• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Trail of Blood

canadyjd

Well-Known Member
The Bible is not explicit that John the Baptist baptized the 12 apostles, yet there is more reason to believe that he did than to believe he did not. The reason to believe that he did not is because of silence (i.e., we cannot find a passage in the Bible that explicitly says “John baptized X”). The reasons to believe that he did are from putting together the implications of scripture.

John was a prophet sent from God (John 1:6; Luke 7:28). John was not operating in a priestly role under the Jewish law, but came with a new message authorized by God. John came to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (Luke 1:16-18). He preached the kingdom of God and baptized disciples. Those who obeyed John’s message received John’s baptism. He was the voice of one crying in the wilderness (Isaiah 40:3-6; Matthew 3:1-6; Mark 1:1-5; Luke 3:3-4, 21) and those who received his message were baptized. Apparently, the apostles and other early disciples of Jesus received John’s message. The other option would be that they rejected John’s message, yet followed Jesus anyway (which is not very plausible).

John’s baptism was from heaven (Mark 11:29-31). Submitting to John’s baptism “justified God” – probably meaning here that they acknowledged God’s truth by submitting to the baptism of the man God sent. John Gill says, “they expressed their sentiments by their obedience.” They declared God was right by receiving baptism. Luke 7:29-30 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him. It seems true that (1) the disciples were there among those that heard him, and (2) that those whom Jesus called to follow him had not rejected the counsel of God against themselves!

Two of John’s disciples followed Jesus after John identified Jesus as the Lamb of God. One of these was Andrew, an apostle. John 1:35-37, 40 Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God! And the two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus…One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother. Though there is not a passage that explicitly says, “John the Baptist baptized Andrew,” obviously this is the conclusion we make unless for some reason we want Andrew to be an unbaptized disciple of John.

An apostle to replace Judas was chosen from those who had been with them from the time of John’s baptism. Acts 1:21-23 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. The phrase “baptism of John” (βάπτισμα Ἰωάννου) is never used to refer only to the baptism of Jesus by John, but to the baptizing that John did (Matthew 21:25; Mark 11:30; Luke 7:29; Luke 20:4; Acts 18:25).

John baptized his disciples, and John’s disciples followed Christ. To me it seems difficult to reject this as the scriptural conclusion of the matter.
One good consideration as to whether John baptized the disciples of Jesus is one of authority.

When Jesus came for baptism John at first refused. The one with greater authority baptized, and John recognized that. Jesus insisted, saying it fulfilled righteousness. The Holy Spirit descending like a dove upon Jesus demonstrated that Jesus had the greater authority, though John fulfilled his role as the forerunner.

At that point, for the disciples of Jesus to submit to the baptism of John might be interpreted as John having greater authority than Jesus.

John, himself, stated that he (his ministry) must decrease and Jesus (His ministry) must increase.

That is an admission of the greater authority of Jesus that might be obscured if His disciples submitted to John’s baptism.

peace to you
 

37818

Well-Known Member
The only ones said to baptize before Pentecost was John the Baptist and Jesus, by way of His disciples.(John 4:1-2). There is no reason to suppose any of Jesus' followers prior to the cross were not baptised or one or the other baptisms were not "Christian" in following Jesus.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Do you mean for one of the above (i.e., either number 1 or number 2) to have "did" instead of "did not"?
Thanks for the catch- (at least I thought I was awake!)
I did edit my comments


Do you believe the apostles were unbaptized?

I'm confident that all apostles were baptized
but I am of the school that it is not important who does the baptizing., rather it is important that we are properly baptized - ie immersion, reason for being baptized, ect.

Sure if you are joining First Bapt of Atlanta - it would be great to be baptized by Dr Stanely - but in the 20th century - what % of new members has he personally baptized?
 

RighteousnessTemperance&

Well-Known Member
The reference to “John’s baptism” in Acs 1 is the baptism of Jesus by John, which is considered the beginning of His ministry.

One good reason to not think all of the disciples were baptized by John is that scripture doesn’t say they were.

That is an assumption, not found in scripture, that some are using to develop a doctrine of supremacy in church founding by Baptists.

peace to you
Someone may want to build a further case based on John’s baptism, but it is unreasonable to think the apostles were not baptized by John the Baptist. The only Jews we know of who were not were religious leaders, extreme opposites to the apostles.

The apostles were expectantly looking for the Messiah, and were open-minded enough to listen to Jesus. John was the chosen one who prepared the way, people went out to him, and he baptized them, even those who many may have disliked, for example, publicans.

John’s ministry was far too important, had far too much impact to think that Jews expectantly awaiting the Messiah would not respond to his message. The character of the apostles argues against the idea that they would not have also responded and been baptized.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
I will repeat myself - if it was that important - Scripture would have so mention.

Who knows, maybe Peter thought he had to get into the act!
 

Mikey

Active Member
I realize that I have not participated on this forum for several years but I need some help with a problem. I have a man in my church who is insisting that the book Trail of Blood is legitimate. I have tried to dissuade him from this by using the argument that any seminary history professor worth his or her salt will tell you that Trail of Blood may be nice in sentiment but sentiment doesn't make something true. Are there any definitive quotes or books out there that can help me show this fellow that it is impossible to trace one's baptist heritage back to the apostles? Thanks for your help.

Hey,

I'm not aware of any specific works that refute Trail of Blood. Trail of Blood isn't really that widely held (if at all) where im from. Best I can do is to recommend really church history books, Nick Needham's (a baptist minister) 2000 years of Christs power.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Hey,

I'm not aware of any specific works that refute Trail of Blood. Trail of Blood isn't really that widely held (if at all) where im from. Best I can do is to recommend really church history books, Nick Needham's (a baptist minister) 2000 years of Christs power.

You can check some of the links on this Wiki about the Trail of Blood.

Now, If I am not mistiaken - many -if not most - Landmarkds are KJO.
IF so, one of those tennents - is that the KJV does NOT have a copyright.
(Not sure how they explain that the Royal Family of England does have a copyright)
Yet the Landmarks DO have a copyright on The ToB!

I think I have a ToB somewhere - but what I would like to see are the references/footnotes.
 

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'm confident that all apostles were baptized
but I am of the school that it is not important who does the baptizing., rather it is important that we are properly baptized - ie immersion, reason for being baptized, ect.
I think I understand where you are coming from, but at the same time cannot find that John was a God-sent heaven-authorized man who baptized all who heard his message and was the only such baptizer until Jesus's disciples also started baptizing.

On that latter subject, I would be curious to know, from those to whom it applies, whether the baptisms performed by the disciples of Jesus (John 3:22; John 4:1-2) before Pentecost were or were not "Christian baptism."

Now, If I am not mistaken - many -if not most - Landmarkds are KJO.
In this I believe you are mistaken. For example, the two largest bodies that hold Landmark ecclesiology -- the American Baptist Association and the Baptist Missionary Association of America -- are not KJVO. (However, this does not mean they may have member churches who are.) These represent probably 3000 to 4000 churches. In general they believe in the plenary verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible as originally written. My take is that the leading schools and leading preachers are not pro-KJV, but due to the generally conservative nature of the people, their doctrine, and their practice, the rank-and-file often have a specific preference for the King James Bible. This is probably changing as the older generation passes.

I think you will tend to find that the more vocal KJVO Landmark Baptists are usually independent. It is hard to know just how many churches this might be.
 

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Someone may want to build a further case based on John’s baptism, but it is unreasonable to think the apostles were not baptized by John the Baptist. The only Jews we know of who were not were religious leaders, extreme opposites to the apostles.
This almost seems to be a case of trying to build an extra wall of defense against possible wrong implications of John's baptism.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
(referring to many landmark are KJO)
In this I believe you are mistaken. For example, the two largest bodies that hold Landmark ecclesiology -- the American Baptist Association and the Baptist Missionary Association of America --.

Thus the reason for being extremly careful as to how I phrased the question.
However, possibly - 30-50 years ago most may have been KJO - but in the last decade or 2 -
the younger generation of pastors may have reconsidered that position.

But the whole point was that KJO believes in no copyright - but they have no problem with ToB having a copyright.

I think you will tend to find that the more vocal KJVO Landmark Baptists are usually independent. It is hard to know just how many churches this might be..

Every Baptist church is independent - even us Southern Baptist!
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Independent? independent of what?

The term independent Baptist has an established meaning: = not being affiliated with the Convention (Northern or Southern).
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
copyright..."Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Lexington, Kentucky"
The longtime publisher of the Trail of Blood: Ashland Ave. Baptist, was commended by Albert Mohler for its strong historical emphasis:

2016 Centennial of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church

"'God has made us chronological creatures. We think necessarily in terms of past, present and future. That's why history is so important to us. That is why I am so honored to celebrate with Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, your 100th anniversary, past, present and future,' Mohler said."

"'Few churches not only have the history of your church, but few actually have the intentionality in that history as well,' he continued. 'There is a very clear identity to Ashland Avenue Baptist Church, committed from the very beginning to the faith once for all delivered to the saints.'"



FYI & FWIW:

Pastor David Prince, Ashland Avenue Baptist Church

Pastor David E. Prince "came to Ashland in November 2003....He received is M.Div from Southwestern Theological Seminary and his Ph.D from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. In addition to his role at Ashland, he is also an Associate Professor for Christian Preaching and Pastoral Ministry at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY."

[Prince's predecessor at Ashland Ave. was Hershael York, who's now the Dean of SBTS's School of Theology!]

Prince is also chairman of the board of trustees of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission! He's been one of Russell Moore's strongest defenders:

Feb 21, 2020 • ERLC Upset It's Being Investigated

"In an open letter...ERLC trustee officers called the task force...'unwarranted, divisive, and disrespectful'. Signed by ERLC Board of Trustees chairman David Prince and the board’s other officers, the letter...included a statement of support for ERLC president Russell Moore."
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
Independent? independent of what?

The term independent Baptist has an establ! NOished meaning: = not being affiliated with the Convention (Northern or Southern).

NO! NO! NO! - Independent means that no outside organization has any authority over a local church.

So what you are saying if you support a missionary - that is affiliation.
If you fellowship with another local independent church - that is affiliation
If you work with an organization - say - Sword of the Lord - that is affiliation
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
NO! NO! NO! -
Independent means that no outside organization has any authority over a local church.

So what you are saying if you support a missionary - that is affiliation.

So if the mission board requires the missionary to provide - say - 10% of his support for mission board expenses --- that is control

If you fellowship with another local independent church - that is affiliation
If the church you visit - for fellowship - lets say they have a policy of no eating in the church auditorium - that is control

If you work with an organization - say - Sword of the Lord - that is affiliation
If the Sword will not allow you to advertise the fact - say - you use Chick Publications - that is control [/QUOTE]
 

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Thus the reason for being extremely careful as to how I phrased the question.
However, possibly - 30-50 years ago most may have been KJO - but in the last decade or 2 -
the younger generation of pastors may have reconsidered that position.
Not really, if talking about the ABA and BMAA. The former has a seminary here in our county seat town, and the latter has a seminary in a neighboring county. 30-50 years ago they were not KJVO, and the former was pretty virulently anti-KJVO (though they kept their talking points in check outside the seminary).
But the whole point was that KJO believes in no copyright - but they have no problem with ToB having a copyright.
I don't think there is much correlation here, even for those who make a point about the KJV not being copyrighted. In one case they are talking about the word of God, and in the other the words of men.
Every Baptist church is independent - even us Southern Baptist!
Yes, I understand any Baptist church is supposed to be independent. In context, I was contrasting churches in two associations I mentioned (ABA, BMAA) with churches that are not in any association. By the way, there are even Southern Baptists who are Landmarkers, and the author of The Trail of Blood was a Southern Baptist.

James Milton Carroll (January 8, 1852 – January 10, 1931) was the son of Benajah and Mary Eliza Carroll. His father was a Baptist minister, as well as his better known older brother, Benajah Harvey (B.H.) Carroll.
J. M. Carroll was a Baptist pastor, author, and educator. He was an amateur ornithologist, and reputedly owned one of the largest collections of bird eggs in the state Texas. Carroll founded the Education Commission of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. He was a founder and the first president of San Marcos Baptist Academy, and was president of both Oklahoma Baptist University and Howard Payne University. I think he worked in some way at some time for both the Texas Baptist & Herald (periodical) and Baylor University.

In addition to his well-known book The Trail of Blood, he wrote several other books, including Texas Baptist Statistics (1896), A History of Texas Baptists, B. H. Carroll, The Colossus of Baptist History, and Just Such a Time: Recollections of Childhood on the Texas Frontier, 1858-1867.
 

Salty

20,000 Posts Club
Administrator
.
Yes, I understand any Baptist church is supposed to be independent. In context, I was contrasting churches in two associations I mentioned (ABA, BMAA) with churches that are not in any association. By the way, there are even Southern Baptists who are Landmarkers, and the author of The Trail of Blood was a Southern Baptist..

If a church is affiliated with the BMAA or ABA - then they are associated. So, do you mean that church is not in a local association - only the National association/convention/Fellowship/Alliance. Whether it is local, State or national - it makes no difference. Makes me think in Germany - the current International Baptist Convention (English Speaking) orginaly the Association of Baptists in Continental Europe (ABCE) in 1964, and the name was changed to the European Baptist Convention (EBC). -- Anyways - it originate with only 2 SBC churches!

Going back to my "carefully worded statement" the Majority (if not all) of Landmarkers that I knew - were all King James only.

About the only "power" that a association/convention/Fellowship/Alliance has over a local independent church is to withdraw fellowship.


As far as the ToB being copyrighted - esp since it is over 100 years old - why should they worry about a copyright - My thinking is that if they believe that strongly - they would want wide distribution of that booklet.
 

rlvaughn

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If a church is affiliated with the BMAA or ABA - then they are associated. So, do you mean that church is not in a local association - only the National association/convention/Fellowship/Alliance.
Most churches in the ABA and BMAA associate with their local, state, and national bodies. However, some do not always participate in all three.
As far as the ToB being copyrighted - esp since it is over 100 years old - why should they worry about a copyright - My thinking is that if they believe that strongly - they would want wide distribution of that booklet.
Ultimately you would have to ask whoever holds the copyright. A couple of things. A general rule of thumb is that most things copyrighted before 1927 are now in the public domain. ToB was written in 1931.On the other hand, I notice two different recent printings of the book on Amazon, which makes me wonder who holds the copyright.

CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (February 11, 2015)
Bible Nation Society, The (July 19, 2017)
 

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
Many make ToB into something it isn't and has never been. ToB is a compilation of notes and the charts from Carroll's lectures he gave in various churches. It is not a comprehensive work.
 
Top