• 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!

Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
#2.

You would be hard pressed to demonstrate that any of the Trail of Blood groups had Baptist distinctives. The Cathars (aka Albigenses) were gnostic dualists, as were the Bogomils; the Novatianists and Donatists were schismatic Catholics. As for the later groups which can be held to be Christians, here's what I put on the other thread:

The Wycliffite-Lollards may have ended up sola Scriptura (or at least Scriptura suprema) but they certainly weren't sola fide; the same can be said of the Taborites (the more radical wing of the Hussite movement; the moderates, the Utraquists, were reforming Catholics like the Waldenses or the Franciscans, if they were anything). So the Taborites and Lollards were proto-Reformers of the more Magisterial type, albeit minus sola fide; they certainly did not anticipate the Radical Reformation and should not be regarded as proto-baptistic; if they're proto-anything, the Lollards are proto-Anglican since they were anti-papal and anti-clerical-abuses, regarded Scripture as the supreme authority, but basically wanted to keep pretty much everything else.

So, no sola fide and no believer's baptism. Doesn't sound very Baptist to me...
 

Tom Butler

New Member
Matt, thanks for your answer, #2.

We basically agree that there were New Testament churches in existence. The natural followup question is, are there any identifiable groups who fit that description? Or is this simply a belief by faith?

I don't want to put words in your mouth, so you'll correct me if my reasoning is off-base.

You said Yes, there were NT churches. No, they were not Baptist, or baptistic. And, those groups claimed by some Baptists as ancestors, aren't.

As a Baptist, you know that we claim that our basic doctrines and practices are those of the New Testament-era congregation. Your answer, #2, indicates that you disagree. .

Would you care to elaborate further? I'm sorta confused.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I think before we go any further we need to clarify what we mean by 'doctrines and practices of NT-era congregations'. For instance, to take one example of a NT-era congregation, the early Jerusalem church, they practised circumcision. Presumably your Baptist church no longer does this and therefore in that respect it can be said not to follow the 'doctrines and practices of (that) NT-era congregation'. So, what do you mean by that phrase?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Matt Black said:
#2.

You would be hard pressed to demonstrate that any of the Trail of Blood groups had Baptist distinctives. The Cathars (aka Albigenses) were gnostic dualists, as were the Bogomils; the Novatianists and Donatists were schismatic Catholics. As for the later groups which can be held to be Christians, here's what I put on the other thread:
As explained in another post, the Albigenses, (like the Anabaptists) were such a broad group of believers that existed for many years over a vast area of land, that you just can't slam that all with one broad swipe. So, which little group, at which narrow time periods are you picking out that you find some that are gnostic dualistic. This is not the norm for all the albigenses throughout the ages. And you cannot prove that. Why was there a crusade against these Bible-believing Christians (just like there was a crusade the Muslims)? They both happened at about the same time. The answer was that they were so evangelistic in their faith that they were a threat to the pope. Gnostics would not have that kind of characteristic or love for their saviour. The pope feared because the Albigenses faith multilplied so quickly; he had a hard time exterminating them. The blood of the martyrs will surely be upon the hands of the RCC. Catholics (and apparently you) love to revise history for their own ends and purposes.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Matt Black said:
I think before we go any further we need to clarify what we mean by 'doctrines and practices of NT-era congregations'. For instance, to take one example of a NT-era congregation, the early Jerusalem church, they practised circumcision. Presumably your Baptist church no longer does this and therefore in that respect it can be said not to follow the 'doctrines and practices of (that) NT-era congregation'. So, what do you mean by that phrase?
The early church never practiced circumcision as a requirement for salvation. What I mean by saying that is that many Christians still practice it today. It has nothing to do with their faith. Paul, from the very beginning was against it. The heretical Judaizers followed him trying to impose it upon Christianity. These men were not Christians; they were heretics believing that the law and circumcision must be kept in order to be saved. The matter was cleared up once and for all in Acts chapter 15. Never was circumcision a practice necessary for salvation. If you can prove that from the NT I would like to see it.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thinkingstuff said:
Well, the title [Apud Opera] of the quote is misleading because its bad latin. I have been informed that Catholic priest must know latin and definately a Cardnal would know some latin especially in the middleages and the document listing all of his works would be better titled Opera Omnia. So this quote is also fraudulent.
"In Works" is what Apud Omnia means. Apud is not part of a book title, but is a citation word, like Ibid., a Latin word with a specialized use in footnoting.
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Stanislaus Hosius, The Begynnyng of Heresyes in Oure Tyme, translated out of Latin into English by Richard Shacklock, 1565:
pp. 44-48

"For if so be, that as every is moste redy to suffer deathe for the faythe of his sect, so his faythe sholde be judged moste perfect and most sure, there shall be no faythe more certayne and true, then is the Anabaptistes, seying there be none now, or have bene before time for the space of these thousand and to hundred yeares, who have bene more cruelly punyshed, or that have more stoutely, stedfastly, cherefully taken theire punishment, yea or have offered them selves of their owne accorde to death, were it never so terrible and grevouse. Yea in Saint Augustyn his time, as he hym selffe sayeth, there was a certaine monstrouse desire of deathe in them. ... Nether was there such folyshe hardy heretkes in Sainst Augustine his tyme only. For foure hundred years agone, at what time S. Bernard lyved, there were Anabaptistes, which were no lesse prodigal to spend their lyfe, then were the Donatists, some (saythe he) did mervayle that they were led to theire deathe not only paciently but as it semed very frolyke and merye.
...If you beholde their cherefullnes in suffring persecutions, the Anabaptists run farr before all other heretykes. If you will have regarde to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above al other, if they were not grevously plaged and cut off with the knyfe of persecution. If you have an eye to the outewarde appearaunce of godlynes, bothe the Lutherans and the Zuinglians muste nedes graunte, that they farr passe them.
...And surely howe many so euer haue wrytten agaynst this heresie, whether they were Catholykes or Heretykes, they were able to overthrowe it not so muche by the testimony of the scriptures, as by the authoritie of the Churche."
 

Zenas

Active Member
Tom Butler said:
Now, I want to quote a letter written in 1519 from Bohemia to the famed Catholic theologian Erasmus.

Sounds like Baptists to me. And remember, this was written by someone who was not praising, he was condemning. Erasmus was sort of a reformer who chose to work within the RCC, but when two of the people described in the quoted paragraph complimented him, he lashed out at them, calling them "Anabaptists."
That's good research, Tom. And it sounds a lot like Baptists to me also. Whether anyone can show an unbroken chain to today's Baptists is problematic but it does tend to show there were people holding baptistic beliefs before the Reformation.
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
Tom Butler said:
Jim, I would think that one would be embarrassed to hold to such a notion that Jesus had no church on his earth from the First century to the Reformation. Particularly in the light of Matthew 16:18.
I can anticipate the reply, "wait a minute, we didn't say there wasn't one; we just said there's no documentation."
If anybody wrote this, I just missed it, but I have yet to read anything on this board by any anti-Landmarker that supports unbroken succession of New Testament churches from apostolic times until today. They have trashed without exception every Christian group cited by the Landmarkers as progenitors of modern Baptists. They have left the world with nothing but weirdo cults which apparently bear no resemblance to a first century New Testament church.
So we are left with the question, were there, or were there not, true NT churches in existence somewhere from Jesus' time until now?
This is a trick question, so consider the implications of your answer.
Choose from one of the following answers:
1. Yes, and we Baptists claim them as ours.
2. Yes, but they weren't Baptist because Baptists didn't begin until the Reformation.
3. No, because there's no evidence. There were times when there was no New Testament church in existence.
4. Don't know because the evidence is thin. But we accept by faith Matthew 16:18.
If none of these answers will do, give your own.

You forgot the other claim: that the large, established "catholic" churches (EOC or RCC) were the "NT Church". Of course, I don't believe that either.

I believe the "New Testament church" was not about a string of visible organizations. Wherever two or three were gathered in His name, that was the Church. In the statement about the Gates of Hell not prevailing, Hell was on the defensive, not the offensive. So whether there were full fledged "churches" every single day across the centuries; the fact that the Gospel can be still preached and gain souls means that that scripture was still fulfilled.

If there was any continuous NT congregations, I would look, as I have been saying, in the deserts of Israel. I had heard about families of Christians that went all the way back, however, those could have been referring to the local catholics.
That is more realistic than connecting the isolated dots across Europe and to America. that is evidently an attemt for European and American groups to make themselves the true "church"; after all, we are so significant, and it has to be all about us. But Christian history is not centered on us. Of course, this would fall into category #2.

DHK said:
As explained in another post, the Albigenses, (like the Anabaptists) were such a broad group of believers that existed for many years over a vast area of land, that you just can't slam that all with one broad swipe. So, which little group, at which narrow time periods are you picking out that you find some that are gnostic dualistic. This is not the norm for all the albigenses throughout the ages. And you cannot prove that. Why was there a crusade against these Bible-believing Christians (just like there was a crusade the Muslims)? They both happened at about the same time. The answer was that they were so evangelistic in their faith that they were a threat to the pope. Gnostics would not have that kind of characteristic or love for their saviour. The pope feared because the Albigenses faith multilplied so quickly; he had a hard time exterminating them. The blood of the martyrs will surely be upon the hands of the RCC. Catholics (and apparently you) love to revise history for their own ends and purposes.
I've never heard of the Albigenses being as diverse as that like the Anabaptists. (And even the Waldensians, which started out within the RCC, then came under the leadership of Peter Waldo, and eventually became a Reformed Protestant church, with an American branch headquatered in North Carolina). That was a smaller group, and I believe concentrated in one place and time period.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Eric B said:
I've never heard of the Albigenses being as diverse as that like the Anabaptists. (And even the Waldensians, which started out within the RCC, then came under the leadership of Peter Waldo, and eventually became a Reformed Protestant church, with an American branch headquatered in North Carolina). That was a smaller group, and I believe concentrated in one place and time period.
I have never heard of the Albigenses being in America. That seems far-fetched.
They originated from a city called "Albi," and hence the name "Albigenses.
The Waldenses were also found in the city of Albi and they were also called Albigenses because they resided in that city (Martin Schagen, The History of the Waldenses, 110). It was from Italy that the movement extended to Southern France; and the soil was wonderfully well prepared for the seed. The country was the most civilized portion of France, rich, flourishing, and independent; the people gay, intellectual, progressive; the Roman Catholic Church dull, stupid and tyrannical; the clergy distinguished for nothing but superstition, ignorance, arbitrariness, violence and vice. Under such circumstances the idea of a return to the purity and simplicity of the apostolic age could not fail to attract attention. The severe moral demands of the Albigenses made a profound impression, since their example corresponded with their words. They mingled with their tenets a severe zeal for purity of life and were heard with favor by all classes. No wonder that the people deserted the Roman Catholic priests and gathered around the Boni Honiness. In a short time the Albigenses had congregations and schools and charitable institutions of their own. The Roman Catholic Church became an object of derision (Scliaff-Herzog. I. 47).
This state of affairs greatly alarmed and aggravated the pope. In the year 1139 they were condemned by the Lateran Council; by that of Tours in 1163, and mission after mission was sent among them to persuade them to return to the Roman Catholic Church. Cardinal Henry, in 1180, employed force. Pope Innocent III. published a crusade against them. Says the Historian Hume:
The people from all parts of Europe moved by their superstition and their passion for wars and adventures, flocked to his standard. Simon de Monfort, the general of the crusade, acquired to himself a sovereignty of these provinces. The Count of Toulouse, who protected, or perhaps only tolerated the Albigenses, was stript of his dominions. And these sectaries themselves, though the most inoffensive and innocent of mankind, were exterminated with the circumstances of extreme violence and barbarity (Hume, History of England, II. ch. xi).
In the second crusade the first city captured was that of Braziers, which had some forty thousand inhabitants. When Simon de Monfort, Earl of Leicester, asked the Abbot of Ceteaux, the papal legate, what he was to do with the inhabitants, the legate answered: "Kill them all. God knows His own." In this manner the war was carried on for twenty years. Town after town was taken, pillaged, burnt. Nothing was left but a smoking waste. Religions fanaticism began the war; rapacity and ambition ended it. Peace was concluded in 1229, and the Inquisition finished the deadly work.

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobc05.htm
 

Eric B

Active Member
Site Supporter
DHK said:
I have never heard of the Albigenses being in America. That seems far-fetched.
They originated from a city called "Albi," and hence the name "Albigenses.
[/size][/font]
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobc05.htm
That was the Waldensians I was referring to in the parenthesis. Quite the contrary, what I was saying about the Albigenses was they they were limited to one place, as you have pointed out now. I don't think they were a diverse category of groups believing different things like the Anabaptists were.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Eric B said:
That was the Waldensians I was referring to in the parenthesis. Quite the contrary, what I was saying about the Albigenses was they they were limited to one place, as you have pointed out now. I don't think they were a diverse category of groups believing different things like the Anabaptists were.
Of the origin of the Waldenses, I refer you to the same source:
There has been much discussion in regard to the origin of the Waldenses. It is asserted on the one hand that they originated with Waldo, and had no connection with former movements. This view is held absolutely, probably by very few, for even Comba admits that "in a limited sense their antiquity must he admitted" (Comba, History of the Waldenses in Italy, 12); and he also states that the Waldenses themselves believed in their own antiquity. Those who hold this view now generally state that the Waldenses were influenced by the Petrobrusians. the Arnoldists and others. Others affirm that the Waldenses were only a part of the general movement of the dissent against Rome. They were of "the same general movement" which produced the Albigenses (Fisher, History of the Christian Church, 272. New York, 1887). The contention is that the name Waldenses is from the Italian Valdese, or Waldesi, signifying a valley, and, therefore, the word means that they lived in valleys. Eberhard de Bethune, A. D. 1160, says: "Some of them call themselves Vallenses because they live in the vale of sorrows or tears" (Monastier, A History of the Vaudois Church, 58. London, 1848). Bernard, an Abbot of a Monastery of the Remonstrants, in the Diocese of Narbonne, about 1209, says that they were called "Waldenses, that is, from a dark valley, because they are involved in its deep thick darkness or errors" (Migne, CCIV. 793). Waldo was so called because he was a valley man, and was only a noted leader of a people who had long existed. This view is ardently supported by most of the Waldensian historians (Leger, Histoire Generale des Vaudois. Leyden, 1669). It is certain that they were called by the names of every one of the ancient parties (Jones, History of the Christian Church, 308). Jacob Gretseher, of the Society of Jesus, Professor of Dogmatics in the University of Ingolstadt, A. D. 1577, fully examined the subject and wrote against the Waldenses. He affirmed their great antiquity and declared that it was his belief "that the Toulousians and Albigenses condemned in the year 1177 and 1178 were no other than the Waldenses. In fact, their doctrines, discipline, government, manners, and even the errors with which they had been charged show the Albigenses and the Waldenses were distinct branches of the same sect, or the former was sprung from the latter" (Rankin, History of France, III. 198-202).

The most remote origin has been claimed for the Waldenses, admitted by their enemies, and confirmed by historians. "Our witnesses are all Roman Catholics," says Vedder, "men of learning and ability, but deeply prejudiced against heretics as men could possibly be. This establishes at the outset a presumption against the trustworthiness of their testimony, and is a warning to us that we must weigh it most carefully and scrutinize every detail before receiving it. But, on the other hand, our witnesses are men who had extraordinary opportunities for discovering the facts; some were inquisitors for years, and give us the results of interrogating a large number of persons" (Vedder, The Origin and Teaching of the Waldenses. In The American Journal of Theology, IV. 466). This is a very interesting source of information.

Rainerio Saechoni was for seventeen years one of the most active preachers of the Cathari or Waldenses of Lombardy; at length he joined the Dominican order and became an adversary of the Waldenses. The pope made him Inquisitor of Lombardy. The following opinion in regard to the antiquity of the Waldenses was rendered through one of the Austrian inquisitors in the Diocese of Passau, about the year 1260 (Preger, Beitrage zur Geschichte der Waldesier, 6-8). He says:

Among all the sects, there is no one more pernicious to the church than that of the Leonists (Waldenses), and for three reasons: In the first place, because it is the most ancient: for some say that it dates back to the time of Sylvester (A. D. 825); others to the time of the apostles. In the second place. because it is the most widespread. There is hardly a country where it does not exist. In the third place, because if other sects strike with horror those who listen to them, the Leonists, on the contrary, posses a great outward appearance of piety. As a matter of fact they lead irreproachable lives before men and as regards their faith and the articles of their creed, they are orthodox. Their one fault is, that they blaspheme against the Church and the clergy,—points to which laymen In general are known to be too easily led away (Gretscher, Contra Valdenses, IV.).

It was the received opinion among the Waldenses that they were of ancient origin and truly apostolic. "They call themselves," says David of Augsburg, "successors of the apostles, and say that they are in possession of the apostolic authority, and of the keys to bind and unbind" (Preger, Der Tractat des David von Augsburg uber die Waldensier. Munchen, 1876).
http://www.reformedreader.org/history/christian/ahob1/ahobc06.htm
 

Tom Butler

New Member
Matt Black said:
I think before we go any further we need to clarify what we mean by 'doctrines and practices of NT-era congregations'. For instance, to take one example of a NT-era congregation, the early Jerusalem church, they practised circumcision. Presumably your Baptist church no longer does this and therefore in that respect it can be said not to follow the 'doctrines and practices of (that) NT-era congregation'. So, what do you mean by that phrase?

We've tried this before in another thread, and everybody came up with a different list. If we picked the ones mentioned by most of the posters, they would be mostly related to baptism.

Baptism of believers only
By immersion
Non-sacramental

Others on the list would probably priesthood of believers and soul competency, eternal security. And, of course, the deity of the Christ.

Practices seem to include congregational government, with elders (pastors, bishops) and deacons. And local church autonomy.

At some point I think we have to decide about other stuff which might vary from congregation to congregation. That is, stuff that would not disqualify it from being identified as Baptist, or baptistic.
 

Jim1999

<img src =/Jim1999.jpg>
As long as we are looking for baptistic churches in the modern context, we are missing the boat. Leave the name baptist out of the search. Look for church groups that claim to teach the New Testament. These are church groups apart from Romanism. They maybe cults in our modern understanding of cults. There were cultic groups that came up during NT times, why not in the next several hundred centuries? For get the trail of blood as being baptist, but rather the trail of Jesus' blood in teaching.

We all know how corrupt the Roman church became in short order, and how the church fathers different in theology, but despte this corruption, a bright light came along with truth.........and error!

Cheers,

Jim
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DHK said:
As explained in another post, the Albigenses, (like the Anabaptists) were such a broad group of believers that existed for many years over a vast area of land, that you just can't slam that all with one broad swipe. So, which little group, at which narrow time periods are you picking out that you find some that are gnostic dualistic.
Specifically the Cathars of Languedoc and Rousillon, against whom the Albigensian Crusade was waged from 1209.
This is not the norm for all the albigenses throughout the ages. And you cannot prove that.
Only because you're moving the tautologous goalposts.
Why was there a crusade against these Bible-believing Christians (just like there was a crusade the Muslims)?
For the same reaosn that there were crusades against the Muslims - the crusades were misguided attempts by Christians to try to address the problem of heretics, whether those heretics be Muslim or Cathar. Surely you're not claiming that Muslims were proto-Baptists just because they had crusades preached against them? Then why are you claiming this for the Cathars?
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DHK said:
The early church never practiced circumcision as a requirement for salvation. What I mean by saying that is that many Christians still practice it today. It has nothing to do with their faith. Paul, from the very beginning was against it. The heretical Judaizers followed him trying to impose it upon Christianity. These men were not Christians; they were heretics believing that the law and circumcision must be kept in order to be saved. The matter was cleared up once and for all in Acts chapter 15. Never was circumcision a practice necessary for salvation. If you can prove that from the NT I would like to see it.
Oh I agree, but Tom Butler referred to the 'doctrines and practices of the NT era congregations' and being normative for Baptists and I was highlighting an obvious problem with that approach (clearly the early Jerusalem church did have male circumcision as one of its 'practices')
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Tom Butler said:
We've tried this before in another thread, and everybody came up with a different list. If we picked the ones mentioned by most of the posters, they would be mostly related to baptism.

Baptism of believers only
By immersion
Non-sacramental

Others on the list would probably priesthood of believers and soul competency, eternal security. And, of course, the deity of the Christ.

Practices seem to include congregational government, with elders (pastors, bishops) and deacons. And local church autonomy.

At some point I think we have to decide about other stuff which might vary from congregation to congregation. That is, stuff that would not disqualify it from being identified as Baptist, or baptistic.
You see, I would disagree with those on your list as being characteristic of NT-era congregations, with the exception of the deity of Christ and baptism by immersion. The others on your list are unprovable from Scripture alone. You can argue either which way, for example, from Scripture alone as to ecclesiology: congregationalists, presbyterians and episcopalians all have their NT proof-texts for their own form of government. You can do the same for believer's baptism -v- paedo-baptism eg: were the Philippian gaoler's family all adults or were there children there. And I'd certainly take issue with the assertion that the NT church was non-sacramental. Etc etc
 

Agnus_Dei

New Member
Jkdbuck76 said:
Please elaborate.
I first read the Trail of Blood in the Spring of 2002 during a Sunday school course called Why I’m Baptist. Unfortunately, the booklet wasn’t very convincing and left more questions than answers, so I began my own researches, which eventually lead me to the discovery of the Orthodox Church in 2007.

In XC
-
 

Tom Butler

New Member
Matt Black said:
You see, I would disagree with those on your list as being characteristic of NT-era congregations, with the exception of the deity of Christ and baptism by immersion. The others on your list are unprovable from Scripture alone. You can argue either which way, for example, from Scripture alone as to ecclesiology: congregationalists, presbyterians and episcopalians all have their NT proof-texts for their own form of government. You can do the same for believer's baptism -v- paedo-baptism eg: were the Philippian gaoler's family all adults or were there children there. And I'd certainly take issue with the assertion that the NT church was non-sacramental. Etc etc

Matt, I anticipated that we'd probably not agree on the list. And that makes it hard to agree on the marks of a New Testament Church, which....etc.

Is the deity of Christ and immersion your only two? Or there are other marks that you want to list?
 
Top