Egyptian Evidence for the Bible: The Merneptah Stele (Pharaoh Mer-ne-Ptah) by Egyptologist James Hoffmeier
The video below about the Merneptah Stele, commented on by leading Egyptologist and evangelical scholar James Hoffmeier in situ at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, Egypt, forms the topic of this post. Last week I posted Dr. Hoffmeier’s discussion of Darius I Hystaspes’ Suez Inscription. The Merneptah Stele or Stela is powerful and early corroboration of Israel’s presence in Canaan. In the words of agnostic Egyptologist William Dever:
“The Merneptah Stele is … just what skeptics, mistrusting the Hebrew Bible (and archaeology), have always insisted upon as corroborative evidence: an extrabiblical text, securely dated, and free of biblical or pro-Israel bias. What more would it take to convince the naysayers?” (Source cited here and more information)
I would encourage you to watch this video. Then you can tell skeptics who doubt the historicity of early Israel’s presence in Canaan that you have seen the stele mentioning them in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. If you want to see the Merneptah Stele with your own eyes, going to Cairo with Tuktu Tours and Dr. James Hoffmeier in person is a great way to do it. You can also see a nice picture of the Merneptah Stele in the PDF of my work on the Old Testament and archaeology here.
View the video on YouTube by clicking here, or on Rumble by clicking here, or watch the embedded video below:
If you want to know when more of these go live, please subscribe to my YouTube and Rumble channels. You can also comment on and “like” the videos and share them with others, including on social media like Truth Social, Twitter, and Facebook (if you have accounts on them–I don’t, nor do I intend to get any), actions which will boost their visibility to search engines. Thank you.
I intend to place all these videos on FaithSaves.net as well as they are prepared.
–TDR
Evidence for the Bible from Egypt: Darius I Hystaspes’ Suez Inscription (James Hoffmeier)
Last year my wife and I had the pleasure of visiting Egypt on a tour led by the great evangelical scholar James Hoffmeier, who has written books defending the historicity of the Exodus and the wilderness wanderings that have been published by Oxford University Press. The tour was organized with Tuktu Tours, and Tuktu did a great job. I would definitely recommend their organization if you want to visit Israel, Jordan, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, or elsewhere. Dr. Hoffmeier, who grew up in Egypt, was amazing; not too many tour guides are not only fluent in Arabic and the Biblical languages, but can also read hieroglyphs on ancient temple walls like they were English, is recognized by other scholars when one visits archaeological digs, can get one into special places that are otherwise closed to the public, and so on.
While we were in Egypt, Dr. Hoffmeier graciously allowed us to record a goodly number of videos relating to archaeological evidence from Egypt that validates the truth of the Bible or illuminates Biblical history. We have just started getting these live, and, Lord willing, they will all go online over time.
This first video relates to Darius I Hystaspes. He is mentioned in Ezra 4:5, 24; 5:5–7; 6:1, 12–15; Haggai 1:1, 15; 2:10; Zechariah 1:1, 7; 7:1.His role in Biblical history is clear from, e. g., Ezra 6:1-12:
Then Darius the king made a decree … for the building of this house of God: that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the river, forthwith expenses be given unto these men, that they be not hindered. And that which they have need of, both young bullocks, and rams, and lambs, for the burnt offerings of the God of heaven, wheat, salt, wine, and oil, according to the appointment of the priests which are at Jerusalem, let it be given them day by day without fail: That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savours unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king, and of his sons. Also I have made a decree, that whosoever shall alter this word, let timber be pulled down from his house, and being set up, let him be hanged thereon; and let his house be made a dunghill for this. And the God that hath caused his name to dwell there destroy all kings and people, that shall put to their hand to alter and to destroy this house of God which is at Jerusalem. I Darius have made a decree; let it be done with speed. (Ezra 6:1-12)
He authored an inscription found in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo about attempting to do what the Suez canal did in linking the Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea. You can watch the video on YouTube by clicking here, on Rumble by clicking here, or on the embedded video below:
Rumble:
If you want to know when more of these go live, please subscribe to my YouTube and Rumble channels. You can also comment on and “like” the videos and share them with others, actions which will boost their visibility to search engines. Thank you.
I intend to place all these videos on FaithSaves.net as well as they are prepared.
–TDR
Dutch Reformed Historians Ypeij & Dermount on Baptist Succession
A number of weeks ago we examined the famous Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius quote on Baptist or Anabaptist succession, one often employed by Landmark Baptist writers and in the famous pamphlet The Trail of Blood. We saw that it was legitimate–this great Catholic scholar recognized the existence of Baptist succession. Landmark Baptists also often quote the Dutch Reformed historians Ypeij & Dermout on Baptist succession.
Reformed historian Annaeus Ypeij
For example, J. R. Graves, in his book The Trilemma; Or, Death By Three Horns (J. R. Graves and Son, 1890), 135–136, states the following as proof of Baptist succession:
In the year 1819, Dr. Ypeij, Professor of the University of Gunningen, and Dr. J. J. Dermout, chaplain to the King of Holland, distinguished Pedobaptist scholars, published a history, in four volumes, entitled, “History of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands” — of which Church they were members — in which work they devote a chapter to the history of the Dutch Baptists. I have space for only the frank statement of the conclusion to which their impartial investigation led them:
“We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Anabaptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and who have long, in the history of the Church, received the honor of that origin. On this account the Baptists may be considered the only Christian community which has stood since the apostles, and as a Christian society which has preserved pure the doctrine of the Gospel through all ages. The perfectly correct external economy of the Baptist denomination, tends to confirm the truth disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary; and at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notions of the Catholics, that their communion is the most ancient.”
Is the quote by Annaeus Ypeij and Isaak Johannes Dermout accurate? Yes it is! The quote comes from Annaeus Ypeij & Izaak Johannes Dermout, Geschiedenis der Netherlandsche Hervomke Kerk (Breda: 1819-1827), 4 vol, I:148. An English translation appears in John Newton Brown, ed., Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Boston: Shattuck & Co.,1835), 796, Article “Mennonites.” The encyclopedia continues:
“This testimony, from the highest official authority in the Dutch Reformed church, is certainly a rare instance of liberality towards another denomination. It is conceding all . . . the Baptists claim.”
Baptist successionists took care to check the Dutch and confirm the quote’s accuracy. For more on this quotation on Baptist history, please see my article “Famous Baptist Succession / History Quotes in Context.”
Thus, both Roman Catholics and Reformed Protestants admit that Baptists are not Protestants, but have solid historical reasons to view themselves as the churches started by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, something that is proven by their Biblical doctrine and practice.
–TDR
Christianity: Pro-Racism, Pro-Slavery White Man’s Religion–Reject it for Atheism!
I have written a pamphlet dealing with attacks upon the Bible and Christianity from its (alleged) racism and (alleged) support of chattel slavery, compared with the (alleged) anti-racism and anti-slavery position of atheism. It deals with the objection that “Christianity is the racist white man’s religion” and, as the Freedom From Religion Foundation claims, “[W]hite supremacy [is] interwoven with Christianity … inextricably intertwined.” (Sources for all quotes are in the pamphlet.)
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
You may think that such claims are so ridiculous that they do not deserve a refutation. You are correct about them being ridiculous—and, as Bethel Baptist Church, where I serve the Lord, is not majority white now and has not been for a very long time, reflecting the ethnic diversity of the area, it is indeed a very foolish claim. However, sadly, in secular college campuses and in liberal media these egregious falsehoods are regularly propounded. Not that long ago a very angry black man at a place where I was passing out gospel literature said that all white Christians were supporters of white nationalism. (He also said, ironically, that they all denied it when he said that to them. Hmm… ). He said he had a degree in religious studies. (Perhaps they should give him his money back.) In any case, the attack on Christianity from its alleged racism and pro-slavery position is very much out there.
The pamphlet demonstrates that:
1.) The Bible rejects racism.
2.) Christian churches in Bible times rejected racism—for example, the church at Antioch had a leader in the category of “prophet and teacher” whose name was “Simon the Black” and another born in Africa, while the rest were all from Asia; an African whose family became close to the Apostle Paul helped Christ carry His cross; etc.
3.) Christian churches and the wider realm of Christendom were profoundly impacted by Africa. Did you ever think about the fact that possibly the two most influential people in the history of Western Christendom were from Africa—namely, Tertullian and Augustine? Furthermore, the ancient Anabaptist movements, the Novatians and Donatists, were both led by African Anabaptists. Did you know that the Baptists were the first group of churches in the American South to come out against slavery?
4.) Christianity very rapidly spread from Israel to Africa to China to India to Britain.
5.) Ancient paganism was pro-slavery while Christianity was pro-slave (since it taught that “All Lives Matter,” and therefore the lives of slaves, people of darker and lighter skin, etc. all matter), and Christian influence, unique among world religions, led to the abolition of slavery.
6.) Modern racism actually stems from the Enlightenment and its rejection of Biblical Christianity, combined with the anti-creation philosophy of biological evolution. (This fact should be taught in all public schools, and at the very least every student in Christian schools needs to know this. Did you know it?)
7.) Slavery exists today in atheist countries such as North Korea and China, in accordance with the racism of people like Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Hegel, and David Hume. Everyone should know that Darwin anticipated genocide by whites of “lower races”:
“The … Caucasian races have beaten … [others] in the struggle for existence. … [At] no very distant date … the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.”
Everyone should know Marx said:
“Let us … speak of the beautiful side … of the slavery of the blacks in the East, in Brazil, in the Southern States of North America. … [S]lavery is an economic category of the highest importance. Without slavery … you would have … the complete decadence of modern commerce and civilization. … [S]ave slavery … [c]onserve the good side of this economic category.”
8.) The pamphlet then explains how spiritual slavery is the worst problem people suffer today. It illustrates that the root causes of racism (pride) and slavery (covetousness) are sins that the reader has been guilty of, and how, through the ransom payment of Christ, they can become spiritually free from the control of the sins that lead to racism and slavery now and eternal hell fire in eternity.
I would suggest reading the pamphlet yourself, keeping the link or a few copies on hand for people who run into this objection when preaching the gospel. I would also suggest that Christian schools, in history class, when they teach the Enlightenment and the impact of evolution and its pre-and post-Darwinian influence in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, make sure students know that modern racism came from these movements. Missionaries in Africa, the Caribbean, and, frankly, on most of the globe should know these things and share them with those to whom they minister.
Cancel culture should cancel Darwin, cancel Marx, cancel Biblical skepticism, cancel evolution, cancel atheism, and cancel agnosticism.
Everyone should recognize Christianity is the best friend of those who are against racism and slavery.
Click here to read the pamphlet Biblical Christianity vs. Atheism on Racism and Slavery
–TDR
Charles Darwin on Design in Creation
The Bible teaches that all men know God’s nature and power from creation, but they suppress that knowledge, leaving them without excuse. “All men” includes Charles Darwin, the incredibly influential promoter of the theory of evolution.
Scripture says:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:18-23)
Is there evidence in Darwin’s life that his study of the creation pointed the evolutionist to the Creator? In a conversation between the Duke of Argyll and Charles Darwin, in the last year of Darwin’s life, the Duke recounted:
In the course of [our] conversation I said to Mr. Darwin, with reference to some of his own remarkable works on the “Fertilization of Orchids,” and upon “The Earthworms,” and various other observations he made of the wonderful contrivances for certain purposes in nature—I said it was impossible to look at these without seeing that they were the effect and the expression of mind. I shall never forget Mr. Darwin’s answer. He looked at me very hard and said, “Well, that often comes over me with overwhelming force; but at other times,” and he shook his head vaguely, adding, “it seems to go away.” (Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, ed. Francis Darwin, vol. 1, letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881 (London: John Murray, 1887), 316.
In public schools, when they teach Darwinian evolution, they should tell impressionable young people that in Charles Darwin’s studies “often,” “with overwhelming force,” the reality that the intricate design of creation is “impossible” to explain except as “the effect and the expression of Mind” struck the author of The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection and The Descent of Man. This statement from Darwin should be pounded into them the way they pound atheism and socialism into them.
I’m not holding my breath.
You can share his sentiments, however, with those who believe that Darwinian evolution explains away the need for the Almighty Creator. They ought to know.
Learn more about God, science, and the Bible by clicking here.
–TDR
Leading an Evangelistic Bible Study–How To Videos
Regular readers of What is Truth? are likely aware of the series of evangelistic Bible studies here which can be downloaded and personalized for use in your Baptist church here. People who are not willing to sit down or meet over Zoom with a church member can be directed to view the series itself taught here on YouTube.
I have had the privilege of doing a series at Bethel Baptist Church on how to lead one of these studies with a seeking unconverted person. We are almost done going through teaching study #3, “What Does God Want From Me?” There are currently twenty-four videos in the series (and counting) as I write this blog post. Church members who watch this series will be well equipped to lead an evangelistic Bible study. If you would like to watch the series on leading an evangelistic Bible study yourself, or recommend it for others in your church, you can access it here:
Watch the series on how to lead an evangelistic Bible study by clicking here
Please check back regularly as new videos are added to the series and we move through studies #4-7, Lord willing, and put what you are learning into practice by being Christ’s instrument for making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and teaching them to observe everything Christ has commanded (Matthew 28:18-20). You can subscribe to the KJB1611 channel to be notified whenever new videos are posted.
–TDR
John 20:28 and the Watchtower Society
John 20:28 is a very difficult passage for the Watchtower Society or so-called “Jehovah’s Witnesses” to explain away. The Watchtower, in its New World “Translation” that was made by seven “translators” who did not know Hebrew or Aramaic, and only one of which had ever taken a single course in New Testament Greek in his life, egregiously mistranslates John 1:1 to affirm that the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, was “a god,” supporting a form of polytheism in the Watchtower, where their god Jehovah, who is different than the true Jehovah God of the Bible, is allegedly the Almighty God while Christ is a secondary true god, a “mighty god.” The Watchtower Society claims that their deity is “the God,” and only the true God is called “the God,” while Christ is merely “a god,” a secondary true god. Their mistranslation of John 1:1 is awful, but, in my opinion, is not the first place to go to in order to show members of the cult their error. While the facts are not at all on their side in John 1:1, it is too complicated in Greek for them to believe you; they will believe their cult over what you say.
However, their misinterpretation of John 1:1 leaves them with a huge problem in John 20:28. In John 20:28–the climax of John’s Gospel–we read the following. Notice John 20:28:
John 20:26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. 30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: 31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
In Greek, the Apostle Thomas calls Christ “the Lord of me and the God of me”–so Christ is called “the God” in the climactic section of the gospel of John! Christ then says that Thomas is “blessed” for having confessed the Lord Jesus as “the God” (v. 29), and then the Apostle John explains that this confession is involved in believing on Christ to receive life in His name (vv. 30-31).
Here are pictures of John 20:28 from an interlinear Greek New Testament. I recommend that you download or take a picture of these pics and keep them on your phone or other electronic device. Then, when you run into a member of the Watchtower Society, you can tell him that you noticed this in the Bible and would like to get his explanation.
The interlinear here is J. P. Green’s Interlinear Hebrew-Greek-English Bible, 4 vol. ed., the volume on the New Testament. I believe Green’s interlinear, based on the Textus Receptus, is the best interlinear that is out there. I personally do not need to use an interlinear because my Greek has passed that stage, but on whatever occasions I would need to use one, I use Green’s (I have a leather-bound version of the NT portion of his interlinear and a big one-volume work that has the OT and NT. I am not sure if the leather-bound version is still in print.) If you want an interlinear, here are (affiliate) links to where you can get it on Amazon:
New Testament:
One volume edition Old and New Testament (bigger book and smaller print):
Four volume set:
Usually people in the Watchtower will refuse to talk to you if they are aware that you know what you are talking about–they seek to prey on the Biblically ignorant, not show their (alleged) truth to those who know God’s Word, because once you know the Bible well you are not going to get sucked into their cult. So it is wise to ask questions of members of the Watchtower when you seek to evangelize them, because as soon as they know you understand Scripture, they probably will not want to talk to you any more.
So what can you ask a member of the Watchtower? Something like the following (which also includes their very feeble attempts to explain the text away):
In John 20:28, at the climax of John’s Gospel, the point to which the whole Gospel has been building after the prologue of 1:1-18 and before the epilogue of chapter 21, Thomas answers and says to Jesus, “The Lord of me and the God of me” O Kyrios mou kai ho Theos mou (John 20:28), addressing Jesus Christ as “the” God. Christ commends Thomas for this statement, saying he was blessed, and that those who similarly confess and believe that Jesus is “the God of me” are blessed (20:29). Why do you think Thomas calls Christ “the God of me”?
The only explanations from members of the Watchtower that I have heard are the following:
1.) Thomas was taking God’s name in vain, like people who say “Oh my G**,” because the Apostle was surprised at Christ’s resurrection appearance. However, Christ would not have commended the Apostle for taking God’s name in vain. One of the Apostles taking God’s name in vain is the climactic confession of the whole Gospel of John? That “explanation” is ridiculous.
2.) Thomas was not really speaking to Christ when the Bible says Thomas “answered and said unto him.” But that also is to read into the Bible what it does not say, rather than drawing from the text what it does say. The “him” in 20:28 refers to Christ in 20:27. That is simply what the grammar requires. Thomas “answered” and “said unto” Christ, “him” of 20:28 who had appeared to Thomas. It cannot possibly be speaking about God the Father.
One Watchtower elder told me that only the “the Lord of me” was addressed to Christ while “the God of me” was addressed to the Father. However, looking at all the NT verses where the construction of John 20:28 appears, in all 61 instances, the same person gets the whole address (Matthew 11:4; 12:39, 48; 15:3, 23, 28; 16:17; 17:11; 19:4, 27; 21:21, 24, 27; 25:26, 37, 44; 26:33; Mark 6:37; 7:28; 9:12, 38; 11:14, 29; 12:17, 34; 14:48; Luke 1:19, 35; 3:11; 4:8; 7:22; 8:50; 10:41; 11:45; 13:8, 15; 17:20; 20:34; 24:18; John 2:19; 3:10; 4:10; 5:11, 19; 6:26; 7:16, 21, 52; 8:14, 33, 48; 9:20, 27, 30, 34; 10:25, 33; 12:34; 14:23; 18:5; 20:28). So this attempt to evade what sure looks like the plain sense of John 20:28 also fails badly. Thomas called Christ both “the Lord of me” and “the God of me.” Thomas answered and said to Jesus, “the Lord of me and the God of me.”
Because this text is so difficult for the Watchtower to explain away, they attempt to conceal from their members that Christ is called “the God” in John 20:28 (as He is in Hebrews 1:8). The Watchtower hopes that their “Jesus is a god, but not the God” explanation for John 1:1 works and that nobody notices that Christ is called “the God of me” in John 20:28. That is why this fact is very helpful and something worth pressing a Watchtower witness on.
The original audience who got the Gospel of John would have concluded that Thomas was “the Lord” and “the God” of Thomas, and that those who similarly believed were blessed (20:29). The Apostle Thomas was blessed when he confessed Jesus to be “the Lord of me and the God of me,” and I am blessed to make the same confession, 20:29. If members of the Watchtower repent, they also can make the same confession and receive eternal life through repentant faith alone in the one God, who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and who is in all three Persons possessed of the glorious Name “Jehovah.” (Matthew 28:19).
You can learn more about the blessed truth of the Trinity by clicking here.
–TDR
The Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius Baptist Succession Quote: Is it Legitimate?
The Trail of Blood, by J. M. Carroll, which we commended in a recent Friday’s post, contains the following quote by Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent, Stanislaus Hosius:
Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
Were it not that the Baptists have been grievously tormented and cut off with the knife during the past twelve hundred years, they would swarm in greater number than all the Reformers. (Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112-113).
This Hosius quote is widely reproduced in other Baptist literature contemporary with Carroll. However, many non-Baptists have attacked it as illegitimate. For example, Catholics like to claim that Hosius never said anything like this. Other sources also claim Hosius never said it. Even some sincere Baptists–who, unfortunately, clearly did not know Latin–have said he never said it.
One of the problems with the quotation is that standards for citation in past centuries were not the same as they are now. “Hosius, Letters, Apud Opera, pp. 112, 113” is very hard to trace. Furthermore, when Carroll wrote the Trail of Blood, citations did not necessarily have to include “…,” bracketed letters when capitalization was changed, and so on; it was acceptable and widely practiced to slightly paraphrase quotations. What Carroll and many Baptists in his day wrote was a proper citation back then, but it should be more properly cited now–that is, if it is legitimate. Is it?The answer is Yes! The Roman Catholic cardinal and papal legate to the Council of Trent Stanislaus Hosius definitely did make a statement to this effect. Baptists should have no qualms whatever with citing this leading Roman Catholic as evidence of their ancient heritage, far, far before Protestantism. Those who deny that he ever said it do not seem to have taken the time to investigate the matter properly or were ignorant of Latin. (Perhaps a good reason to learn Latin, no?) What they should do, though, is cite the quote in a manner that suits the 21st century. Here is an accurate citation of Cardinal Hosius–this is the quote to use:
For if so be, that as every man is most ready to suffer death for the faith of his sect, so his faith should be judged most perfect and most sure, there shall be no faith more certain and true, than is the Anabaptists’, seeing there be none now, or have been before time for the space of these thousand and two hundred years, who have been more cruelly punished, or that have more stoutly, steadfastly, cheerfully taken their punishment, yea or have offered themselves of their own accord to death, were it never so terrible and grievous. . . . If you will have regard to the number, it is like that in multitude they would swarm above all other, if they were not grievously plagued, and cut off with the knife of persecution.
This translation comes from Richard Shacklock’s translation of Hosius’ Latin in a work entitled The Hatchet of Heresies: A Most Excellent Treaties of the begynnyng of heresyes in oure tyme, compiled by the Reuerend Father in God Stanislaus Hosius, etc. (Antwerp: Aeg. Diest, 1565; Ann Arbor: Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership, 2011), 44-49.You can find the original Latin Shacklock is translating in Stanislai Hosii S. R. E. Cardinalis, Episcopi Varmiensis, In Concilio Tridentino Legati Opera Omnia Hactenus Edita, In Unum Corpus Collecta (Venice: Apud Franciscum Francisci, 1632), 203, sec. De Haeresibus Nostri Temporis. Here is a screenshot of the Latin text
If you know Latin, you can see the quotation near the top of the page.So the quotation about Baptist succession by Roman Catholic cardinal Stanislaus Hosius is absolutely accurate, and he certainly did say it. Those who deny that he said it failed to research the matter properly.If you would like to read the quote in greater context, or see links to the places where you can get Shacklock’s translation of Hosius or Hosius’s original Latin, please read my article “Famous Baptist Succession / History Quotes in Context” by clicking here. I supply lots and lots of context. So you can use the Cardinal Hosius quote–shout it from the housetops. Just cite it correctly so people do not have a reason to doubt its accuracy.Scripture teaches Baptist church polity and Scripture teaches an actual succession of churches from the first Baptist church, organized by Christ from those baptized by the first Baptist–John the Baptist–the greatest man who had lived other than Christ up to that time (Matthew 11:11). External historical data, such as the testimony of Cardinal Hosius to Baptist succession, support the infallible truth of Scripture, which proves that Baptist churches are the churches of Jesus Christ, founded by the Savior during His earthly ministry and preserved from that time until the present day. All other religious organizations that claim the name of Christian, unfortunately, are more akin in God’s eyes to the Roman Catholic whore of Babylon (Revelation 17) and her Protestant daughters (Revelation 17:5) than to the pure bride of Christ (2 Corinthians 11:2; Ephesians 5). If you are reading this and have not been born again, you should immediately repent and believe the gospel, being justified by faith alone apart from works. Then immediately attend, be baptized into and serve the Triune God in a faithful independent, unaffiliated Baptist church–the kind Christ started in the first century, the kind for which He loved and died and His bride (Ephesians 5:25). If, by His grace, you love Christ, you must and will keep His commandments (John 14:15).
A Defense of the Trail of Blood by James M. Carroll as Accurate Landmark Baptist History
Have you ever read the pamphlet The Trail of Blood by James M. Carroll? It is a classic presentation of the true history of Baptists–that they had an actual succession of churches from the time of Christ, who founded the first Baptist church, throughout the patristic, medieval, reformation, and modern eras until today. If you have not read it, you should do so. I have a link to a free electronic version in the ecclesiology section of faithsaves.net. You can buy a physical copy at the Lehigh Valley Baptist Church bookstore, among many other places. You can even get a copy at Amazon (affiliate link):
However, Amazon will probably charge more than what you would pay from a church-run Baptist publisher, although if you are getting a bunch of other stuff at Amazon anyway, maybe with free shipping their price will be acceptable.
The Trail of Blood gets a lot of criticism. However, that criticism is unjustified.
1.) The Trail of Blood is narrow-minded!
The Trail of Blood is criticized for its teaching that only Baptist churches are true churches, the kind established by Jesus Christ and preserved from Christ’s day until today. However, Baptist churches are the kind of churches established by Christ, a fact validated by their doctrine and practice, and the Bible promises that the churches Christ established would continue until His return (Ephesians 3:21; Matthew 16:18; 28:20, etc.). The promise of succession for Christ’s churches is not given to the “universal church,” for there is no such thing. Scripture, in the Great Commission and other passages, promises an actual succession of true churches. Scripture teaches what is called the Landmark Baptist view of church succession, and Scripture teaches that each true church is Christ’s bride, and so a “Baptist bride” (an ecclesiological, not a soteriological, assertion–one is in the kingdom through repentant faith alone, not through baptism into the Lord’s church).
2.) The Trail of Blood claims non-Baptist groups were Baptists!
First, one must keep in mind that the Trail of Blood is a large pamphlet, designed for a popular-level audience, not a scholarly book. It is too short to give nuance to every single statement that someone might argue about. Second, Roman Catholicism liked to lump everyone together who was not a Catholic and put the worst possible interpretation on their beliefs, something ancient pagans and post-Reformation Protestants were also not immune to doing. To consider some generally accepted examples, ancient pagans who asserted early Christians were cannibals who committed incest because Christians talked about the “body of Christ” in conjunction with “eating” and “drinking,” and they referred to each other as “brother” and “sister” were grossly inaccurate. Reformation-era opponents of Baptists who said that they were violent people who wished to overthrow the State grossly misrepresented the fact that a huge percentage of the Anabaptists were outright pacifists to smear the entire body of those who practiced believer’s baptism with the actions of a few at the city of Munster (many of whom were not even practitioners of believer’s baptism there). So we should not be surprised if Roman Catholics painted groups of dissenting Christians in the worst possible light.
Think about it this way: if by “Anabaptist” a Catholic simply means someone who baptizes believers, he would classify people who believe like a strong independent Baptist church, people who believe like the Watchtower Society, people in the American Baptist Convention who support sodomy and follow woman preachers who deny the inspiration of Scripture, Pentecostals who handle snakes and drink poison, people in the Iglesia Ni Cristo who think Felix Y. Manalo is the final prophet from God, and Mormons as “Anabaptists.” The Catholic could say that “Anabaptists” deny the Deity of Christ, believe in extra-scriptural revelations, believe Satan and Christ are brothers, believe sexual perversion is acceptable, deny the Bible is the Word of God, and handle snakes in their church services. However, that people who do these evil things also baptize believers does not mean that there are not thousands and thousands of people in independent Baptist churches that follow Scripture faithfully. If the situation is such in our day, should we be surprised that medieval Catholics painted those Anabaptists whom they slaughtered and tortured in the worst possible light?
There are many groups of non-Catholic believers in Christianity before the Reformation. Historical sources on some of them are better than for others, but there is sufficient evidence to believe that among groups such as the Waldenses, Cathari, and Anabaptists Christ’s promise of church perpetuity was fulfilled. That does not mean that every person who identified with these groups had sound beliefs, any more than it means that everyone in Oklahoma who says he is a Baptist has sound beliefs. But it is absolutely rational to believe that the line of true churches promised in Scripture is contained among such groups.
3.) The Trail of Blood takes quotes by historical sources out of context or makes up quotes!
Lord willing, we will deal with a few of these quotes in upcoming weeks. If you want a preview, please see the quotations by non-Baptist historians here in their context.
In summary, the Trail of Blood is a valuable historical source demonstrating the Scriptural truth that Christ has kept His promise to preserve His churches. It does a good job for a large pamphlet. If you have not read it, I encourage you to do so, and to share it with others, so that everyone in the world who is born again sees his need to unite with a Bible-believing Baptist church through baptism and serve the Lord Jesus Christ in His New Testament temple.
–TDR
Free sacred and classical music
If you would like beautiful sacred and classical music for free, here are some resources. Consider bookmarking this post and come back to it when you want to listen to some good music.
Sacred:
In the ecclesiology section of my website, I have a number of resources for sacred, reverent, and free conservative psalm and hymn music. Lord willing, I will keep those resources updated as links change. So for free sacred music, please click here.
Classical:
Netherlands Bach Society: They are playing everything that Bach wrote, over time, and making it available for free. Their YouTube channel has no ads in their videos (as of the time I am writing this).
So you know, I have a real soft spot for the baroque and for early classical music.
May these resources be a blessing to you, as you offer God holy praise in psalms and hymns, and enjoy the beauty of His design seen in classical music.
–TDR
Recent Comments