A Trail of Blood

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by Marie

First Period A.D. 30-500

1) The gradual change from a democracy to a preacher church government.

(2) The change from salvation by grace to Baptismal Salvation.

(3) The change from "believers' baptism" to "infant baptism."

(4) The Hierarchy organized. Marriage of church and state.

(5) Seat of empire changed to Constantinople.

(6) Infant baptism established by law and made compulsory.

(7) Christians begin to persecute Christians.

(8) The "Dark Ages" begin A.D. 426.

(9) The sword and torch rather than the gospel become the power of God (?) unto salvation.

(10) All semblance of "Religious Liberty" dies and is buried and remains buried for many centuries.

(11) Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

You can read this book online
Historic Baptist Doctrine - The Trail of Blood by J. M. Carroll

It goes down through the history of the church and shows each time a new doctrine or implented change in belief took place to justify something as far as into the American church.
I bought a copy this was a great book!

I haven't read the book, but off the top of my head could refute some of the points listed above Marie. I have a VERY strong feeling that this book is based on the typical misunderstandings that Protestants and/or "non-denominationals" have regarding the early church and Catholicism...and, unfortunately, continue to propagate.

Originally Posted by Nonno

Doesn't the Roman Catholic church take the same view?

If I've followed this thread correctly, the answer is a resounding...NO.

Catholicism teaches that Protestants are indeed part of the "body of believers" i.e. "church". Catholicism also teaches that baptism from other denominations is perfectly acceptable as long as it was done in the name of the Trinity (as opposed to Jesus Christ only). So, no, Catholicism does NOT take the same view.

In fact, it was a Baptist church that refused my mother membership because she would not be re-baptized in their manner. As far as they were concerned, she was not even a Christian. They also repeatedly told my father that he was not tithing enough (apparently, they knew exactly what his income was). Needless to say, we eventually stopped worshiping with the Baptists.

As a result, my mother now worships with the Methodists, my father gave up religion all together and is merely "Christian spiritual", my brother is a pseudo-Buddhist, and I am the token Catholic in the family with a special affinity for Jews and have pagan sympathies.

[libby]

(11) Loyal New Testament churches, by whatever name called, are hunted and hounded to the utmost limit of the new Catholic temporal power. Remnants scattered over the world are finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth.

I get a real kick out of this accusation that seems to find its way into any discussion of the history of Christendom.

Was there no "loyal New Testament" church that had the courage to stand up against the supposed "power" of the pope? Where are the writings? Who were these Christians who were

finding uncertain hiding places in forests and mountains, valleys, dens and caves of the earth

.
Should they not have gone out into the world

to use... the gospel become the power of God (?) unto salvation

The only paper records we have of Christians putting forth ideas are those most Christians of today would agree were heretics: Nestorians, Arians, etc. Yet it is Catholics who wrote against these heresies, and I've yet to come across anything written by the "loyal New Testament" churches to combat the heretics.
We have no historical evidence of anything other than what-is-now-called the Catholic Church until between the 11th and 15th centuries.

[Im_Me]

Originally Posted by libby

I get a real kick out of this accusation that seems to find its way into any discussion of the history of Christendom.

Was there no "loyal New Testament" church that had the courage to stand up against the supposed "power" of the pope? Where are the writings? Who were these Christians who were .
Should they not have gone out into the world

The only paper records we have of Christians putting forth ideas are those most Christians of today would agree were heretics: Nestorians, Arians, etc. Yet it is Catholics who wrote against these heresies, and I've yet to come across anything written by the "loyal New Testament" churches to combat the heretics.
We have no historical evidence of anything other than what-is-now-called the Catholic Church until between the 11th and 15th centuries.

I'm glad you're back!

[Marie]

We have no historical evidence of anything other than what-is-now-called the Catholic Church until between the 11th and 15th centuries.

Hi Libby,
Actually that statement is not true, you might not buy into the authors comment about the Baptist, and many Baptist dont either, but there are two other groups The one I am sure of Vaudios the other, I am not. In fact I learned of the The Vaudios from an ex priest Richard Bennett who preached a sermon about this group.


Richard Bennett Lecture on them can be heard here
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermonin...ID=11707155970

The other group is contraversal the Waldenses, at least by one Catholic source that Persits their was no church that never fell under the influence of Rome.

[Radiant1]

Originally Posted by Marie

We have no historical evidence of anything other than what-is-now-called the Catholic Church until between the 11th and 15th centuries.

Hi Libby,
Actually that statement is not true, you might not buy into the authors comment about the Baptist, and many Baptist dont either, but there are two other groups The one I am sure of Vaudios the other, I am not. In fact I learned of the The Vaudios from an ex priest Richard Bennett who preached a sermon about this group.


Richard Bennett Lecture on them can be heard here
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermonin...ID=11707155970

The other group is contraversal the Waldenses, at least by one Catholic source that Persits their was no church that never fell under the influence of Rome.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misunderstood Libby's statement because the document you posted gives absolutely no evidence whatsoever of the Vaudois, who by the way are the same as the Waldensians (different name same group), as having existed at the time of the apostles or even closely thereafter.

There is no evidence for any true Trinitarian group to exist from the time of the apostles aside from Catholicism, and that evidence begins in Scripture and continues through 1st century (Justin Martyr, Ireneus, etc), 2nd century (Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, etc), and onward.

Marie, unless you want to align yourself with non-Trinitarian heretics then please stop the fantasy of wishful thinking and face the historical reality -- Catholicism IS the early church.


To be steeped in history is to cease being Protestant ~ Cardinal John Henry Newman, Catholic convert

[VoteJP]

Originally Posted by Radiant1

Marie, unless you want to align yourself with non-Trinitarian heretics then please stop the fantasy of wishful thinking and face the historical reality -- Catholicism IS the early church.

The non-Trinitarians were the original Church.

[libby]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

The non-Trinitarians were the original Church.

You mean the Jews? We're talking about the early Christian church. Try to keep up.

[VoteJP]

Originally Posted by libby

You mean the Jews? We're talking about the early Christian church. Try to keep up.

No, I said it correct.

The Jews had no trinity, and Jesus never taught any trinity, and the Apostle Paul had no trinity, and the early church had no trinity for a God.

The non-Trinitarians were the ones in the early Church.

[libby]

Originally Posted by VoteJP

No, I said it correct.

The Jews had no trinity, and Jesus never taught any trinity, and the Apostle Paul had no trinity, and the early church had no trinity for a God.

The non-Trinitarians were the ones in the early Church.

WRONG!

[Marie]

By any chance did you listen to Bennits talk?