J.M. Carroll book

[rsr]

To be fair to Carroll, the booklet is a summary of his lecture notes and contain no documentation.

But there is little or no documentation for practically any of his suppositions. The famous quote of Hosius has not been found by any other historian that I know of.

Why does he put Tertullian into the line? Tertullian was a dedicated advocate of baptismal generation and a proto-charismatic.

From reading the book you might get the idea Savaranola was a Reformer.

He hardly deals with English Baptist history at all. The only prominent English Baptist he mentions is John Bunyan. (Interesting, because Bunyan practiced open communion and did not require baptism to participate in the Lord's Supper.)

Why does Carroll resort to a secular source to determine the origin of the modern Anabaptists? Anabaptist historians accept Mennonites, etc., as branches of the Reformation, which should be evident by the centrality of Grebel in the Anabaptist movement.

The famous chart, of course, contains no documentation, just flat assertions.

Too many filling in of gaps when the evidence isn't there.

 

[Bethany]

The problem that I have with "Trail of Blood" is that Carroll is quick to claim fellowship with any ancient group that was not a part of the Catholic church.

Many of these ancient groups held beliefs that no Baptist could agree with. Some denied Jesus' divinity. Others his humanity. Just because they were not a part of the "Catholic" Church does not mean they held orthodox beliefs.

From my understanding, "Trail of Blood" was originially delivered as a series of lectures. It was probably never meant to be a scholarly work on the evolution of the church. The historical fact is that the Baptist church arose in the 17th century. This is nothing to be ashamed of. People who deny this put themselves on shaky historical ground.

 

[rsr]

Well, you've jumped right into the fire with your first post. Welcome to the board.

 

[Bro. James]

One problem: There is no such thing as "The Baptist Church"--only in the minds of the universalists.

The historicity of New Testament Assemblies throughout the age is built on the solemn promise of the Lord Jesus Christ--"I will never leave you or forsake you."

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[mioque]

James
What we disagree on is not the promise made by Jezus, but the way he made it come true.
You seem to have simply decided for Jezus how he should keep his promises and have reshaped the history of Christianity to match that.

"Carroll is quick to claim fellowship with any ancient group that was not a part of the Catholic church. "
"
To make the irony even more delicious is that some of these groups saw themselves as reformmovements that were inside and part of the Catholic Church. Often going as far as choosing their own bishops in regions where they had a presence and trying to get these accepted as the official and only Catholic bishop in those regions.

 

[Bro. James]

One of my initial premises: this is not about a name--all those who opposed Rome were not necessarily New Testament Assemblies. One has to look at how they practiced The Faith Once Delivered to the Saints.

The gates of hell have still not prevailed--the Bride is still alive and well--the pillar and ground of the Truth--just like Jesus promised.

He has been faithful--the blood of the Saints is splattered all over the pages of history--a witness that Jesus was with them through their persecutions. Wake up--the Bridegroom is coming--it is time to trim the lamps.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[mioque]

"the blood of the Saints is splattered all over the pages of history"
"
Jezus kept his promise better than you think, a great many christians have been murdered for their faith but not the many tens of millions that are sometimes claimed.

"all those who opposed Rome were not necessarily New Testament Assemblies."
"
In a sense that is to bad for you, I know a number of Christian communities that are just as old as the Roman Rite, opposed to it and nobody on earth disputes their great age.

 

[Bro. James]

How old is the Roman rite?

They claim authority through apostolic/papal succession all the way back to the Apostle Peter-the pebble in Matthew 16. In reality their authenticity stands or falls on the meaning of that scripture. The corollary to that is: if Rome has not the authority, neither do her daughters. That is a bit of a dilema if one is interested in scriptural authority and from whence it cometh.

I have been unable to trace the "Roman Rite" prior to Constantine the Great marrying the "Church?" and the Roman State circa 325 A.D. which is also the time frame for the Council of Nicea--someone said Constantine was the one who called this council.

I do not doubt that there were assemblies like Pergamos, Thiatyra, Sardis etc. which sent out missionaries. Some may still exist.

Thank you for your input,

Selah,
Bro. James

 

[dean198]

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.

The teaching of the "local church" is a departure from the original Baptist teaching (both General and Particular) and is a result of the influence of Congregationalism. It was not held by the Anabaptists either - all of these groups taught that the sum local churches comprised the - yes - visible, and universal church. They denied the invisible church - again from Congregationalism and Protestantism.

Williams became a Baptist for just a few months, and then became a Seeker.

Dean

 

[R. Charles Blair]

Dear board posters - For several weeks I have been "covered up" with other things and haven't even looked at the Board; having just read the 4 pages of this thread makes me regret the absence!
This one is fun - even if the language did get a bit out of sorts at one point. Several remarks:

Church historians of Carroll's period often did not give documentation to their lectures, even when those were published. Examples: William Williams, who followed Whitsett at Southern (SBTS in Louisville); even Whitsett himself, whose work I have in a copy once owned by one of his students who was my first Bible teacher. Carroll actually gave a bit more documentation than some.

The issue is not the word "Baptist," a term first commonly used in the 1600s (after John's day!), but the essential doctrines it identifies:
salvation by grace apart from any sacraments, the priesthood of believers, local congregational autonomy under Christ, of course believer's immersion. Are there saved people who do not hold all these? Millions! And all the saved are the family of God, born again. Saved folks who gather in local assemblies holding these basic doctrines from New Testament times on are part of the chain strongly implied by Paul in II Tim. 2:2.

To Moderator RSR: Many have disagreed with J. M. Carroll; to disagree is not to discredit, in any formal sense. Many who have disagreed have done so with far less documentation than he had.
And much of "Baptist hagiography" pre-dates A. Campbell. It is true that it was a polemic age when even Methodists debated! But Baptist writers
long before Campbell used many, if not most, of the same ideas later found in Carroll, etc.

As to Roger Williams, in his "Collected Writings" (I have the note and can look up the Volume and page if someone wants it), he said: "I was never a Baptist, though I walked with my neigbors in the Baptist way for a time; but I was never a Baptist, since my baptism went not back to John." (quoted from memory, not verbally inspired!) In any case, the work of which he was a part dissolved; the John Clarke congregagtion in Newport RI was there a year before, and was unquestionably Baptist. Friend Mioque, many have tried to deny Baptist churches in England before 1641, but John T. Christian did his research in the musty old records in England and proved that the only thing that happened in 1641 was the abolition of the Star Chamber which allowed more liberty to publish one's views.

As to the 1641-44 First London Confession, Article XLVII reads: "AND although the particular congregations be distinct, and several [individual - RCB] bodies, every one as a compact and knit city within itself; yet are they all to walk by one rule of truth; so also they (by all means convenient) are to have the counsel and help one of another; if necessity require it, as members of one body, in the common faith, under Christ their head." (several Scripture refs)
The 1689 confession, strongly influenced by the Presbyterians, modified that congregationalism.

A brief word to PastorJeff: of course death does not end our standing with God, either as to salvation OR rewards. "Bride" is a metaphor for rewards for faithfulness; see II Cor. 11:1-4. If you will tell me how we can take the second step in obedience while deliberately avoiding the first when we know it, I'll know more than I do.

I strongly agree with Bro. James that the issue is not denominationalism, but local churches, however few, however scattered, even not knowing or knowing of one another, sometimes not recognizing one another because of some small item, however differing in such incidentals. The history of these kinds of congregations contains much that is false, but if we have a succession of NT ideas, it is among these despised and persecuted people rather than among the state or established "churches" which formalized and legalized true NT faith.

As to British Baptists denying that they were "Anabaptists," so did Menno Simons! In his collected works, over and over, he says, "I am not an Anabaptist." "We are not Anabaptists." As Mioque will agree, no one is more the paradigm of the Anabaptist! Did he simply mean, "We do not 'rebaptize,' as these other folks were never baptized in the first place"? That is my "read" on Menno and the London Confession, and other denials of "anabaptism" - not just to avoid some persecution, but to stress a doctrine.

We all SAY "sola Scriptora," and then proceed to spout our own opinions, as I have just done at great length. With apologies for that, I still wish all of you His best - Charles Blair - Ro. 8:28

 

[rsr]

Charles, good to hear from you again.

"Many have disagreed with J. M. Carroll; to disagree is not to discredit, in any formal sense. Many who have disagreed have done so with far less documentation than he had."

I cannot think of any modern Baptist historian who accepts Carroll entirely, or even a majority of his assumptions.

"And much of 'Baptist hagiography' pre-dates A. Campbell. It is true that it was a polemic age when even Methodists debated! But Baptist writers
long before Campbell used many, if not most, of the same ideas later found in Carroll, etc."

Yes, but it acquired a special pungency after the the advent of the Campbellites.

Williams is a wild card, though his writings are a must-read. I have never denied the importance of Clarke (BAPTIST PROFILES) and consider his "Ill News from New England" a Baptist classic.

"many have tried to deny Baptist churches in England before 1641"

Don't count me among them; I assume you refer to Whitsitt's contention that immersion was "reacquired" in that year. However, it has been said that the Reformed tradition has nothing to do with Baptists; there is strong documentation of the influence of the Reformed tradition. It may not be the only tradition, but it is documented and clear from the historical record.

"I strongly agree with Bro. James that the issue is not denominationalism, but local churches, however few, however scattered, even not knowing or knowing of one another, sometimes not recognizing one another because of some small item, however differing in such incidentals. The history of these kinds of congregations contains much that is false, but if we have a succession of NT ideas, it is among these despised and persecuted people rather than among the state or established "churches" which formalized and legalized true NT faith."

That may be, but picking out this group and that, without any real knowledge of what they believed and practiced, is not history, it is theology.

"That is my 'read' on Menno and the London Confession, and other denials of 'anabaptism' - not just to avoid some persecution, but to stress a doctrine."

Perhaps. But the Baptists also were taking pains to show that withdrawal from civil society (and their recognition of the legitimacy of civil authority) was not part of their doctrine.

I try not to be dogmatic on Baptist history because there is so much that is shrouded in mystery; but those who disagree with me I do not consider to be heretics, nor believers in false doctrine, nor not "true Baptists."

[ October 23, 2004, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[R. Charles Blair]

Dear friend and brother - Thanx for the prompt reply! Just a few comments:

Nor can I think of one modern historian who fully agrees with Whitsitt, or most of his assumptions. Many besides Whitsitt tried to hold the "1641 theory," but that has been blasted out of the water by solid research. More information brings more light; if Carroll wrote today, I much doubt that he would include the Montanists in our heritage. They are not necessary, as most local congregations were still essentially sound; they went quickly into heresy, which often happens with our Baptist freedom. As to Tertullian, any comments about his views must take into account his union with Montanism, which brought it more
"respectability" because of his trained legal mind and scholarly reputation, much different from Montanus who called himself "the Holy Spirit." But that information was not fully available to Carroll when he wrote. I much doubt that Whitsitt would agree with his own major thesis if he had the information available today.

Campbell's "Christian Baptist" began in 1823, and that is a convenient date to mark the origin of
"Campbellism," which continued as a heresy among Baptists for several years before finally being moved out by a slow process of discussion and discipline, and often by a head-on collision as in FBC Nashville, which remained Baptist by one vote leading to the "First Christian Church" of Nashville (TN) being formed. But the early journals of associational life in North America make clear the strong emphasis on congregational autonomy; most were totally opposed to any sort of "convention," and shy even on associationalism.
I'm sure you have access to Baker's "Baptist Source Book"; note the discussions of the 1700's up to 1814, Part II, pps. 9ff. If you do not have this at hand, I'd be glad to send along a few choice "landmark" quotes. I'm not denying that the Campbell controversy was crucial, just suggesting that it only solidified what most Baptists had always believed about church authority, government, etc. Just one quote, from p. 11, ESSAY on the Authority of Associations adopted by the Philadelphia Association in 1749:

"Such churches there must be agreeing in doctrine and practice, and independent in their authority and church power, before they can enter into a confederation . . . to associate together; and thus the several independent churches being the constituents, the association, council or assembly of their delegates [sic], when assembled, is not to be deemed a superior judicature, as having a superintendency over the churches, but subservient to the churches . . . for if the agreement of several distinct churches, in sound doctrine and regular practice, be the first motive, ground, and foundation or basis of their confederation, then it must naturally follow, that a defection in doctrine or practice in any church, in such confederation, or any party in any such church, is ground sufficient for an Association to withdraw from such a church or party . . . to the end they may be ashamed." The next paragraph goes on to talk about redeeming such congregations. Their statements of faith (see also Lumpkin, "Baptist Confessions of Faith," which I'm sure you have) are clearly successionist, as they required a "regular" baptism as a basis for membership in a local congregation. (See John Gano's report on the Opekon (VA) disorders and how they were remedied, Baker, p. 12, as an example.) They were certainly energized by Campbell, as the New Hampshire Confession (1833) indicates, but the primary influence in that statement was the issue of Calvinism, as seen in the "Primitive" division of that same time.

It would be helpful to use L. J. Mosheim's work as a basis for seeing the varied views of the several groups up to his day. Frequently he makes our case on specific movements. But we must remember (to avoid that dogmatism) that these folks often had never heard of one another, and were all "tarred with the same brush" by a state religion that saw no difference in any individuality - it was all called demonic by that power, while we return the "compliment"!

My primary assumption is that Matthew 16:18 and 28:18-20, along with Eph. 3:20-21, are not only true (there we all agree),but that they refer to local congregations, not to some sort of "universal church." That idea has been used to persecute true NT faith, which is always personal and free under God, far too often. Some hold it only as an abstract, but when it becomes popular, it quickly becomes "concrete" in the hands of those who wish to lord it over others.
"Ecclesia" demands (Gr.) the ability to assemble; no "universal ecclesia" could possibly do so.

Well, off the soapbox and on to other matters - as you probably are, I'm preparing to preach in just a few hours, and need the rest of the evening. I'll try to check in briefly tomorrow evening, then won't be back to the screen for several days. Best- Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

[rsr]

Thanks for the reply, Charles.

To put it bluntly, NO modern historian agrees with a majority of Carroll's assertions. Whitsitt, though flawed, was found correct (or at least believable) in his major thesis by A.J. Newman (reluctanlty, and there is a cloud over his whole handling of the controversy) and by succeeding scholars. This, so far, as I know has not changed.

The "universal church" is a concept that can be abused, but I don't know how one can accept Matthew 16:18 as referring only to a single local church or ignore Ephesians 5:25. Or Acts 8:3.

But I do not wish to get into theology, because this is a history forum.

Gano and the Separates were at odds over doctrine and, perhaps more importantly, over style and education (East vs. West).

I would recommend:

SHUBAL STEARNS AND THE SEPARATE BAPTIST TRADITION

Again, it's always a pleasure to talk.

P.S. You must have an awesome library.

 

[Bethany]

I have been unable to trace the "Roman Rite" prior to Constantine the Great marrying the "Church?" and the Roman State circa 325 A.D. which is also the time frame for the Council of Nicea--someone said Constantine was the one who called this council.

Bro. James, could you please define for me what you mean by "Roman Rite"?

Constantine did not "marry" the church and state. He simply put an end to the official policy of persecuting Christians by making it Christianity legal. Wouldn't you agree that was a good thing? I'm sure the Christians of that era were happy that they no longer had to worry about the periodic persecutions at the whim of the Emporer. Now that was the true "Trail of Blood".

 

[mioque]

James
"I have been unable to trace the "Roman Rite" prior to Constantine the Great marrying the "Church?" and the Roman State circa 325 A.D."
"
Using sources like the Apostolic Fathers (among others) It can easily be traced 2+ centuries farther back.

"I do not doubt that there were assemblies like Pergamos, Thiatyra, Sardis etc. which sent out missionaries. Some may still exist."
"
All 3 located in modernday turkey if I'm not mistaken, those churches and the churches started by their missionaries, mostly became State churches of the Byzantine Empire (talk about having ties to an emperor) and were mostly wiped out by Islam some centuries later. Those who did not became Oriental-Orthodox churches like the Nestorians, some of these also may have survived.

 

[R. Charles Blair]

rsr - Yes, I'm familiar with Shubal Stearns, but thanx for the ref.

One note on an earlier question, Hosius - Council of Trent, 1524-63): the ref. in question is from
"Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera", pp. 112-113.

One of the major issues which led the Novatianists
and Donatists to break with those churches which accepted Constantine's "establishment" was local church self-government. While they frequently used some term such as "catholic" in the sense of universal, it seems in the writings of the dissenters to refer to "one kind of congregation,"
wherever found. That is, rather than one "big church," there were churches of the same kind to be found universally. From that grew the idea of
"one church" with "one head," a development from 325 until Boniface III received the title
"Universal Patriarch" from Emperor Phocus.

One of the key issues through the "Dark Ages" was local congregational self-government, a rejection of "papal authority." Constantine's well-meaning
"embrace" of Christianity was considered a "death hug" by those who wished to maintain self-governing congregations, each with Christ as Head.
Quotations could be multiplied. To be sure, many individual believers (like Savanarola, mentioned in one of the posts above) remained in the state religion, yet presented personal faith and purity as the New Testament standard. The difference in true NT congregations was believer's immersion rather than infant "baptism" (of any sort), and local church self-government. Mioque doesn't care for his work, but Leonard Verduin has some excellent insights on those points, and Mosheim documents them more fully (and no one could call those fellows "landmarkers"!)

Looking forward to a quieter time when I can visit more with all of you - Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

[Bro. James]

True Trail of Blood--

"They that live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution."

How do we explain the emperor "chairing" a "church council"?

How do we explain the "cross" on the banner of the Roman Empire?

Selah,

Bro. James

 

[rsr]

"One note on an earlier question, Hosius - Council of Trent, 1524-63): the ref. in question is from
'Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera', pp. 112-113."

Yes, I know. But is there any evidence this exists? Not that I know of.

"To be sure, many individual believers (like Savanarola, mentioned in one of the posts above) remained in the state religion, yet presented personal faith and purity as the New Testament standard."

Yes, but so did St. Francis. Savanarola was entirely "orthodox" within the Latin Rite Church in regard to doctrine.

 

[dean198]

One note on an earlier question, Hosius - Council of Trent, 1524-63): the ref. in question is from
"Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera", pp. 112-113.

I tried finding such a reference once....it didn't appear to exist....Catholic apologists say that it was made up....unfortunately this isn't the first time careless Baptist historians have invented quotes that apparently don't exist.

One of the major issues which led the Novatianists
and Donatists to break with those churches which accepted Constantine's "establishment" was local church self-government. While they frequently used some term such as "catholic" in the sense of universal, it seems in the writings of the dissenters to refer to "one kind of congregation,"
wherever found. That is, rather than one "big church," there were churches of the same kind to be found universally.

This is pure make-believe - the Donatists and Novationists had no problem with the catholic organization - in fact it was the Donatists who appealed to Constantine for the official benefits which the catholics were receiving. Novation was a presbyter of the church of Rome....he opposed the restoration of those who had apostasised....he was so strict and severe I doubt anyone here would agree with him.

One of the key issues through the "Dark Ages" was local congregational self-government, a rejection of "papal authority." ... Quotations could be multiplied.

This, again, is fantasy.....the Waldenses, Anabaptists etc, did not believe in local, congregational self-government - this was a congregational idea from the Protestant Reformation....show us some of these quotes - they rejected the papacy and infant baptism, not hte catholic view of a visible, universal church.

 

[Bro. James]

Re: Apologists of Rome

They are notorious for skewing the record including the scripture (the apostle Peter is not the Rock on which Jesus is building His Assembly--Mt. 16:18). When the primacy of Peter fails, the Roman Church is no more, probably never was, along with her orthodox brothers and reformed daughters.

And it would not be the first time they "covered up" illicit practices from the priesthood--the recent "pedophile" scandal is nothing new. It is curious how they rationalize this situation: they say the universal church is made up of saints and sinners, and everything will be all right.

"It is no wonder, Satan himself is become an angel of light."

Selah,

Bro. James