What do you think?
Rate this book
Heirs of the Reformation: A Study in Baptist Origins
“When W. H. Whitsitt published A Question in Baptist History (1896), the controversy over Baptist Successionism was already in full swing. … McGoldrick has produced an excellent revisitation of this question giving a theologically sound and historically adjudicated presentation of Baptist identity and origins.” -- Dr. Tom Nettles
186 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1994
4 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
October 14, 2025
This book is a great resource for anyone exploring the other side of the story of Baptist origins. It is well researched, well written, and honest.
June 22, 2023
McGoldrick effectively puts whatever is left of Landmarkist Baptist Successionism to death, albeit in a careful and gentle way that gives the pseudo-history the decency of a Christian burial.
May 20, 2020
If you've read or been influenced by the Trail of Blood booklet, I highly recommend you read this detailed refutation.
April 1, 2024
Interesting; lots of history.
December 31, 2011
A careful analysis of so-called medieval Baptist groups. Well argued without being too polemical.
May 31, 2025
The subtitle is a little misleading. I was expecting the whole book to be about Baptist origins, when in actuality, only the last chapter is about Baptist origins. This book is really a reply to the pamphlet Trail of Blood that seeks to trace the origins of Baptists all the way back to first century. Each chapter is an explanation of why Baptists cannot trace their origin through a particular group, like Anabaptists, based on the tenets of Baptists he outlines in chapter one. If you want general critical arguments against Baptists who trace their succession through various groups back to the first century, then this is your book.
One critique of the book is the authors apparent sweeping generalizations in the chapter on Anabaptists. The author states that not all Anabaptists are the same but then proceeds to quote the beliefs of one Anabaptist personality as representing the whole groups belief on that topic. For example, on page 110-111 he quotes Jacob Kautz view of salvation as representative for all Anabaptists.
One critique of the book is the authors apparent sweeping generalizations in the chapter on Anabaptists. The author states that not all Anabaptists are the same but then proceeds to quote the beliefs of one Anabaptist personality as representing the whole groups belief on that topic. For example, on page 110-111 he quotes Jacob Kautz view of salvation as representative for all Anabaptists.
July 28, 2017
This is a historical argument attempting to be the last word on the issue of Baptist successionism and is an answer to Dr. J.M. Carrol's Trail of Blood. McGoldrick provides a large amount of historical documentation and succinct argumentation based on them. Ample evidence is given that many sects championed by successionists held some beliefs that modern-day Baptists would soundly reject. McGoldrick also underlines some of the historiographical weaknesses in Landmark Baptist writings. Refreshingly absent from McGoldrick's study is the obvious bias that plagues much of successionist literature. Nearly every case examined involves primary sources and multiple witnesses. An essential addition to the library of the serious student of Baptist history.
August 18, 2025
A helpful critique of the Baptist succesionist or Landmark Baptist position. Dr. McGoldrick critiques many false associations of historic sects with both the general and particular baptists.
He argues that Baptists have their roots in the reformation and particular baptists originate from the Congregationalists not the Anabaptists who had several different doctrines such as affusion as their mode of baptism and they were not Augustinian nor confessional as the particular baptists.
It is also important to note that the author of this book was a Presbyterian, James E. McGokdrick, but he did not accept the view of many contemporary Presbyterians and Reformed Christians that the Baptists originated from the Anabaptists.
He argues that Baptists have their roots in the reformation and particular baptists originate from the Congregationalists not the Anabaptists who had several different doctrines such as affusion as their mode of baptism and they were not Augustinian nor confessional as the particular baptists.
It is also important to note that the author of this book was a Presbyterian, James E. McGokdrick, but he did not accept the view of many contemporary Presbyterians and Reformed Christians that the Baptists originated from the Anabaptists.
April 19, 2021
Excellent research and presentation.
Successionism is the Baptist version of apostolic succession: it's the belief that the New Testament church was Baptist, and Baptist churches have continued in an unbroken line until today. The Trail of Blood by J. M. Carroll is the most famous proponent of this view.
Basically, it's rubbish.
McGoldrick examined the main groups that Carroll and others have claimed as Baptists. While there are superficial similarities, none of the groups agreed with even most of Baptist doctrine. It's a bit reductionist to sum each group up in a paragraph, but:
- Montanists were schismatic Catholics. They believed in continuing revelation, miraculous gifts, and speaking in tongues like modern Charismatics; they allowed women in ministry.
- Novatians believed they were the true Catholic church, so they re-baptized Catholics who converted. But they still practiced infant baptism, baptism by sprinkling, and held to most other Catholic teachings. They also believed mortal sins committed after baptism were unforgivable.
- Paulicians believed Jesus became God or was not God at all; his death was not a payment for sin; the Holy Spirit was a created being. They baptized by affusion (pouring) and believed in Catholic transubstantiation and prayers for the dead.
- Bogomils were dualists: Christ did not have a physical body, did not do physical miracles, and did not suffer and die on the cross. Baptism was evil because water is a material. Final victory against Satan will be the destruction of the material world and an ascension of souls to heaven.
- Petrobrusians possibly denied infant baptism, transubstantiation, and prayers for the dead. There is little evidence for what they did believe, and no reason to assume the were Baptist.
- Henricians were possibly Pelagians. There is little evidence for their beliefs.
- Arnoldists were schismatic Catholics who emphasized works-righteousness through poverty.
- Albigenses were dualists like the Paulicians and Bogomils, though possibly more radical: the Old Testament God was actually the Devil, who created the material world, killed humanity by flood, and burned Sodom and Gomorrah. The Old Testament saints were damned; John the Baptist was a demon. The New Testament God created the spiritual world. There were two Christs: an evil, physical Christ and a good, spiritual Christ (good but not divine). Marriage and procreation were deadly sins, as was eating meat, cheese, or eggs. They denied the future resurrection of the body, but did believe evil people could be reincarnated as animals. They had a priesthood and a sacramental spiritual baptism (instead of a water baptism).
- Waldenses were Catholics who emphasized vows of poverty. The Catholic Church deemed them heretics for their persistence in unauthorized preaching. Later Waldenses became Reformed Protestants or Presbyterians. Today they are Methodists.
- Anabaptists were a spectrum of movements opposed to both Catholicism and Protestantism. Despite their beliefs in believer's baptism and separation of church and state, they differed from Protestant/Baptist belief in sola scriptura and the Protestant canon. They preceded Arminians by emphasizing free will while believing mankind was lost in sin, but not in bondage to sin. Most baptized by affusion, not immersion. Some were Unitarian, denied the divinity of Christ, denied the humanity of Christ, or believed in works-righteousness. The first Reformation Anabaptists were former Catholics and did not claim a lineage back to the New Testament church. Their descendants are the Mennonites, Brethren churches.
McGoldrick also demonstrates that Baptists originated as English Protestants out of the Puritan and Separatist groups. They were predominantly Calvinist, as seen in the writings of John Gill and Charles Spurgeon.
He wraps up with a thumbnail on Landmarkism, a mostly-Southern Baptist belief that the Baptist church is the only true church. Unfortunately, I can say from personal experience that it is also a common belief in Independent Baptist churches. If you believe that John the Baptist and Jesus were Baptists (presumably they wore suits, passed offering plates, and went on door-to-door visitation), I can understand believing Landmarkism. However, after a study of church history, it is hard to justify.
4.5 stars
Successionism is the Baptist version of apostolic succession: it's the belief that the New Testament church was Baptist, and Baptist churches have continued in an unbroken line until today. The Trail of Blood by J. M. Carroll is the most famous proponent of this view.
Basically, it's rubbish.
McGoldrick examined the main groups that Carroll and others have claimed as Baptists. While there are superficial similarities, none of the groups agreed with even most of Baptist doctrine. It's a bit reductionist to sum each group up in a paragraph, but:
- Montanists were schismatic Catholics. They believed in continuing revelation, miraculous gifts, and speaking in tongues like modern Charismatics; they allowed women in ministry.
- Novatians believed they were the true Catholic church, so they re-baptized Catholics who converted. But they still practiced infant baptism, baptism by sprinkling, and held to most other Catholic teachings. They also believed mortal sins committed after baptism were unforgivable.
- Paulicians believed Jesus became God or was not God at all; his death was not a payment for sin; the Holy Spirit was a created being. They baptized by affusion (pouring) and believed in Catholic transubstantiation and prayers for the dead.
- Bogomils were dualists: Christ did not have a physical body, did not do physical miracles, and did not suffer and die on the cross. Baptism was evil because water is a material. Final victory against Satan will be the destruction of the material world and an ascension of souls to heaven.
- Petrobrusians possibly denied infant baptism, transubstantiation, and prayers for the dead. There is little evidence for what they did believe, and no reason to assume the were Baptist.
- Henricians were possibly Pelagians. There is little evidence for their beliefs.
- Arnoldists were schismatic Catholics who emphasized works-righteousness through poverty.
- Albigenses were dualists like the Paulicians and Bogomils, though possibly more radical: the Old Testament God was actually the Devil, who created the material world, killed humanity by flood, and burned Sodom and Gomorrah. The Old Testament saints were damned; John the Baptist was a demon. The New Testament God created the spiritual world. There were two Christs: an evil, physical Christ and a good, spiritual Christ (good but not divine). Marriage and procreation were deadly sins, as was eating meat, cheese, or eggs. They denied the future resurrection of the body, but did believe evil people could be reincarnated as animals. They had a priesthood and a sacramental spiritual baptism (instead of a water baptism).
- Waldenses were Catholics who emphasized vows of poverty. The Catholic Church deemed them heretics for their persistence in unauthorized preaching. Later Waldenses became Reformed Protestants or Presbyterians. Today they are Methodists.
- Anabaptists were a spectrum of movements opposed to both Catholicism and Protestantism. Despite their beliefs in believer's baptism and separation of church and state, they differed from Protestant/Baptist belief in sola scriptura and the Protestant canon. They preceded Arminians by emphasizing free will while believing mankind was lost in sin, but not in bondage to sin. Most baptized by affusion, not immersion. Some were Unitarian, denied the divinity of Christ, denied the humanity of Christ, or believed in works-righteousness. The first Reformation Anabaptists were former Catholics and did not claim a lineage back to the New Testament church. Their descendants are the Mennonites, Brethren churches.
McGoldrick also demonstrates that Baptists originated as English Protestants out of the Puritan and Separatist groups. They were predominantly Calvinist, as seen in the writings of John Gill and Charles Spurgeon.
He wraps up with a thumbnail on Landmarkism, a mostly-Southern Baptist belief that the Baptist church is the only true church. Unfortunately, I can say from personal experience that it is also a common belief in Independent Baptist churches. If you believe that John the Baptist and Jesus were Baptists (presumably they wore suits, passed offering plates, and went on door-to-door visitation), I can understand believing Landmarkism. However, after a study of church history, it is hard to justify.
4.5 stars
April 24, 2022
This book is an excellent refutation of the successionist theory that some Baptists hold to in relation to their history. As Baptists, we need to learn our true history and recover our heritage, and this book helps in clearing out some of the clutter in our history. Baptists of today trace their roots back to the Particular Baptists of the 1640s, who in turn align themselves with the Protestants of the Reformation. Baptists are historically Protestant, Calvinistic, confessional, and covenantal in their doctrine, and we must return to our roots and our own literature and theology. The book concludes by saying that Baptists are in decline; may the Lord providentially correct that.
December 18, 2019
This was my first introduction to church history. I found it was an easy read. The author seems to be a careful historian, and he seeks to tell an accurate portrayal of history of the Baptists, and how baptist can be traced back to the reformation. Also, I was introduced to groups that the names I have heard thrown around loosely before, like the Waldenses and and Anabaptists. It’s wild to see what their beliefs were! McGoldrick does a good job showing a unbiased picture of these groups.
Recommend reading if your interested in church history or Baptist history.
Recommend reading if your interested in church history or Baptist history.
January 28, 2022
The author does a very good job in demonstrating the errors of Baptist successionism and leaves the reader convinced that Baptists haven’t been present throughout every period of history but rather are Protestants.
The book also provides interesting insights into various individuals, such as St Patrick, and groups, such as the Waldenses, throughout the history of the church.
I would recommend this book to any seeking to understand the history or origin of the Baptists.
The book also provides interesting insights into various individuals, such as St Patrick, and groups, such as the Waldenses, throughout the history of the church.
I would recommend this book to any seeking to understand the history or origin of the Baptists.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews