let’s consider for a moment how the universal church became the Catholic Church.
the apostles, especially Paul went thru the known Roman world and preached the good news of salvation thru Jesus Christ. this means they went to greece, syria, lebadon, turkey, israel, egypt, rome, etc. etc. PREACHING THE SAME GOSPEL, THE SAME JESUS, THE FAITH, THE SAME WAY OF REGENERATION.
so when the last Apostle to die, John the Beloved around 95ad, there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of Christians spread all thru the Empire. and when a Christian from Rome went to Antioch, and one from Jerusalem went to Athens, and one from Alexandra went to Syria, WHAT DID THEY FIND??? They found they had THE SAME UNIVERSAL FAITH.
how is this possible? because the author of the faith was the same, THE HOLY SPIRIT! the Holy Spirit led them to all truth.
now, since they all received the same FAITH, THEY NAMED THIS SHARED FAITH, THE CATHOLIC FAITH, THEY NAMED THE CHURCH “CATHOLIC” SINCE IT WAS UNIVERSALLY PLANTED BY THE APOSTLES AND IT’S LEADERS COULD TRACE THEIR FAITH TO AN APOSTLE AND THEY HAD THE WRITINGS FROM THE APOSTLES ( THE NT )
now, since it was very dangerous to be a Christian ( i.e. Rome might kill you, like it did Peter, Paul and Justin ), if you were a Christian, i think it’s not a stretch to think they took their FAITH seriously.
what two doctrines CAN WE BE SURE the Christians completely understood from the Apostles??
1. who is Jesus Christ?
2. how does one have their sins forgiven and become a Christian?
Hopefully you are with me so far, this is just common sense.
Now, i agree Justin Martyr’s writings are not Scripture, if they were, the Church would have included them WHEN IT SET THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE.
but although not Scripture, Justin’s writings ACCURATELY convey what HE WAS TAUGHT the CATHOLIC FAITH RECIEVED FROM THE APOSTLES WAS.
Justin was born late 1st century, early second century. THERE IS NO DOUBT HE WAS TAUGHT THE FAITH FROM MEN WHO WERE TAUGHT THE FAITH DIRECTLY FROM THE APOSTLES.
WHAT JUSTIN WROTE ABOUT BAPTISMAL REGENERATION NOT ONLY WAS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH WHAT PAUL, LUKE AND PETER TAUGHT ABOUT BAPTISM IN THE BIBLE, IT ALSO WAS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH WHAT THE APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC FAITH WAS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD!!
IT’S AS IF YOU LEARNED THE FAITH FROM A MINISTER, WHO LEARNED THE FAITH FROM AN ENGLISH MINISTER 40 YEARS AGO.
DOES ANYONE NOT BELIEVE YOUR MINISTER COULD ACCURATELY TEACH YOU WHAT HE LEARNED FROM THE ENGLISH MINISTER 40 YEARS AGO??? OF COURSE HE COULD, ESPECIALLY IF IT’S WHAT EVERYONE BELIEVED!!
I think it is very safe to say that Justin learned how to be regenerated and become a Christian very well, after all the Apostle John had only died 20 or some odd years before.
so we have the Scriptures all teaching baptismal regeneration, and we have the whole CATHOLIC CHURCH believing it from Apostolic times, but what don’t we have??
we don’t have RECORD of anyone from 95 ad on that believed or taught:
1. that there are two baptisms, spirit and water.
2. that baptism is some kind of public rite or act of obedience.
3. that there is something called believers baptism.
4. that someone is supposed to say a sinners prayer to become a Christian.
Don’t you find it odd that we don’t see any of those 4 beliefs??? you can’t say it’s because the Church killed anyone who believed this, the Church was busy avoiding Roman soldiers itself, to be persecuting anyone.
this should make ANY SINCERE SEEKER OF TRUTH GO, HMMMMM!!!
now, to answer your question, when were the Apostles regenerated? the Scriptures are silent, so i will be also.
we do know they were baptized at some point or else they would not have been regenerated or in Christ.
we do know Paul was regenerated in Acts 22:16 by BAPTISM.
i guess you don’t want to admit to following the CATHOLIC TRADITION of a 27 Book NT, I UNDERSTAND!!
Let's not ever consider that concept. Though forwarded by the error-prone Ignatius, it has no foundation in the God-breathed (and by Ignatius' time, completed) Word.
The Apostles planted local autonomous churches which were one based on their unifying instruction verbally and by writing, not by shared leadership of officers. Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus exhorted the Thessalonikans saying, "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions* which ye have been taught, whther by word**, or our epistle" (* = paradoses, precepts delivered by instruction, oral or in writing); (** = logos, the act of speaking) (2 Thess. 2:15). This indicated a complete and sufficient teaching and acceptance of counsel, without any accountability to any external agency. This was according to Paul's gospel which was explicitly thoroughly known and taught by all three authors of this epistle. Silvanus and Timothy needed not to be heard of in further embroidering, adding to, or allegorizing the gospel they had fully committed to the local church at Thessalonika.
In the Apocalypse, the Beloved John was instructed to write individual notes to the angel/preachers of seven of the churches and send each church a bound copy of all the letters. Examining whe commands of Christ in Rev. 2 and 3, nowhere do we see The Lord yielding any of His authority over the churches to John. Furthermore, note that by figurative-literal language, The Christ pictured the churches, not as a candlabrum or menorah (which would have signified an inseparable union of the churches under one central and rule), but as separated, independent, and presumably of the same stature, entities. The suggestion is clearly independent accountability of each angel/messenge/preacher individually to its Head The Lord Jesus Christ, with The Holy Ghost alone being His Voice expressing Himself to each church through His Written Word to the designated messenger of that church.
The first letter to the messenger of the Ephesian church did not entertain or tolerate the doctrine of "overwhelm the ordinary people" Nicolaitans, which is the doctrine of all clergy/lay episcopacies, and which the Lord Jesus Christ hates.
Here, John is not offering second-hand advice to the preacher. No, he is commanded to write and exactly what to day, thus establishing each of the letters as Holy Writ. Further, though each letter is directed toward a specific ordained angel/messenger person, it has to concern his particular local church as to church discipline about to be pronounced and applied by him; but also is shared with all other churches (including those of this age!) as a clear warning by the Holy Ghost against errors in church polity and against untoward behaviors of its messenger/rulers.
There are four things bearing on "catholicity" as a rule of associations of churches:
(1) Here Jesus' words written by John Theologian being God-breathed Sacred Scripture, the Voice of the Holy Ghost, they are not addressed to a "Church" ruling over an association of local churches, nor to a Bishop of such a "Church" diocese; they are written to individual angel/messenger/preachers, each of a separately identified local church, each an individually distinct "candlestick," but in which each individual of each church is to hear that which the Holy Spirit is saying to the churches,
(2) No interference or overruling of any local church is granted to any other local church or church angel/nessenger/ruler, not even as the closest beloved intimate companion of The Lord Jesus Christ Himself. He, and He alone is the head of a legitimate local assembly. The Lord has not delegated authority over any local chuch to any other agency than Himself and His alter ego, The Holy Ghost.
(3) All the churches then and of all time are warned firmly against yielding to the imposition of a sacral society (carrying over a priesthood lording it over "unordained" members of the organization from the OT polity to a NT church); or the superimposition of an external wide-area unionized association of candlesticks inseparably joined yo an incorporated directorship as simply local vendors of another level of mangement beyond local control.
(4) Specific remedies for preacher/pastoral error are set forth (watch for and note the verses directed toward "thee," second person singular, to whom reward or chastisment is inscripturated), especially fo the messenger who has preferred the mundane oversight function (Rev. 2:2,3) above the Fellowship of His Son (Rev. 2:4, 1 Cor. 1:9), for which removal of the local church from the careless messenger is the penalty.
These points are certainly a good arguments for autonomous local churches free of interference from any external agencies in limiting or dictating their conduct and direct accountability to The Son.
In this closing opus, the Final Revelation of the long progress of special revelation to humans of His Will, there is no hint of the establishment of catholicity of the churches. There is no basis for supervision of members of the local church from anyone, other than the Holy Ghost, outside the church.
Is everyone to be a "pope" and to have his doctrine infallible? Yes, he is responsible alone to The God and Father of The Christ The Lord of us. If conviction of error by the Holy Ghost is neglected, correction by the Spirit through local church discipline may result. But so could death be the result of offending The Holy Ghost.
Are the pastor and elders to cultivate more spiritually mature elders? Yes. Various apostles and their verbal and written counsel in this was saved for us as God-breathed. Are we to follow them apart in a direction away from the doctrine of Sola Scriptura? No! Even Jesus did not depart from the so-far revealed-to-humans written Will of The God as an example for us, as shown in Mt. 4:4, where He applied Scripture: "It stands written ...".
There is no circumstance or human predicament that Scripture alone does not cover.
Here is a rule concerning the authority and sufficiency of Holy Scripture:
o Nothing more (Rev. 22:18, Prov. 30:5,6)
o Nothing less (Rev. 22:19. Deut. 8:3)
o Nothing else (Gal. 1:8, 2 Cor. 11:3-4, Is. 8:20)
Under the Blood: Jer. 48:10
==========
By common agreement, capitalizing statements (as you have) is equivalent to yelling by voice. At this point, I will not answer you in your impolite diatribes unless/until you can modulate your emotion and internet etiquette with maturity.
You haven't checked out and accepted/repudiated the seven baptisms mentioned and dealt with doctrinally in the reference I gave you.
You haven't given me the non-sectarian, 1st-century-understood explained "key" Scripture I requested. I'm waiting.
Reluctantly chiding you for leaping ahead with opinions not supportable by honest exegesis.