Baptist "Trail of blood"

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_2_24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James_2_24

Guest
Can someone tell me what this is all about and if there are any good resources to refute this idea?

A friend read the “trail of blood” (or something like that)…it is like the baptist encyclopedia and states that there was never a united Church, that the apostles all set up different churches and the Emporer finally gave in and the wjole creation of the unified church was political.

THANKS
 
Have your friend “google” that book and the author. The author has since written another book refuting the first and admitting his false historical findings.
 
It also claims that the Church “disappeared” in the fourth century, and only the Baptists (who remained underground till the 16th century) have retained the true faith.:banghead:
 
They have some pretty weak background info.

They trace there beliefs back to the heretics of the donatists, and the nestorians and so forth. They argue against there being an organized church, but what was it when Ignatius said to follow the bishop in around 100AD and Irenaeus said, in about 170AD, that all churches should follow the church of Rome because of its authority. Irenaeus then traced all the bishops of Rome immediately after that statement.

Here is the Irenaeus quote:
  1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,(3) that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
  2. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. Book3 Chapter 3 "Against Heresies"
Click to expand...
 
GOt this recommendation form steve ray’s website
catholic-convert.com/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabid=63

I actually have Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History its an excellent debunking of this twisted view of Christian History. I don’t have the other books but since the book I mentioned was written by a Baptist it made the case for me.
Baptist are sons of the radical reformation end of story.

  1. ]Baptist Successionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History*. Written by James Edward McGoldrick and published by The American Theological Assoc. and the Scarecrow Press, Inc., Metuchen, NJ and London, 1994. Available at www.amazon.com. This book is a must for those who have been raised with, or influenced by the idea that the Baptists can historically trace their roots back to the apostles through a succession of churches and groups outside the Catholic Church. With over 2 million copies of J. M. Carroll’s little booklet The Trail of Blood (Ashland Ave. Baptist Church, 163 N. Ashland Ave., Lexington, KY, 40502 (606) 266-4341. The blurb on the booklet says, “Following Christians down through the centuries or, the history of Baptist churches from the time of Christ, their founder, to the present day”). McGoldrick, a Baptist scholar and professor of history Cedarville College, shows the utter impossibility of making such a claim. Another excellent book on the same topic, Baptist Successionism: A Critical View, written by another Baptist, W. Morgan Patterson. Patterson, associate professor of church history at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary writes, "Although the belief was widespread among nineteenth-century Baptists and is still often cited today, the author demonstrates that it rests largely on the insecure footing of books written long ago by unscholarly, careless, or even biased historians. If they are out of print try contacting Loomes Books at 612-430-1092. For my review and critique of Baptist Successionism and the Trail of Blood, click here.
 
The best way to refute this claim is to make comparisons between what these medieval heretics taught and what Baptists themselves today believe. They would be surprised that these heretics actually espoused teachings that are either orthodox Catholic on several major points(like the Novatians and medieval Waldenses), or grossly heretical (Albigensians, Cathari) that they cannot honestly claim that the group referred to qualifies as “Christian”.

Gerry 🙂
 
Yeah but its best not to use catholic sources to refute these claims. The books I mentioned above where written by Baptist. Now that hurts being refuted by a Baptist.

Protestants look among suspicion catholics take on church histroy many insist to me that many of these heretics were protestants and we altered their beleifs. Protestant histronians who are honest may be a better route to go for proof than the catholic encyclopedia and other catholic sources.
 
I went to a Baptist university and seminary. My circle of friends were all pastors in training. No one took the trail of blood theory seriously. We did look at, so we would be aware for those we might meet who would believe this.

The theory lacks any hsitorical or doctrinal credibility. RobedWithLight had the best suggestion. Look up some of these splinter gorups that comprise this trail and examine the doctrines. You will find both the heretical and the wacky among them.
 
What providence, what timing!!

A guy I work with (Baptist) gives me little devotional books and the like everynow and then. Well, a couple days ago he gave me a stack of booklets with “Trail of Blood” in it. I’d heard of it before and though it would be an interesting read. So I perused through parts of it, and wow! There’s some tall claims the author makes!!

He even says that John the Baptist was the first Baptist, because he was “the Baptist.” Wow, that’s pretty solid. Can anybody refute that? I’d say it’s complete equivocation on the word “Baptist.” Hmmm, John the Baptist wasn’t an Apostle was he? No, but Ephesians 2:20 tells us in essence that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone. And many (all?) who had received John the Baptist’s baptism would yearn for baptism by an apostle (Acts 19).

Goodness, I’m rambling!! I’'ll try to look into some of those sources mentioned above.

He’s even got the historical map, with the red dots (trail of blood) being the “Baptist” church. Ok, he didn’t rip it completely off from the Church of Christ’s map (if they have one) but isn’t it odd how everybody wants to claim Christ and the Apostles? Then they claim the Waldensians and those Anarchist Anabaptists!! I’d rather go up against a band of Muslim savages than a congregation of Anabaptists that knew I was Presbyterian!!

That book may serve to drive me further to Rome.
 
As Philip said the Trail of Blood theory is beleived in by no serious Baptist theologian, and is taught in no serious Baptist institutions. The only Baptists who take it seriously at all are a handfull of extreme independent fundamentalists. In order to beleive it they have to deny history and buy into a lot of wierd heresies. For example one group claimed as early “baptists” was the Paulicans who beleived that Jesus was an ordinary human being who was “adopted” by God to be his Son. They denied the teaching of the Trinity, which of course Baptists teach. All along their “history of baptist succesion” they have to adapt such groups of heretics who teach very differently from modern baptist as “Baptistic” to keep the succesion going. The most recent group to be claimed as “baptistic” was/is the Anabaptists who still exist, and teach nothing like the Baptists. They even Baptise by affusion like we Catholics do, and not by submersion.
 
Reformed Rob:
He even says that John the Baptist was the first Baptist, because he was “the Baptist.”
Click to expand...
And because John the Baptist operated in Judea (in the south), not Galilee (in the north), that makes him the first Souther Baptist 😛

DaveBj
 
So this whole trail of blood thing is about some Baptists who believe they can trace themselves back to the Apostles following a “trail of blood” (i.e. martyrs) who were killed by the Catholic Church?

How do they reconcile this with the Early Fathers teachings?
 
James_2:24:
So this whole trail of blood thing is about some Baptists who believe they can trace themselves back to the Apostles following a “trail of blood” (i.e. martyrs) who were killed by the Catholic Church?

How do they reconcile this with the Early Fathers teachings?
Click to expand...
Not only that their whole martyr comples is reidiculous the catholics were the only martyrs for 300 years we were not persecuting anyone while our most essential doctrines can be proven by the apsotolic and early fathers we were running for our lives. Even when the church was involoved in the state it was not till the middle ages that the catholic church persecuted anyone serriously. Lets say they are right we persecuted the real christians. Well we didn’t persecute heretics till around 1200 that still a little too late for the origianl christians to finally show up. Not only that the real Baptist denom doesn’t start till 400 years later at that time the Lutherans and Anglicans were far more anti-batpist than the catholic church. But no course in church history will cure the ills of these anti-catholics.
 
James_2:24:
So this whole trail of blood thing is about some Baptists who believe they can trace themselves back to the Apostles following a “trail of blood” (i.e. martyrs) who were killed by the Catholic Church?

How do they reconcile this with the Early Fathers teachings?
Click to expand...
They can’t, which is why even some Protestants don’t take the theory of successionism seriously.

Gerry 🙂
 
40.png
MrS:
Have your friend “google” that book and the author. The author has since written another book refuting the first and admitting his false historical findings.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt that is true, but in the intro to my copy of the trail of blood, it says that J.W. Porter was the one who compiled the lectures into the said booklet, and J.W. Carroll died before the book came off the press. So, did the Porter guy not know that the original guy (Carroll) had refuted it already? Or did Porter later go on to refute it himself???

I’ll google and check amazon for more on this.
 
Here is a website that deals with the book:

turrisfortis.com/trail.html

Wow, I’m reading this booklet (trail of blood) in spare time and if I didn’t know better, I’d maybe want to be a landmarkist!!

However, anybody who has at least a basic understanding of the Church Fathers along with early church councils should be able to see right through what he’s saying. Like, that Purgatory being newly introduced in the Middle Ages (Dark Ages he prefers, of course). And he can’t seem to be Orthodox on his explanation of what Indulgences are. He gets it all wrong. And prayers to Saints and Mary, being new in 451 with Chalcedon I.
But I’m a silly Presbyterian, what do I know???:whistle:

I should stick to my ballroom dancing
 
Hi guys and gals!
This is very very timely for me, too. I just now sent off a bunch of quotes from Cath Answ’s to a person I know only from an educational issues list. I referred him to this thread, so maybe he will show up soon. I know y’all will be nice to him! God bless. 👍
 
This is an old thread, but I’ll bring it back up a bit since I’m on discussion with someone who is defending “Trail of Blood”. Now, according to one post here (or another thread here), that JM Carroll has retracted his views in “Trail of Blood”. Any source online to this that I might be able to use?
 
Reformed Rob;:
Then they claim the Waldensians and those Anarchist Anabaptists!! I’d rather go up against a band of Muslim savages than a congregation of Anabaptists that knew I was Presbyterian!!
Click to expand...
Just to hijack this thread a little…

This is not the first time I have heard the phrase “Anarchist Anabatists”. I heard a well known Catholic apologist use the same phrase. I will be charitable and assume the folks that use the pharse are really not well versed in anabaptist belief and practices. However when I see this phrase, I feel obligated to speak up and defend my Mennonite brothers and sisters in Christ because I really feel it is doing them a disservice.

The anabaptists did become the Mennonites (and related branches) of today. Here is a good website that will provide a better understanding of the anabaptists and their history and practices.

If you read this site, you will discover two of the three underlying anabaptist principles are non-resistance and community (not involved in the state). Sounds harmless to me if I were a Presbyterian. You might actually become very sympathetic and fall in love with these folks if you read the accounts of their martyrs (by both the Catholic and Reformed).

This “anarchist” connection is presumably made because what happened at Munster is erroneously applied to all anabaptists. If you read the account, what happened at Munster happened because a small group of anabaptists followed a “heretical” anabaptist (Melchior Hoffmann) who rejected thef underlying anabaptist principles and led a small branch of them into wierdness.

If you read the article, however you will learn that ascribing to all anabaptists the characteristics of the Munsterites is akin to ascribing to all Baptists the characteristics of Fred Phelps.

Now hijack over and back to the “Trail of Blood” which I agree seems sketchy to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top