"The Trail of Blood..."

[Matt Black]

If "Trail of Blood" successionism is true, how come the early PB confessions strongly denied all connection with the Anabaptists? Also, it's always sounded too close to the RC Apostolic Succession doctrine for me... (Been there, done that, swallowed the wafer...)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Daniel Dunivan]

Mark,

I would offer two other possiblities:

d. He believes that the evidence is tainted either innocently or maliciously (speaking of Christian).

e. He believes that the evidence does not warrant the interpretation you provide.

I am not McBeth, but I am a historian who knows that the evidence often presents itself as ambiguous or even contradictory. Also, I have seen enough tinkering with evidence and quotes taken out of context to be cautious about statements like those you quote from Christian which seem to be unreproducable.

Grace and Peace, Danny

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
Mark,

I would offer two other possiblities:

d. He believes that the evidence is tainted either innocently or maliciously (speaking of Christian).

e. He believes that the evidence does not warrant the interpretation you provide.

I am not McBeth, but I am a historian who knows that the evidence often presents itself as ambiguous or even contradictory. Also, I have seen enough tinkering with evidence and quotes taken out of context to be cautious about statements like those you quote from Christian which seem to be unreproducable.

Grace and Peace, Danny

Ho hum.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
If "Trail of Blood" successionism is true, how come the early PB confessions strongly denied all connection with the Anabaptists? Also, it's always sounded too close to the RC Apostolic Succession doctrine for me... (Been there, done that, swallowed the wafer...)

Yours in Christ

Matt

The Baptist confessions of the 16th century did not deny connection with the Anabaptists. They were the Anabaptists.

When they said they were "falsely called Anabaptists" they meant that the term "Anabaptist" was a slander and not an accurate discription of their character. They did not presume to "rebaptize" anyone. Their intention was to give real baptism to those who had previously received a bogus baptism.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Tanker]

Mark,

Seems to me that your responses to Daniel were vague and not to the point.

 

[mark]

Matt,
Been there.. done that... swallowed the wafer.. Great line, but because other groups claim apostolic succession and yet have embraced heresay doesn't make Baptist apostolic succession any more or any less true.

 

[Trapper]

Hello, Where can you get a copy of "The Trail of Blood"? I checked Amazon.com and it's not there.
Sincerely
Ol Trapper

 

[rsr]

It's readily available online and from many publishing houses and churches. Here's a link to both:

THE TRAIL OF BLOOD

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Daniel Dunivan:
Mark,

Could you please clarify what exactly is unhistorical about McBeth's approach? A bibliography of baptist histories and discussions of historiography could compile several pages, but you have made a specific indictment of McBeth's approach. On what specific grounds?

Grace and Peace, Danny

Danny,

McBeth either:

a. ignores facts that are inconsistent with his history or

b. is ignorant of facts with which he should be familiar or

c. both of the above.

See my post on the origin of the Baptists for starters and if you'd like I can give you more.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Mark, What kind of primary source information do you have to point out the wrongness of Dr. McBeth's book on Baptist history? I haven't seen you provide any concrete examples of that.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by gb93433:
Mark, What kind of primary source information do you have to point out the wrongness of Dr. McBeth's book on Baptist history? I haven't seen you provide any concrete examples of that.

I have given three primary sources of information in this forum which disprove McBeth's theory of Baptist origins which was first propogated by William Whitsitt and Henry Dexter over 100 years ago, and has been taken up by many other authors since that time. This information was either ignored or dismissed in a Cavalier manner. Here are the links if you want to review the information.

The Origin of the English Baptists

John Smyth

Twisted Historical Logic


Mark Osgatharp

 

[Matt Black]

Ah, but Mark these aren't primary documents, they are commentaries and as such are secondary sources. I have yet to come across any primary sources to back up the Trail of Blood claims

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Ah, but Mark these aren't primary documents, they are commentaries and as such are secondary sources.

Ah, but Matt, these are primary sources. All three are direct quotes from people who lived in the times in which the events under consideration happened. Just because John Christian quoted them doesn't make them secondary sources.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Frogman]

IMHO, a redeeming factor in favor of JM Carroll is that he did not initiate the idea of publishing the Trail of Blood.

As OT's on this forum know, I use and also provide copies of the work.

I would be in general agreement that it is not as in depth as other historical works; however, if we look at the pamphlet we find that Bro. Carroll was not backward in identifying the sources he used.

Now, we can all independently digest each of these sources and determine the validity of the pamphlet.

PB's still deny being landmarkist in alignment of church history. I would think this is related to other more significant divisions between PB's and most Landmarkers such as the view of soteriology. If this suggestion could be shown to be true, then a PB would not be able to fellowship with someone like Carroll anyway whether their view of church history was in line or not.

Bro. Dallas

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Mark, I think the situation here is a question of reproducable research. In other words, quoting Christian quoting primary sources is not quite the same thing as going back and confirming the quotes from the originals. Considering the lag between Brother Christian's time of labor and today, taking another look at the primary sources is not an unreasonable request.

Not having the time or reasources to confirm them myself, I'll just have to settle for Christian.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Squire Robertsson:
Mark, I think the situation here is a question of reproducable research. In other words, quoting Christian quoting primary sources is not quite the same thing as going back and confirming the quotes from the originals. Considering the lag between Brother Christian's time of labor and today, taking another look at the primary sources is not an unreasonable request.

Not having the time or reasources to confirm them myself, I'll just have to settle for Christian.

Squire,

Should not McBeth, Torbet, and Whitsitt be subjected to the same scrutiny? I have tried as much as I can to investigate the sources of all these Baptist writers.

Why is Christian singled out as being suspect? I have a lot more confidence in a man such as he than those with liberal theological leanings, such as Torbet, Vedder, and McBeth.

Christian has been accused by other authors of making his case on secondary information. Those who make this charge either have not read Christian or don't know the difference between primary and secondary information.

I read Morgan Patterson's book against Baptist successionism. In it he charged Christian with mis-quoting a source when, in fact, what he identified as a mis-quote was obviously a mis-print.

Ironically, Patterson's book also had a serious misprint. And yet it was written and printed in a day when printing methods were much more advanced than in Christian's time!

I have to wonder if the Lord intentionally set that one up!

Mark Osgatharp

[ September 15, 2003, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Mark Osgatharp ]

 

[tyndale1946]

Interesting that we call it trail of blood when it should be called trail of doctrine!... Unfortunately throughout time there has been true and false... With the false outnumbering the true... There is even a scripture in the Bible that states... Isaiah 4:1 And in that day seven women will take a hold of one man, saying. We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach!... The sons and daughters of the false outnumber the sons and daughter of the true but they are still sons and daughters of God as the trail goes back to Jesus who saved them and John the Baptist who was the forerunner of Jesus Christ... That is how I see it brethren!... Brother Glen

 

[Frogman]

That is a good Scripture quote IMHO. Church truth, again, imho, does not particularly question whether anyone is saved or not.

Note also the Song of Solomon:

Song of Songs 6:8  There are threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and virgins without number.
9  My dove, my undefiled is but one; she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her. The daughters saw her, and blessed her; yea, the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.

bro. Dallas

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Mark, I quite agree that the authors you mentioned are also subject to the same scrutiny. My thought on the matter is that with a new reexamination of Brother Christian's sources we can put some more nails into English Separatist Theory's (EST's) coffin.

And I also agree with Brother Tyndale that what we are looking for is a Trail of Doctrine. I am of the school of thought that holds to the following syllogism:

</font>

• Our Lord said that on this rock I will build My church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it.</font>
• Due their history of error, neither the Western Orthodox Church under the Pope as Ponitfix Maximus, Bishop of Rome, and Vicar of Christ nor the Eastern Orthodox Churches under their various Patriarchs were at any time in their history the church that Our Lord said He would build.</font>
• The English Seperatists, while Godly men, organizationally came out of the Church of England (English Orthodox if you please) which came out of the Church of Rome.</font>
• In consideration of Our Lord's statement and the OT example of the Godly prophets who had not bowed a knee to Baal, it is (at least to me) reasonable to expect that through time faithful Christians have organized themselves into the churchs spoken of by Our Lord.</font>
• Therefore, I reject the EST. While their tracks are well nigh unreadable at this distance in time, I hold that Anglo-American Baptists sprung from sources other than the English Seperatists.</font>

Okay, Dr. Hollowood would have problably dinged me royal if I turned this in for a Logic Class asssignment

. But, I could problably have gotten Dr. Weeks to go to bat for me and bail me out. So, I probably could have pulled a C for it.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:

Originally Ah, but Matt, these are primary sources. All three are direct quotes from people who lived in the times in which the events under consideration happened. Just because John Christian quoted them doesn't make them secondary sources.

Mark Osgatharp

Er...no. An example of a primary source document would be, say, an original manuscript from the 12th century of a Cathar confession of faith. Somebody writing in the 17th century about what he thought the Cathars believed is not a primary source document but a secondary source commentary and is not a lot more reliable than a similar commentary today - both are several centuries removed from the events an beliefs which we are trying to unpick and hence historically unreliable.

On the Cathar thread, I have posted a challenge to come up with a Cathar document refuting the evidence of dualist heresy. So far, no-one has responded to that challenge. Now, if you can produce a source document from the 12th to 14th centuries written by a Cathar - or indeed anyone - showing that Cathar beliefs were not dualist but Christian, then you'll have me. Until then, all we are left with is a mixture of supposition, speculation and conjecture.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Matt,

The links I gave you above do not relate to the Cathars. I have already stated that I have no historical evidence to prove the doctrine of the Cathars.

The links I gave related to the history of the 17th century English Baptists and serve to disprove the theory that Baptists were not the same as Anabaptists and that Baptists were merely schism out of English separatism. And they are primary documents.

Mark Osgatharp