Trail of Blood

[Piper]

Any of you ever read "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll?

What was your opinion? I had to read it in a Baptist History, then we were taught the history of Baptists in the several strains in Europe, and I have never thought of that little booklet since. I know that some people consider it gospel truth.

 

[37818]

New Any of you ever read "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll?

Yes. What I conclued from it is, that our genuine Baptist beliefs and practices are what are handed down by way of our New Testament documents from the first century.

 

[JonC]

Any of you ever read "The Trail of Blood" by J.M. Carroll?

What was your opinion? I had to read it in a Baptist History, then we were taught the history of Baptists in the several strains in Europe, and I have never thought of that little booklet since. I know that some people consider it gospel truth.

Yes. I have a low opinion of it.

I agree that there have been baptistic churches throughout history. But the "Trail of Blood" implies that there were Baptist churches (like us).

My main issue with the idea is it assumes a RCC understanding of "true church". The church has existed throughout history, even within congregations that reject believers baptism. Doctrine has also been spread out through these many sects.

For example, at one time only Presbyterian doctrine contained the Penal Substitution Theory of Atonement as articulated today. This doctrine hits at the heart of our understanding of the gospel. So how can we include in a "trail of blood" congregations that would view most Baptist churches as heretical?

The "trail" includes Paulicianism, a sect we really know little about except that they would not be trinitarians.

The "trail" includes Novatianism, which had many baptistic beliefs. But their main distinction was the belief that if a brother sins they can never repent and be reunited with the church (they must live a life of penance).

The "trail" includes Donatism. The major distinction here is that the clergy must be sinless or the sacraments are invalid (there can be no restoration for clergy). While they rejected the Roman rule of the Church it was because they viewed the clergy invalid and therefore their sacraments useless.

The "Trail of Blood" is, in this sense, a work of fiction to support a myth that we, as believers, have no need. It is seeking a legitimately on RCC grounds.

The doctrine handed down to us comes from the Bible rather than a trail of like-minded churches.

 

[John of Japan]

The little book is interesting, but it dumbs down the meaning of "Baptist" to just someone who believes the Bible and is immersed for baptism.

 

[Alan Gross]

Our church has printed The Trail of Blood for many, many years.

We have a roomful of volunteers compiling the pages for one another
and adding 'the Chart'!

A Baptist History. This is a great outline to support The Trail of Blood. https://www.firstharrison.net/_files/ugd/364571_e9ad644afe59406397ea8872d2f028a5.pdf
...

This Baptist History Notebook, by one of my teachers,
is very informative, with hyper-links to chapters on this page:
http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/hisel.baptist.histry.ntbk.html
...

from: BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY,
from the Time of Christ, until He Comes Again, showing its contents.

This one is much more detailed if you really want to know
what groups believed and when, etc.

BAPTIST CHURCH PERPETUITY (click link for full .pdf)
or THE CONTINUOUS EXISTENCE OF BAPTIST CHURCHES
FROM THE APOSTOLIC TO THE PRESENT DAY
DEMONSTRATED BY THE BIBLE AND BY HISTORY.
BY W.A. JARREL, D.D.
...
I would like to see God's people have a
Thoughtful, Prayerful, Acquiescence to The Eternal Word of God.
...

Thoughtful, Prayerful, Acquiescence to The Eternal Word of God.

On this post begins 10 scriptural proofs of Baptist Doctrine-type
'local' churches, of The Lord Jesus, Perpetuity (continual existence).

Most people and 'Baptists' in name only

(they believe there is something 'Universal' that has to do with God
and call it a 'church', but it only began as a concept 1,500
after The Lord's churches had survived all that history
and are in effect Protestants, to which they credit their origin)

wouldn't know what a 'church' is
as defined in the Bible (local only, every time),
much less that;

Baptist Doctrine-type 'local' churches,
of The Lord Jesus, believe their Perpetuity/ Continual Existence
is based on the Bible and not a record from history.

I am going to speak on "10 scriptural proofs of Baptist Doctrine-type
'local' churches, of The Lord Jesus, Perpetuity", coming up soon.

But, I'll be starting with the Old Testament prophecies
of the Lord's churches, Jesus came and founded.

Baptists have a Divine origin. As a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.

Baptist Doctrine-type 'local' churches, of The Lord Jesus,
and their Perpetuity are the True History of Christianity.

God applied all of His Attributes to ensure it.
...

from: Thoughtful, Prayerful, Acquiescence to The Eternal Word of God.

"When you find a church assembly organized
and Biblically faithful to carrying out The Great Commission,
and historically most important
when trying to find testimonies and records:

"The Supreme Lordship of Jesus Christ,
"The Sole Authority of the Holy Bible,
"Local church only,
"Regenerated and Baptized Church Membership
"& Believer's Baptism by Immersion,

"you have a Supernatural Organization/ Organism
doing the business of God.

"Why would natural men of the world hold to:

"The Supreme Lordship of Jesus Christ?
"The Sole Authority of the Holy Bible?
"Local church only?
"Regenerated and Baptized Church Membership?
"& Believer's Baptism by Immersion?

"They don't.

"Why?

"Because it is apparently not their 'calling'."
...

Most criticisms I've seen are just of the,
"I have an opinion and my opinion is the facts", kinds of things.

They don't even fathom that they are calling Jesus'
and the Bible's promises of His local kind of church He founded
having a Continual existence, "till he come",
"and the gates of hell [Hades] shall not prevail against it",
"I am with you always, even unto the end of the world",
"by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end".


"As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,
ye do show the Lord's death till he come" [I Corinthians 11:26].

"Upon this Rock," said Jesus, referring to Himself,
"I will build my church"
(like the kinds of individual local New Testament churches,
faithful to The Great Commission)
"and the gates of hell [Hades] shall not prevail against it"
[Matthew 16:18].

"Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye" (each individual local New Testament church,
faithful to The Great Commission)
"therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you:
and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"
[Matthew 28:18-20].

"Unto him be glory in the church"
(to each individual local New Testament church,
faithful to The Great Commission)
"by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end"
[Ephesians 3:21].

One criticism of Landmarkism I saw online said we see "one baptism",
as being water baptism, but they said it's really "Spirit Baptism"(?)

Well, everyone knows there is water baptism, so if you add to that
something called, "Spirit Baptism"(?), how many baptisms do you get?

Two different kinds. And the Bible says, "one baptism".

I think they need to learn how to count,
and then doll out their Spiritual Advice.
...

If you want to search for something in Baptist History,
this is the place: Baptist History Homepage, A Source for Original Baptist Documents

Search feature here: Search BaptistHistoryHomepage.com

...
Landmark Index is here: Landmarkism
for such things as:

The Problem of Baptist Succession
By Wendell H. Rone, Sr.

[Then, as the Baptists had no national government,
they could not preserve their records as did others....

The hand which carried the sword to smite this people,
carried also the torch to burn up their books,
and their authors were reduced to ashes
by the flames of their own literature.]
Thomas Armitage, History of The Baptists, p. 10.]

A Series of Three Lectures On "THE TRAIL OF BLOOD"
by T. P. Simmons, 1939

The Church and the Ordinances
By Buell H. Kazee, 1965
A twelve-chapter book.

"Pre-Landmark" Landmarkism
By R. L. Vaughn, 2007

"An Old Landmark Reset"
By James M. Pendleton

The Problem of Baptist Succession
By Wendell H. Rone, Sr.

 

[canadyjd]

From what I understand, it is an attempt to counter RCC doctrine that the Church began with Peter, so they trace it to John the Baptist, as if he were a “Baptist” instead of a Jewish priest.

1. John’s baptism was not Christian baptism.

2. John was a Jewish priest and was only a “Baptist” because KJ translators didn’t want to say “John the Dipper” or “John the Immerser” since they supported sprinkling babies.

(This is actually good for us.. this board would be called “The Dipper Board” and Dr. Bob would be “The Big Dipper”)

3. The connections to groups, usually persecuted by the RCC is tenuous at best and includes some (Gnostic) that were clearly heretical.

My opinion…

It is not good scholarship
It is not sound theology
It is not necessary

peace to you

 

[John of Japan]

From what I understand, it is an attempt to counter RCC doctrine that the Church began with Peter, so they trace it to John the Baptist, as if he were a “Baptist” instead of a Jewish priest.

1. John’s baptism was not Christian baptism.

2. John was a Jewish priest and was only a “Baptist” because KJ translators didn’t want to say “John the Dipper” or “John the Immerser” since they supported sprinkling babies.

(This is actually good for us.. this board would be called “The Dipper Board” and Dr. Bob would be “The Big Dipper”)

3. The connections to groups, usually persecuted by the RCC is tenuous at best and includes some (Gnostic) that were clearly heretical.

My opinion…

It is not good scholarship
It is not sound theology
It is not necessary

peace to you

So who would be the Little Dipper here?

 

[Alan Gross]

Yes. What I conclued from it is, that our genuine Baptist beliefs and practices are what are handed down by way of our New Testament documents from the first century.

Who was it that the Bible says would be the ones who did the handing down of genuine Baptist beliefs and practices?

The doctrine handed down to us comes from the Bible rather than a trail of like-minded churches.[/QUOTE

I agree that there have been baptistic churches throughout history. But the "Trail of Blood" implies that there were Baptist churches (like us).

The Bible teaches that the Lord's churches are habitation of God through the Spirit and are the pillar and ground of the truth.

And God accompanies them with all of His Attributes to have sustained Jesus' kinds of churches from the time Jesus Divinely Originated, Founded, Instituted, and Empowered her with All Power.

Since that moment, the gates of hell have not and will never prevail against it.

There has even been an effort in recent centuries to entirely redefine what a church is, to be the exact opposite of what God wrote in the Bible.

Yet, the gates of hell have still not prevailed.

By defining the word church by the word church as used in the Bible, as being a local summoned together assembly under rule and not by the word church changed to imply, "The Universal Visible (or "Invisible(?) Holy Catholic Church of Rome", it is rationally possible to fathom to meaning of God's Promises regarding Jesus' kind of churches.

Otherwise, their meaning has been lost, by those outside the pillar and ground of the truth, who have been taught all things Jesus Commanded.

That is the explanation for the wholesale loss of Bible truth.

Compare today, to what Baptists believed 100 years ago, or 200 years ago.

Today, most individuals professing to be Christian, or Baptist either one, wear for a badge of honor the denial of the very first point, in describing one of the Lord's Divine Institutions Commissioned by the God of the Universe to be His witnesses on earth and to conduct His business.

"When you find a church assembly organized by the New Testament pattern,
and Biblically faithful to carrying out The Great Commission,
and historically most important
when trying to find testimonies and records:

1.) "The Supreme Lordship of Jesus Christ,
2.) "The Sole Authority of the Holy Bible,
3.) "Local church only,
4.) "Regenerated and Baptized Church Membership
5.) "& Believer's Baptism by Immersion,

"you have a Supernatural Organization/ Organism
doing the business of God.

The Bible's promises His local kind of church He founded to
have a Continual existence, "till he come",
"and the gates of hell [Hades] shall not prevail against it",
"I am with you always, even unto the end of the world",
"by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end".

"As often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup,
ye do show the Lord's death till he come"
(in each individual local New Testament church,
faithful to The Great Commission) [I Corinthians 11:26].

"Upon this Rock," said Jesus, referring to Himself,
"I will build my church"
(like the kinds of individual local New Testament churches,
faithful to The Great Commission)
"and the gates of hell [Hades] shall not prevail against it"
[Matthew 16:18].

"Jesus came and spake unto them, saying,
"All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Go ye" (each individual local New Testament church,
faithful to The Great Commission)
"therefore, and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you:
and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"
[Matthew 28:18-20].

"Unto him be glory in the church"
(to each individual local New Testament church,
faithful to The Great Commission)
"by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end".
[Ephesians 3:21].

Doctrine has also been spread out through these many sects.

Right.

INDEX AND CONTENTS documents dozens of other accusations brought against the Lord's churches, of that is what you want, but they haven't prevailed.

con't

 

[Alan Gross]

The "trail" includes Paulicianism, a sect we really know little about except that they would not be trinitarians.

While I have more testimony to prove the Paulicians were Baptists as to the ordinances, I conclude this point with these as amply sufficient:

(1.) They did administer the ordinances.
(2.) Only to believers.
(3.) They recognized the scriptural truth, that only immersion is baptism.
(4.) As they baptized only believers they believed in a regenerate church membership.

The Paulicians were Baptists in church government. Of them Benedict quotes Gibbon: “Churches were founded upon the plan and model of the churches. They were incapable of desiring the wealth and honors of the Catholic prelacy; such anti-Christian pride they bitterly condemned.”1 Armitage: “Dr. Semler accords them more correct ideas of godliness, worship and church government than the Catholics of their time, and these virtues drew upon them more persecution from the hierarchy than their doctrinal views.”2

The only singularity that attended their promotion to the rank of doctors was, that they changed their lay names for scripture ones.”4 Wadington quotes and adopts the statement of Mosheim as his own.* Kurtz: “Their form of worship was very simple and their church government modeled after that of …apostolic times.” Kurtz shows the apostolic church government to be what we regard Baptist.

* Wadington's Ch. Hist., p. 478.

1 Benedict's Hist. Bap., p. 13.

2 Armitage's Hist. Bap., p. 239.

3 Robinson's Eccl. Researches, p. 92.

4 Mosheim's Eccl. Hist., cent. 9, part 2, chap. 5, sec. 5; Wadington's Ch. Hist., p. 478.

THE PAULICIANS
...

The "trail" includes Novatianism, which had many baptistic beliefs. But their main distinction was the belief that if a brother sins they can never repent and be reunited with the church (they must live a life of penance).

Socrates says that Novatian exhorted those who were excluded from the church for the gross offence of being traitors to the faith, “to repentance, leaving the pardoning their offence to God, who has the power to forgive all sin.”

Novatian was not from principle opposed to the re-admittance of the lapsed. ...It is simply a stubbornly repeated calumny that Novatian or his party ever declared penitence to be of no use.

To the charge that the Novations would never restore to church membership one who had been excluded for a gross offence, even on his repentance: Admitting this true, it only proves an error of discipline, not so bad as when easily proved guilty, to retain such — a thing often now done, and even done in Baptist churches.

To the charge that the Novatians held there was no forgiveness from God for such, the answer is, (a) They taught no such thing. (b) Even if they did teach it, it is no worse than, by retaining them in the church, to teach they are on the road to heaven.

Novatian maintained that one of the essential marks of a true church being purity and holiness, every church which neglected the right exercise of church discipline, tolerated in its bosom, or readmitted to its communion such persons as, by gross sins, have broken their baptismal vow, ceased by that very act to be a true Christian church, and forfeited all rights and privileges of such a church. …Novatian …laid at the basis of his theory the visible church as a pure and holy one,

The Novatian church government was substantially that of Baptists of our own time.

Without adding other testimonies, suffice it to conclude this chapter with J. M. Cramp, D. D., whom Dr. Armitage pronounces, “A sound theologian and thoroughly versed in ecclesiastical history.”2 “We may safely infer that they abstained from compliance with the innovation, and that the Novatian churches were what are now called Baptist churches, adhering to the apostolic and primitive practice.”3

The biographer of Socrates says: “The Novation church was not only sounder in doctrine, but at the same time abounded with the most eminent clergy.”4

1 Neander's Hist. Chr. Ch., vol. l, pp. 243, 246, 247.

2 Armitage's Hist. Bap., p. 926.

3 Cramp's Hist. of Bap., p. 59.

4 Intro. to Socrates' Eccl. Hist., p. 7.

NOVATIONS CHAPTER IX
...

The "trail" includes Donatism. The major distinction here is that the clergy must be sinless or the sacraments are invalid (there can be no restoration for clergy). While they rejected the Roman rule of the Church it was because they viewed the clergy invalid and therefore their sacraments useless.

Merivale says of the Donatists: “They represented the broad principle of the Montanists and Novatians, that the true Church of Christ is an assembly of real pious persons only. …Jerome and Augustine and others class the Donatists with the Novatians as to general aim and purpose, and Augustine sneers at them as 'spotless saints'”4

4 Armitage's Bap. Hist., pp. 200,201.

The church government of the Donatists was substantially the same as that of the Baptists of our own time. W. W. Everts, Jr., says: “We clearly trace among them the polity of the apostolic and Baptist church. Independence of the hierarchy was universally maintained, and no higher authority than the local church was acknowledged. Insubordination to bishops and councils was their conspicuous and unpardonable offence. …They maintained, therefore, a position of irreconcilable order.”1 The hierarchy at the time the Donatists split occurred being but in its bud, even Donatist opponents then had not the full grown hierarchy of later times. Muston represents the voice of history when he says: “In the first centuries of the Christian era, each church founded by the disciples had a unity and an independence of its own.” “The bishops being elected by the people of their diocese.”2

Long, an Episcopalian: “The Donatists rejected the Catholic liturgy and set up for themselves in a more congregational way.”3

1 Church in the Wilderness, pp. 16, 18.

2 Israel of the Alps, vol. 1, pp. 4, 7.

3 Long’s Hist. Don., p. 55.

DONATISTS CHAPTER X

Our church has printed The Trail of Blood for many, many years.

Most criticisms I've seen are just of the,
"I have an opinion and my opinion is the facts", kinds of things.

My opinion…

It is not good scholarship
It is not sound theology
It is not necessary

 

[JonC]

Who was it that the Bible says would be the ones who did the handing down of genuine Baptist beliefs and practices?

The Bible doesn't say who hands down genuine Baptist beliefs. The Bible does say that God will preserve His church and that God prohibits those disagreeing doctrines from condemning one another because He will make them stand.

 

[JonC]

While I have more testimony to prove the Paulicians were Baptists as to the ordinances, I conclude this point with these as amply sufficient:

(1.) They did administer the ordinances.
(2.) Only to believers.
(3.) They recognized the scriptural truth, that only immersion is baptism.
(4.) As they baptized only believers they believed in a regenerate church membership.

The Paulicians were Baptists in church government. was substantially the same as that of the Baptists

If you are talking about the "Baptist distinctions" then I agree.

The problem is that they would not be allowed on this board because they were heretics. They rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. They did not believe Jesus was truly man. They also seem to have presented God and Satan as essentially equal yet opposing forces.

And we see claiming a kinship to heretical sects simply because of common baptistic beliefs throughout the "trail of blood".


I have an issue accepting as Baptist sects that I genuinely question were even Christian.

 

[37818]

Genuine Christianity stands and falls with the New Testament texts.

 

[37818]

"The Key of Truth. A Manual of the Paulician Church of Armenia: The Armenian Text Edited and Translated with Illustrative Documents and Introduction, by Fred. C. Conybeare Paperback – November 30, 2005"

Amazon.com

About Paulicians book reviews

Amazon.com

They are anti-Catholic.

The key of truth : a manual of the Paulician church of Armenia : the Armenian text edited and translated with illustrative documents and introduction by Fred. C. Conybeare : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[JonC]

I believe that we can look back through history and find a kinship.

BUT this kinship should be Christ and grounded in the gospel of Christ rather than things like believers baptism, church organization, soteriology, or the like.

When we choose those other things we end up declaring a relationship to some very questionable sects, but when we choose Christ and His gospel we find a kinship even among sects that differ from our own.

For example, I find more kinship in Martin Luther, John Wesley and John Owen than I do in those who held Baptist distinctives but rejected doctrines like the Trinity, or the humanity of Christ.

 

[Rob_BW]

I think it's very dangerous to try and link modern baptists with these groups from the past. Primary sources from many sects that were considered lost have popped back up. It wouldn't be good to tie yourself to some group just for a cave full of their writings to be discovered and found to be grossly heretical.

 

[JonC]

I think it's very dangerous to try and link modern baptists with these groups from the past. Primary sources from many sects that were considered lost have popped back up. It wouldn't be good to tie yourself to some group just for a cave full of their writings to be discovered and found to be grossly heretical.

Good point.

I didn't even think about the fact we have more information about some of these sects than Carroll had available when he wrote Trail of Tears. His may not have been poor scholarship, as I initially thought, but a lack of information.

 

[Alan Gross]

The problem is that they would not be allowed on this board because they were heretics. They rejected the doctrine of the Trinity. They did not believe Jesus was truly man. They also seem to have presented God and Satan as essentially equal yet opposing forces.

There is another Christian Forum which says, "you can bring your own opinions, but you can't bring your own facts". These types of assertions wouldn't fair too well under such a simple criteria.

I don't know of any evidence of these things and I don't believe any exists.

It makes no sense whatsoever, given their deep devotion to the writings of Paul and their inclusion by so many historians as Baptist in Doctrine.

Although, their enemies have come up with some doozies on them, as they have all other Baptist groups to this day.

"We further trace in these communities the distinctive doctrinal basis of the Apostolic or Baptist Church. Their doctrines were drawn directly from the Bible, as the true and only source of faith. So exclusive was the devotion of the Paulicians to the Scriptures that they received the designation of Bible worshippers."

The Church in the Wilderness; or, The Baptists Before the Reformation, Everts, Jr.

"Paulician Baptists of Armenia (7th-12th centuries) were known for their love of Paul's Epistles. Their pastor, Silvanus, called his followers Pauline congregations."

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/history.of.baptist.churches.gail.terrell.html

"They maintained the doctrines and ordinances of Christ as they understood him to have delivered them to his disciples, and sought to be his true and faithful witnesses in the midst of the prevailing degeneracy. These "sects" have been called by various names, and have differed somewhat among themslves, but they have invariably been called "heretics" by the prevailing churches from which they were separated. The grandest heroes and martyrs for truth that the world has known are to be found among these despised and persecuted sects. The reproaches and persecutions which they suffered were all because they sought to maintain the gospel and protested against the errors and crimes that were practiced in the name of religion.

"Of these sects, there were in the second century the Montanists. From the third to the tenth centuries there were the Novatians, Donatists, and Paulicians. All these professed to hold to the New Testament as the only rule of faith and practice, received none but regenerated persons into church membership, rejected infant baptism, and practiced immersion. In the eleventh and following centuries, up to the time of the Reformation, the dissenters took on new names, being called Henricians, Waldenses, Albigenses, and other names, and became very numerous notwithstanding their continued sufferings from persecution. All these ancient sects, though not known by the name of Baptists, held the prevailing opinions which now characterize the Baptist denomination. Some of our historians, however, are inclined to discover in them a greater resemblance to modern Baptists than are others."

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/nowlin.hist.baptists.fundamentals.faith.html

And we see claiming a kinship to heretical sects simply because of common baptistic beliefs throughout the "trail of blood".

I don't know of any evidence of the believers associated with and as Baptists in the Trail of Blood that could be considered heretics, other than by their enemies, and I don't believe any exists.

I have an issue accepting as Baptist sects that I genuinely question were even Christian.

I don't know of any evidence of the believers associated with and as Baptists in the Trail of Blood that could be genuinely questioned as to even be Christian other than by their enemies, and I don't believe any exists

 

[Alan Gross]

The Bible doesn't say who hands down genuine Baptist beliefs.

Jesus said that His church, the kind He built, would be here until He Returns.

The Bible teaches that the Lord's churches are habitation of God through the Spirit and are the pillar and ground of the truth.

And God accompanies them with all of His Attributes to have sustained Jesus' kinds of churches from the time Jesus Divinely Originated, Founded, Instituted, and Empowered her with All Power.

Since that moment, the gates of hell have not and will never prevail against it.

There has even been an effort in recent centuries to entirely redefine what a church is, to be the exact opposite of what God wrote in the Bible.

Yet, the gates of hell have still not prevailed.

 

[JonC]

There is another Christian Forum which says, "you can bring your own opinions, but you can't bring your own facts".

I absolutely agree. I very much doubt Carroll would have listed many of those sects were his booklet written today.

Let's look at the facts:

Paulicians held a dualistic idea of reality (think Greek philosophy). They believed in an evil god (the Demiurge) and a good God. The Demiurge is the ruler of this world, while God is the ruler of the world to come. This world is fading, or passing away. God's kingdom is the kingdom that is to come and is also here in part.

Paulicians taught that Jesus was not truly man because God cannot become man. Instead Jesus appeared as man.

Now, the Paulicians did reject the sacraments. They rejected the Catholic Church. They did have baptistic beliefs.

You can accept them as Baptists with odd views. I don't deny you that opinion.

Based on what we know of the sect (the facts) I do not believe they were Christian.


And it doesn't matter to me. I am not seeking to establish my faith through a line of like-minded churches. I believe every true church has one line that is fresh each generation, and that is Jesus Christ and the doctrine revealed in God's Word.

When we read Scripture it is easy to see that there was not a church that held the same doctrines. They were different. They had different beliefs and practices. The church in Rome was different from the church in Corinth, which was different from the church in Jerusalem. BUT they were united in Christ and His gospel.

 

[JonC]

Jesus said that His church, the kind He built, would be here until He Returns.

I agree. And it has and will. Just not on the grounds the Roman Catholic Church built.