"Trail of Blood" Baptist

  • Thread starter Thread starter thephilosopher6
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

thephilosopher6

Guest
Anyone ever hear of this silly theory? Some Fundamentalist Baptist like to promote it. It’s the theory that the Baptist church goes all the way back to the New Testament, and that it was its own independent entity separated from the Catholic Church which is suppose to have been a corruption/heresy of the Baptist church like the Gnostics were to Catholics, and that over time, as the Catholic Church grew to power, it persecuted the smaller “Baptistic groups” until the reformation which allowed the Baptist church to begin to flourish without persecution.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The degree to which successionist Baptist holds to this theory may differ, with some saying that there is no proof that Baptist go back to Jesus, but that they accept it out of faith; others, however, may say there is proof and they’re usually the ones who point to the chart above. It’s quite amusing. They try so hard sometimes.
 
I thought the ‘Baptists’ got their name from John the Baptist? Then there are the anabaptists which might be related somehow.

And so we have the Apostolic Church, The Church of the Nazarene, and The Baptists. Probably many others as well such as the Church of The Way, The Christian Church, The Church of Christ, and many many others… Even The Church of [LD] Saints.
 
Last edited:
Baptist got their name because of their views on baptism. They are not related to Anabaptist, but they have similar beliefs.
 
Interesting theory. All of the non-Baptists are descended directly from First Century “Irregular Churches.”
 
I see from their chart that the Catholic Church started with Constantine, “popery” started in the 6th century, purgatory started in the 8th century, transubstantiation started in the 12th century, celibacy started in the 13th century. Whatever. These people are dumb as a bag of rocks. :roll_eyes:
 
Lots of silliness out there. Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians, does not mention the mysterious trail of blood at all. Neither do any of the Church fathers in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th > 21st century mention it at all. But, do not attempt to disabuse such Baptists of their delusion, or you will be witness to the facial exprssion of the “True Believer.” It can be scary.

Just as silly is the man-made 400 year “Intertestamental period” in which God was inexplicably silent from Malachi to the Gospels. Except that this period is covered rather nicely by the Deuterocanonical books. And, our Lord said that the “Prophets prophesied up to John” (the Baptist) Hmmm.

I thought it was Catholics who held to the doctrines of men…
 
Last edited:
po18guy said:
Clement, in his letter to the Corinthians, does not mention the mysterious trail of blood at all.
Click to expand...
No one does. They were a clandestine society functioning, unseen, for 1500 years. Not daring to show their faces until Martin Luther came around and outed them. And then they rejected his leadership and formed their own church.

It’s just another anti-Catholic conspiracy theory.
 
Every Church makes this claim to some extent. Anglicans, Mormons, even Jehovah’s Witnesses claim they are the true original Church.

Unfortunately history says otherwise. The only Churches that can claim to go back to Christ are Catholic and Orthodox. All others are manmade over a millennium later.
 
Yes, it was written by JM Carroll in 1931

Former baptist Steve Ray wrote a few pages about it (edit - ooops already posted above)

Silly
 
Last edited:
To loosely quote Terullian, let them show their lists of bishops and apostolic men from whom they were handed on the faith.

There’s just no evidence for this bizzare claim and others similar to it. There was no Great Apostasy, there was no “true” church that was forced underground and managed to survive (albeit with absolutely no surviving documents) until Luther loosed them from the legalistic shackles of the Roman Catholic Church. It’s wishful thinking. Unless you’re getting info from folks out of Dallas Theological or Moody, scholars will agree no such group existed.
 
The “Dark Ages” were from 450 to 1720-ish? I think even Voltaire would be laughing over that one
 
The saddest thing about this alternative History is that some Baptists will actually believe it on sight.
If only they knew their actual History…
 
Last edited:
This type of alternative history has crept into the framework of many secular people as well. Think of all the folks you know who take at face value misrepresentations or actual lies about events like the Crusades, the Galileo Affair, the nature and scope of the “Dark” Ages, and so on. Plus we’ve got Dan Brown to thank for making up another good chunk of what constitutes (or passes as) people’s impression if the Church. I can’t count how many people have cited the Crusades as some kind of definitive, end-all argument against Christianity and, especially, Catholicism. Ask them where they got their info however, and it’s a hand wave and “Oh everyone knows that!”
 
As a Reformed Baptist who has studied at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, I will say that the alternative history of the “Trail of Blood” is ridiculous and I find it appalling that people actually believe this garbage. We studied this in a “Baptist History” class at Southern Seminary and the professor there was very adamant that the Trail of Blood theory is absolutely ridiculous. I would hope that people at Dallas and Moody would know easily know this is a falsehood and I would think it would be limited to Independent Fundamentalist types like those at Bob Jones U and/or Pensacola Christian…
 
ReformedProtestant said:
As a Reformed Baptist who has studied at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Click to expand...
I studied at Southwest BTS SET extension at Houston Baptist. Yes, this idea was considered ridiculous. I know of no educated person who believed it anything but bunk. But I think it important to recognize the inherent contradiction in believing the Bible alone, while trying to force some sort of historical succession. Rather than argue the Trail of Blood a hooey, I would suggest emphasizing the importance of succession it represents, to those that believe it. Then study these groups and what they really believe. They are hardly Baptists. Then explain that there is one Church with the succession that can be historically found.
 
I do believe that it is important to point out the falsehoods of this Trail of Blood thing.

With regards to the importance of Apostolic succession, I assume w/ your experience that you would be familiar with my “Reformed” understanding…

That it may be important to know the historical succession of church leaders, but it is more important to preach the gospel faithfully. A church can be built on the Apostles only if it loves what the Apostles loved and affirms what the Apostles affirmed.

Pray for the Church, that it would remain faithful to the gospel and teach it with boldness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top