptist history is undoubtedly in order.