J
James_Least
Guest
Getting back on track: The way I see it, if the Baptists don’t accept the “trail of blood,” or whatever you want to call it, they are necessarily admitting that they are simply a man-made sect manufactured by Smyth, Helwys, and Wightman (who was, interestingly, burned at the stake by the same King who commissioned their beloved King James Bible) in early 17th Century England.
Are the “Trail of Blood”/Landmark Baptists grasping at straws to try and come up with some sort of theory of apostolic succession? Yes. Does it make a whole lot of sense when brought under historical scrutiny? No. But there needs to be some explanation for them to square themselves with “the gates of Hell not prevailing against” the Church. The other alternative would be to do like the Mormons: Claim a “great apostacy,” and say that everyone was wrong until they came along, but they don’t seem to want to go that route.
Yes, to get back on track. The word Baptist is a catch-all like the word Christian. There are dozens of groups called Baptist. There is no Baptist Denomination as such. Mostly, because true Baptists are not Protestant. Yes there are definite groups that have headquarters and central controls. I hasten to point out that many churches called Baptist are fiercely independent and answer to no one outside their local body. This is not about the name of a church.
I have many Baptistic teachings in my heart. I have studied “Trail of Blood” on several occasions. This pamphlet represents a condensation of several lessons/sermons which were given by a Baptist Preacher named B.J.(?) Carroll, who died before the pamphlet was printed. Like any other man-made book, it is subject to error. Much of the information can be corroborated in other history books. The Cardinal Hosius discrepancy does not necessarily indicate intentional intellectual dishonesty, probably just failure to check all sources and addresses. Dan Rather had that problem. Dan is still a good man. There is some evidence that the reference to Hosius was at a different address. The reference to Hosius is not necessary to support the preponderence of evidence presented. This is not the only historical type document supporting some of the arguments. If the paradigm is the Catholic Encyclopedia, there will never be a preponderence. The court has been mostly kangaroos since before the Inquisitions. It matters not what the evidence might be.
Apostolic succession? No. Whatever happened to Holy Spirit succession–from Pentecost to today? Yes, another Comforter, to lead in all Truth. “Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age”. Jesus said that–to the First New Testament Church. He has kept His promise. We are still out here, “earnestly contending for the faith once, for all delivered unto the saints.” Now what?
Let God be found true, and every man a liar,
Peace,
James Least