Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[Thinkingstuff]

I meant to say Jews believed in salvation based on their heritage. We can see this reflected in John the Baptist statement. We can see how the first Jerusalem council attempted to have people support the camp insisting that Gentiles first become Jews to become christian. Which is evidence by circumcistion. So fulfill the requirement ot be Jewish then approach Jesus fortunately Paul stood up to Peter and set things straight. Which was wonderful because he had more Jewish credentials than any of them. Even thought it mentions that Peter was sitting appart from the gentiles keeping them from defiling himself. Interesting stuff.

 

[DHK]

On the contrary I have cited Scripture. I can only conclude that you're choosing to miss the point

What Scripture have you cited that demonstrates that Christians with a Jewish background believed that circumcision was necessary for salvation? None. Acts 15 did not demonstrate that. No Christian believed that. That was like a council that was formed to establish once and for all the doctrine of the trinity (although believers believed it all along) and to put to silence the anti-trinitarians. Such so-called councils (for lack of a better name) have been doing this same thing throughout history--not establishing doctrine; but denouncing that which is false.

 

[Matt Black]

Try opening your eyes and you might just see the elephant...:BangHead:

 

[DHK]

I meant to say Jews believed in salvation based on their heritage.

And those that did remained Jews. They did not become Christians based on their heritage. That was one thing that Paul gave up when he became a Christian.

We can see this reflected in John the Baptist statement.

John the Baptist preached a message of repentance, not Jewish lineage.

We can see how the first Jerusalem council attempted to have people support the camp insisting that Gentiles first become Jews to become christian.

Only the Judaizing heretics took that stand. They were firmly rebuked by the apostles. James made a final decision against them.

fortunately Paul stood up to Peter and set things straight.

Paul stood up to Peter, not because of circumcision being a part of salvation. That was not the issue. Peter was keeping company with the Jews excluding the Gentiles. He was being biased against the Gentiles because of his Jewish background. That is what was wrong.

Galatians 2:11-12 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.
--The Scripture is plain. Peter ate with Jews but not with the Gentiles. That is what Paul rebuked him for.

Which was wonderful because he had more Jewish credentials than any of them. Even thought it mentions that Peter was sitting appart from the gentiles keeping them from defiling himself. Interesting stuff.

None of the apostles or early believers ever thought that circumcision was necessary for salvation. That can't be found in Scripture.

 

[DHK]

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "They must be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses." (ISV)

Note what verse five says:
1. There were some believers; not many.
2. They were of the sect of the Pharisees. It is interesting that the NET Bible references this to 2Pet.2:1 which speaks of the false teachers among you speaking damnable heresies.
3. Paul condemned the doctrine that they preached. Though this small group of people, who belonged to a sect believed, they still believed in a heresy.
It is like asking the question, "Can you be a member of the COC and still be saved? Both of these groups: (COC and the sect of the Pharisees) believe in a gospel based on works.

From the beginning it was not so. This is the minority; not the majority. This is not what the apostles ever taught. This is what false teachers taught. This is what a sect of the Pharisees taught. This is what the "Judaizers" taught. It is not what the average believer, even the average believer with a Jewish background believed.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Acts 15:5 But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

But some believers from the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "They must be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses." (ISV)

Note what verse five says:
1. There were some believers; not many.
2. They were of the sect of the Pharisees. It is interesting that the NET Bible references this to 2Pet.2:1 which speaks of the false teachers among you speaking damnable heresies.
3. Paul condemned the doctrine that they preached. Though this small group of people, who belonged to a sect believed, they still believed in a heresy.
It is like asking the question, "Can you be a member of the COC and still be saved? Both of these groups: (COC and the sect of the Pharisees) believe in a gospel based on works.

From the beginning it was not so. This is the minority; not the majority. This is not what the apostles ever taught. This is what false teachers taught. This is what a sect of the Pharisees taught. This is what the "Judaizers" taught. It is not what the average believer, even the average believer with a Jewish background believed.

Slow down you're confusing yourself.

 

[DHK]

Slow down you're confusing yourself.

No, just a little clarification on Acts 15:5 where the word "believers" or "who believed" is used.

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

The Trail of Blood is the popular name for Baptist Successionism, or Landmarkism. It is nonsense. Here are two excellent books on the subject. Scroll down to the Customer Reviews.

Baptist Successionism: A Critical View by W. Morgan Patterson

Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History by James Edward McGoldrick


CA

 

[DHK]

The Trail of Blood is the popular name for Baptist Successionism, or Landmarkism. It is nonsense. Here are two excellent books on the subject. Scroll down to the Customer Reviews.

Baptist Successionism: A Critical View by W. Morgan Patterson

Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History by James Edward McGoldrick


CA

Just as you have started with a bias and a false presumption, your referral also starts with a flawed premise:

The theory of Baptist Successionism was an attempt to construct a history of the Baptists back to the early Church period. Given that the Baptists actually arose in the post-Reformation period, this would be no small feat and so a fanciful tale of underground churches and persecution of Baptists was contructed out of thin air.

When you start with a false premise you will end with a false premise.
When you start with bias you will end with bias.
When you don't seek the truth you certainly won't find the truth.

First I will speak for myself (and I know some others here agree with me).
1. I do not believe in Baptist Successionism, nor in any other type of successionism. So let's put the negative slurs to rest.
2. I am not a Landmarkist. Some here are. That is not a bad thing. Don't make it look like it is, and try to understand them from their point of view, not your own bias.
You have stated your POV--nonsense. Not a wise place to start when debating with others.
3. The critic you quoted states dogmatically that the Baptists arose in the post-reformation era. He is wrong. And I state that just as dogmatically.
4. Your critic does not understand our position as he again slurs us with the label of Baptist Successionism, which is not what we believe.
5. I don't believe in any fanciful tales--more slurs.
6. And what I believe is not constructed out of thin air--more slurs.

What is the best way to describe what the Trail of Blood teaches, and what most of us here believe. It is called "the spiritual kinship theory." That is not successionism. It is a simple belief that there were believers such as us, in every age since the time of the Apostles, though they existed under different names.
Now if that isn't true, then what happened to Christianity?
Did it only exist within the apostate RCC?
Was it all Charismatic for hundreds of years?
Do you actually believe the RCC revised history that only the "true church" of the RCC was the only church that existed before the Reformation?? If you do you have been deceived, and need to study history.

God has always kept for himself a witness. He has never been without a witness throughout the ages. I guarantee you that that witness has not been apostasy or the RCC.

 

[Matt Black]

Your post also contains a presumption: that the RCC is and always has been apostate. Now, testing that presumption is perhaps a whole different conversation, and one which I suspect we are not going to resolve this side of the eschaton, but presumption it is nevertheless.

 

[DHK]

Your post also contains a presumption: that the RCC is and always has been apostate. Now, testing that presumption is perhaps a whole different conversation, and one which I suspect we are not going to resolve this side of the eschaton, but presumption it is nevertheless.

Try and find one of the older editions of Halley's Bible Handbooks (one that hasn't been recently edited), and read the history of the RCC in the back of the book. Read how many millions of Bible-believing Christians the RCC has needlessly slaughtered throughout the ages. Read the atrocities of people such as Innocent III. These men were in power not because of any spiritual good, but for their own greed and power. There is no presumption here. Read the history.

 

[Matt Black]

So? Just because some Catholics were bad and evil doesn't affect the issue as to whether their Church was theologically correct or in error. Some Southern Baptists were slave-owners in the 19th century and members of the KKK who lynched blacks in the 20th; that likewise doesn't invalidate Baptist doctrines and practices.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Just as you have started with a bias and a false presumption, your referral also starts with a flawed premise:

When you start with a false premise you will end with a false premise.
When you start with bias you will end with bias.
When you don't seek the truth you certainly won't find the truth.

First I will speak for myself (and I know some others here agree with me).
1. I do not believe in Baptist Successionism, nor in any other type of successionism. So let's put the negative slurs to rest.
2. I am not a Landmarkist. Some here are. That is not a bad thing. Don't make it look like it is, and try to understand them from their point of view, not your own bias.
You have stated your POV--nonsense. Not a wise place to start when debating with others.
3. The critic you quoted states dogmatically that the Baptists arose in the post-reformation era. He is wrong. And I state that just as dogmatically.
4. Your critic does not understand our position as he again slurs us with the label of Baptist Successionism, which is not what we believe.
5. I don't believe in any fanciful tales--more slurs.
6. And what I believe is not constructed out of thin air--more slurs.

What is the best way to describe what the Trail of Blood teaches, and what most of us here believe. It is called "the spiritual kinship theory." That is not successionism. It is a simple belief that there were believers such as us, in every age since the time of the Apostles, though they existed under different names.
Now if that isn't true, then what happened to Christianity?
Did it only exist within the apostate RCC?
Was it all Charismatic for hundreds of years?
Do you actually believe the RCC revised history that only the "true church" of the RCC was the only church that existed before the Reformation?? If you do you have been deceived, and need to study history.

God has always kept for himself a witness. He has never been without a witness throughout the ages. I guarantee you that that witness has not been apostasy or the RCC.

A lot of stuff here I can comment on but I'll just comment on one. The RCC does not have a monopoly on writing western history. Though they may want us to take a less critical look surely an indepent review of History shows that your criticisms with regard to the early Catholic church and the Catholic church through out history is not valid. The Catholic church did not write history and they were not always the victors. History is self evident and a successionist point of view with regard to the basis of foundational faith that baptist hold being from the begining is not true. Funny that baptist hold the primary priniciples taught by the RCC with regard to the nicean creed which was over seen by Constantine the "devil" that form the RCC according to some. The only divergence is "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic church" So the Catholic Church is the source for all western churches beliefs. I find it interesting that baptist don't hold the orthodox view of the trinity for instance. Why not? Because they emerge from the Catholic Church.

 

[DHK]

I find it interesting that baptist don't hold the orthodox view of the trinity for instance. Why not? Because they emerge from the Catholic Church.

You have no evidence for this. It shows your lack of study in church history. You imply that the Catholic Church invented the doctrine of the Trinity which is absurd. Early Christians have believed this all along, but may not have verbalized it the way you want it. Remember early Christians were not KJVO, and Paul did not use the King James Version.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

You have no evidence for this. It shows your lack of study in church history. You imply that the Catholic Church invented the doctrine of the Trinity which is absurd. Early Christians have believed this all along, but may not have verbalized it the way you want it. Remember early Christians were not KJVO, and Paul did not use the King James Version.

I have studied Church history. The Trinitarian Doctrine emerged in christianity. That doesn't mean that it wasn't always believed but it does mean there was no clear definition of it until the fourth century. And even then it needed some work. There were church councils on this very topic. Surely the Church believed in God the Father and God the Son and God the Spirit before that by how? Is jesus Homoosious with the Father or Homoiosious with the Father? This is where the phrase "it doesn't make one iota of difference" But it does and did. I agree with you about the KJV of the bible and early christians. The entire NT was writen in Greek and we can debate how much authority the early christians place on the LXX. The Catholic church was the Christian church as is seen by the earliest christian writing out side of the NT. Now has it changed? Yes. However, in the early history of the Church Orthodox and Copts and Catholics all considered themselves Catholic. Did it look just like the RCC of today? No. But yes I can say that. and I have. Again why do baptist and all protestants have the Catholic view of the trinity and not the Orthodox view? Ask Agnus Dei where by how the persons proceed from each other then compare your view. Where did you get it? The trinitarian doctrine wasn't well established in the NT. They knew the persons but not exactly how all their opperations were. You would have to argue that you're view of the trinity was given by the apostles (rather than alluded to) to the faithful (true) or reminant churches which would blow your sola scriptura out of the water because then you would be speaking about tradition. The trinity is a doctrine derived at not specifically stated. So then where did you're view come from. You had to derive it. From Scriptures certainly but why don't some baptist come to the conclusion of the orthodox? because no orthodox subdivided into protestants. Baptist are protestant they are not the classical christian church.

 

[DHK]

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Here is a plain statement of the trinity, and although you will say it is not contained in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, that means nothing to me. It still is in some of the very oldest of manuscripts, and was not just randomly inserted by some scribe or other person.

The word trinity is not used here. The concept is taught.
Deity is not used in the Bible, but all the Apostles believed it.
It was expressed well by Thomas when he bowed down before Jesus and called him "My Lord and my God." You speak as if he didn't believe in the deity of Christ because he didn't use the word "deity." That is the logic you use concerning the "trinity."

I like to the think of the church at Jerusalem as "The First Baptist Church at Jerusalem." The early churches were no different than our churches, and I mean "ours" not yours, for we pattern our churches after theirs.
They are not denominational. They are independent. They believe the fundamentals of the faith. The Bible is their foundation. And they have Christ as the head of their church.

The RCC is an apostate monster that sends people to hell and persecutes believers. It certainly is not and never was God's representative on this earth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

QUOTE=DHK;1390841]1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Here is a plain statement of the trinity, and although you will say it is not contained in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, that means nothing to me. It still is in some of the very oldest of manuscripts, and was not just randomly inserted by some scribe or other person.

The word trinity is not used here. The concept is taught.
Deity is not used in the Bible, but all the Apostles believed it.
It was expressed well by Thomas when he bowed down before Jesus and called him "My Lord and my God." You speak as if he didn't believe in the deity of Christ because he didn't use the word "deity." That is the logic you use concerning the "trinity."

I like to the think of the church at Jerusalem as "The First Baptist Church at Jerusalem." The early churches were no different than our churches, and I mean "ours" not yours, for we pattern our churches after theirs.
They are not denominational. They are independent. They believe the fundamentals of the faith. The Bible is their foundation. And they have Christ as the head of their church.

The RCC is an apostate monster that sends people to hell and persecutes believers. It certainly is not and never was God's representative on this earth.[/QUOTE]

Let me break it down for you. You said:

You speak as if he didn't believe in the deity of Christ because he didn't use the word "deity." That is the logic you use concerning the "trinity."

When clearly I said:

Surely the Church believed in God the Father and God the Son and God the Spirit before that by how?

and by "by" I meant "but" so but how?

So you're statement:

That is the logic you use concerning the "trinity."

is not true. because I clearly said:

That doesn't mean that it wasn't always believed but it does mean there was no clear definition of it until the fourth century

By which I was saying the details were not panned out until later and I gave an example of Homoosious not Homoiosious. And what specific operations the persons of the trinity do. Also the term persons is a later development in the doctrine of the trinity. So when I say this:

The trinity is a doctrine derived at not specifically stated

I mean the full doctrine as we now believe it. Which has to be derived at from scripture but not explicitly stated and when you say this:

I like to the think of the church at Jerusalem as "The First Baptist Church at Jerusalem."

I get a good laugh. For the historical evidence shows that any comparison from modern baptist to the first church to be off. By a large margin. Though similar in the aspect that we continually argue with each other. :laugh:
So the final analysis of what you said is this: your wrong. And you must ask yourself if you believe as you stated that the 1st church of Jerusalem was the 1st Baptist church of Jerusalem and your understanding of the trinitarian doctrine came directly from the Apostles but not explicitly spoken of in the Bible and only derivatively arrived at from scritpures are you not relying on "tradition" and if that's the case then how are you also sola scriptura?

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

... What is the best way to describe what the Trail of Blood teaches, and what most of us here believe. It is called "the spiritual kinship theory." That is not successionism. It is a simple belief that there were believers such as us, in every age since the time of the Apostles, though they existed under different names....

DHK,

What names did they exist under?

CA

 

[CarpentersApprentice]

Allow me to cut to the chase. Below are the actual writings, the primary source documents, for some of the groups often cited as "spiritual kin" to Baptists. None of the actual writings from these groups supports the idea that they were early Baptists. In all instances the primary sources show one of the following: (1) there is not enough evidence to draw a conclusion; (2) the groups are schismatic Catholics, or (3) they are what we would term today a "new age" kind of group.

The Montanist Oracles & Testimonia by Ronald E. Heine (Mercer Univ. Press, 1989). See especially Part I, Authentic Oracles attributed to Montanus, Maximilla, Priscilla, and Quintilla.

Montanist Inscriptions & Testimonia by William Tabbernee (Mercer Univ. Press, 1997). See especially “The Tomb of Montanus and the Woman”

Donatist Martyr Stories translated by Maureen Tilley (Liverpool Univ. Press, England, 1996). See especially “The Acts of the Abitinian Martyrs.”

The Key of Truth. A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia translated by Fred. C. Conybeare (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1898. Adamant Media reprint 2005). See especially the summary of Paulicians tenents in the Introduction with page references to “The Key.”

Heresies of the High Middle Ages translated by Walter Wakefield and Austin Evans (Columbia University Press, 1991). See especially selection…

> 11, 12, 14 and 15 on Henry of LeMans (Lausanne)
> 13 on Peter of Bruys.
> 19 on Arnold of Brescia
> 30-34, 36, 46, and 52 on the Waldensians; especially #32 A Confession of Faith by Waldes of Lyons
> 49, 50, 53, and 56-60 on the Cathars and Albigenses

CA

 

[Thinkingstuff]

CA, DHK has stated that there are obvious flaws with the pamphlet. Now he wants to show that the premise of the pamphlet isn't far from the truth and that there have always been "real" believers that the baptist modeled themselves after throughout church history. So he would agree with you as far as the montantist. Though the thing is that all the schismatics from the CAtholic church also held liturgies. So most comparisons fall short there it is only until the time of the reformation that we get real similarities.