Trail of Blood? Truth or Fiction?

[Matt Black]

<Sigh> And so round we go again full circle to: show me the evidence, then that the Trail of Blood or some similar theory is true; show me that there were these groups of Christians, other than gnostic or Manichee heretics...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First, to prove whatever point Justin is making he is quoting from a passage where Jesus is warning against false teachers which makes his argument weak.

Secondly it is unclear whether his position is similar to the COC, where works is a requirement for salvation, or:
similar to the RCC where salvation is by works and maintained by works, or:
similar to the Baptist where salvation is by faith, and works follow after salvation.

If it is the latter, he has not said so. He has not said anything clear about salvation by faith. He seems to link salvation to works.

Not really because he's speaking of false teachers here that hold to faith without works. And you must ask youself. If he's speaking of it in 160 AD then the distinctivness you associate with Constantine's Catholic Church existed long before. So it must not have been Constantine that created the RCC. Still there are no records of primal - Baptist existing at this time. Baptist cannot claim Marcion, nor Montanus, nor Menander, and certainly not Simon Magus.

 

[DHK]

<Sigh> And so round we go again full circle to: show me the evidence, then that the Trail of Blood or some similar theory is true; show me that there were these groups of Christians, other than gnostic or Manichee heretics...

There doesn't have to be written evidence outside of God's Word in order for God's Word to be true. Remember that in the first few centuries believers were more interested in preserving their lives rather than their history, their family tree, or writing a systematic theology. That wasn't on their minds. When persecution came what did they do?

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

It doesn't say that they sat down and wrote doctrinal dissertations, does it.
That is what people like Origen did. But then he was a heretic. He could well afford to do those things. True believers couldn't; not people like the Albigenses, who where whole-sale slaughtered by Innocent III in one of his not-so-innocent Crusades.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There doesn't have to be written evidence outside of God's Word in order for God's Word to be true. Remember that in the first few centuries believers were more interested in preserving their lives rather than their history, their family tree, or writing a systematic theology. That wasn't on their minds. When persecution came what did they do?

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

It doesn't say that they sat down and wrote doctrinal dissertations, does it.
That is what people like Origen did. But then he was a heretic. He could well afford to do those things. True believers couldn't; not people like the Albigenses, who where whole-sale slaughtered by Innocent III in one of his not-so-innocent Crusades.

FYI. Origen's Father was martyred. Origen wanted to be martyred along side his father but his mother prevented him and took all his clothes so he wouldn't leave the house in shame. Paul was persecuted but did quite a bit of writing. Ignatius was martyred but wrote. As was Justin Martyr. They were all worried about their lives but they kept proclaiming the truth as they understood it.

 

[DHK]

FYI. Origen's Father was martyred. Origen wanted to be martyred along side his father but his mother prevented him and took all his clothes so he wouldn't leave the house in shame. Paul was persecuted but did quite a bit of writing. Ignatius was martyred but wrote. As was Justin Martyr. They were all worried about their lives but they kept proclaiming the truth as they understood it.

aaah, the few exceptions.
Origen is known as the "father of Arianism."
He is considered a heretic even to the RCC. Do some research.

Please point me to all the voluminous writings of Stephen, Christianity's first martyr.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

aaah, the few exceptions.
Origen is known as the "father of Arianism."
He is considered a heretic even to the RCC. Do some research.

Please point me to all the voluminous writings of Stephen, Christianity's first martyr.

The few exceptions? I just mentioned a few. They weren't the only ones. And there is still debate about Origen

Were Origen and Origenism anathematized? Many learned writers believe so; an equal number deny that they were condemned; most modern authorities are either undecided or reply with reservations.

These are the area usually attributed to Origen

Allegorism in the interpretation of Scripture
Subordination of the Divine Persons
The theory of successive trials and a final restoration

How much of this is accurate? Well certainly the first aspect was a trait of the Alexandrian Catachesis school. Origin himself formulated it this way

Scripture must be interpreted in a manner worthy of God, the author of Scripture.
The corporal sense or the letter of Scripture must not be adopted, when it would entail anything impossible, absurd, or unworthy of God.

As far as subordination of the trinity this was probably more a case of overstament than true belief.

remembering as we ought that the language of theology was not yet fixed and that Origen was often the first to face these difficult problems. It will then appear that the subordination of the Divine Persons, so much urged against Origen, generally consists in differences of appropriation (the Father creator, the Son redeemer, the Spirit sanctifier) which seem to attribute to the Persons an unequal sphere of action, or in the liturgical practice of praying the Father through the Son in the Holy Ghost, or in the theory so widespread in the Greek Church of the first five centuries, that the Father has a pre-eminence of rank (taxis) over the two other Persons, inasmuch as in mentioning them He ordinarily has the first place, and of dignity (axioma) because He represents the whole Divinity, of which He is the principle (arche), the origin (aitios), and the source (pege). That is why St. Athanasius defends Origen's orthodoxy concerning the Trinity and why St. Basil and St. Gregory of Nazianzus replied to the heretics who claimed the support of his authority that they misunderstood him.

Finally, Arius is the father of Arianism. I think you need to do a bit more study.

 

[DHK]

The few exceptions? I just mentioned a few. They weren't the only ones. And there is still debate about Origen.
These are the area usually attributed to Origen How much of this is accurate? Well certainly the first aspect was a trait of the Alexandrian Catachesis school. Origin himself formulated it this way As far as subordination of the trinity this was probably more a case of overstament than true belief.
Finally, Arius is the father of Arianism. I think you need to do a bit more study.

There is no debate about Origen. He was a heretic. As I advised, do some research.

He interpreted scripture allegorically and showed himself to be a Neo-Pythagorean, and Neo-Platonist.[5] Like Plotinus, he wrote that the soul passes through successive stages of incarnation before eventually reaching God.[5] He imagined even demons being reunited with God. For Origen, God was the First Principle, and Christ, the Logos, was subordinate to him.[5] His views of a hierarchical structure in the Trinity, the temporality of matter, "the fabulous preexistence of souls," and "the monstrous restoration which follows from it" were declared anathema in the 6th century.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

With just a quick scan of the beliefs of Origen anyone can see that his beliefs are quite heretical. Please do your homework.

Arius is the Father of Arianism like Calvin is the Father of Tulip.
Both are false.
Origen lived before Arius, and believed and popularized Arianism before Arius ever hit the scene. Arius lived in the early part of the 4th century. Origen was born in 185.
In like manner Augustine set forth the principles of Tulip before Calvin was ever born. "I think you need to do a bit more study."

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no debate about Origen. He was a heretic. As I advised, do some research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

With just a quick scan of the beliefs of Origen anyone can see that his beliefs are quite heretical. Please do your homework.

Arius is the Father of Arianism like Calvin is the Father of Tulip.
Both are false.
Origen lived before Arius, and believed and popularized Arianism before Arius ever hit the scene. Arius lived in the early part of the 4th century. Origen was born in 185.
In like manner Augustine set forth the principles of Tulip before Calvin was ever born. "I think you need to do a bit more study."

I would be carful about wikipedia. Just last week a student posted something false on it just to prove a point which it did. The source I quoted is from the horses mouth so to speak. The Catholic Encylcopedia. You said that Origen was condemned by the Catholics and he was but to what extent is the question and Arius is the father of Arianism. Arius may have liked some of what Origen said but he still was perponent of his own faith named after him ie Arius - Arianism.

 

[DHK]

I would be carful about wikipedia. Just last week a student posted something false on it just to prove a point which it did. The source I quoted is from the horses mouth so to speak. The Catholic Encylcopedia. You said that Origen was condemned by the Catholics and he was but to what extent is the question and Arius is the father of Arianism. Arius may have liked some of what Origen said but he still was perponent of his own faith named after him ie Arius - Arianism.

Your logic is so flawed.
Arianism did not start with Arius just like the trinity did not start with the Catholics (as the Catholics like to claim).

If you don't believe the doctrines I referred to you then do your own research concerning Origen and prove me a liar. Otherwise accept it.

 

[Eric B]

Actually, Origen is considered one of the shapers of Athanasian theology (meaning their particular expression of the Trinity). After all, he did come from the same Alexandrian school as Athanasius, and some even say he might have been a student of Origen. While the preincarnate state of the Son and Spirit was a bit more cloudy among the fathers then, Origen is the one who really solidified the "three self-conscious persons before the Incarnation" view. The Arians picked up on this and distorted it in a more subordinationist direction, while the Athanasians went with full co-equality and co-eternality of separate "Persons".

Of Course, Origen did go off the deep end when he said that we all preexisted with Christ, and Christ was simply the only one who did not fall. So yes, he is heretical, but nevertheless still influential in later theology.

 

[Matt Black]

There doesn't have to be written evidence outside of God's Word in order for God's Word to be true. Remember that in the first few centuries believers were more interested in preserving their lives rather than their history, their family tree, or writing a systematic theology. That wasn't on their minds. When persecution came what did they do?

Acts 8:4 Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.

It doesn't say that they sat down and wrote doctrinal dissertations, does it.
That is what people like Origen did. But then he was a heretic. He could well afford to do those things. True believers couldn't; not people like the Albigenses, who where whole-sale slaughtered by Innocent III in one of his not-so-innocent Crusades.

Sorry, but your argument there won't wash. It is

(a)based on silence ie: the absence of any records to substantiate your claim

(b) based on your own particular interpretation of the Bible ie: you have failed to adduce any further evidence outside of that particular closed circle

and

(c) flies in the face of all the documentary evidence, including that from the groups you wish to claim were proto-evangelical eg: the Ritual de Lyon (oh, I know you can't or won't admit that it's an heretical document but others on this thread are capable of reading for themselves)

Now, if you still want to run with your argument, that is of course a matter for you, but I'm afraid it does make you look rather silly as the rest of us can see that it doesn't have legs.

 

[DHK]

Sorry, but your argument there won't wash. It is

(a)based on silence ie: the absence of any records to substantiate your claim

(b) based on your own particular interpretation of the Bible ie: you have failed to adduce any further evidence outside of that particular closed circle

and

(c) flies in the face of all the documentary evidence, including that from the groups you wish to claim were proto-evangelical eg: the Ritual de Lyon (oh, I know you can't or won't admit that it's an heretical document but others on this thread are capable of reading for themselves)

Now, if you still want to run with your argument, that is of course a matter for you, but I'm afraid it does make you look rather silly as the rest of us can see that it doesn't have legs.

I give you history books or other reference material that does have primary source material and you reject it because I myself haven't done the leg work. What kind of logic is that? That is like saying: I am not going to accept your evidence until you are the one that discovers the "Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. Others have gone before me and have done the research. Because I don't spend hours behind my computer, and can't find the time to do so, doesn't mean that the evidence is not out there. Have you spent time in the Baptist History Forum where some of these issues have been discussed?

Your argument is weak. If anyone is arguing from silence it is you. The evidence is out there. I don't have the time and energy to pull it up for you. If you are interested and objective enough you could do it yourself.
Unfortunately you remain biased and continue to look at history through rose-colored glasses.

 

[DHK]

Here is an interesting thread found in the Baptist History Forum:

http://baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=56949

 

[Matt Black]

DHK, which contemporary primary source documents have you brought to the table of this discussion?

Persona non grata's post on the first page of the thread to which you linked above is the most historically accurate I've seen so far in this discussion.

 

[DHK]

DHK, which contemporary primary source documents have you brought to the table of this discussion?

Persona non grata's post on the first page of the thread to which you linked above is the most historically accurate I've seen so far in this discussion.

There have been some primary source documents mentioned here, and some that I have not put much credence in.

However I did give you a couple of names of history books that did have references back to primary sources. I believe that should suffice. It does for me. You can check out the references for yourself if you are calling them into question. I have no reason to doubt them.

 

[Matt Black]

Then you have missed the point big time: the whole point of primary source documents is that, by their very nature, they have greater credence than later or secondary source documents which inevitably, even with the best of intentions, reflect the prejudices of the authors or redactors. All you have done thus far is adduce such secondary sources, without producing a single primary source; furthermore, those primary sources which others have produced to you have been dismissed by you. Such an approach is academically bankrupt; you would get an 'F' in any university history class.

Care to try again?

 

[DHK]

Then you have missed the point big time: the whole point of primary source documents is that, by their very nature, they have greater credence than later or secondary source documents which inevitably, even with the best of intentions, reflect the prejudices of the authors or redactors. All you have done thus far is adduce such secondary sources, without producing a single primary source; furthermore, those primary sources which others have produced to you have been dismissed by you. Such an approach is academically bankrupt; you would get an 'F' in any university history class.

Care to try again?

Thankfully, I am out of university. As I have already told you I am finished writing papers and theses. Others have already done that leg work. I am not about to get into it just to please you. If you want to do further research on the matter go ahead. I don't have the time. Go back to the link on the thread in the Baptist History forum. Read it carefully, and take some advice from it.

 

[Matt Black]

I graduated a large number of years ago myself, but that's no excuse for sloppy research. I've done the leg work; you've failed to do yours.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I graduated a large number of years ago myself, but that's no excuse for sloppy research. I've done the leg work; you've failed to do yours.

Me too! What a fellowship of educated discenters! (from each other)

 

[DHK]

I graduated a large number of years ago myself, but that's no excuse for sloppy research. I've done the leg work; you've failed to do yours.

This theme, stated not only by Carroll, Armitage, Christian, Zwingli, and many on this board cannot go unnoticed.

Perhaps no testimony is more significant and convincing on this point than the following by Zwingli, the great Swiss Reformer:

"The institution of Anabaptism is NO NOVELTY, but for 1300 years has caused great disturbance in the church, and has acquired such a strength that the attempt in this age to contend with it appeared futile for a time." As is pointed out by Dr. Harvey, if we take 1300 from 1500, the date at which Zwingli wrote, we have A. D. 200, which brings us very near the apostolic age. In his debate with McCalla, Alexander Campbell said: "From the apostolic age to the present time the sentiment of Baptists and their practice of baptism have had a continued chain of advocates, and public monuments of their existence in every century can be produced."​

http://www.reformedreader.org/history/pius/chapter01.htm

​