Church made up of "all believers regardless of denomination?"

[Reuben_J]

By Scripture, a case can certainly be made for the catholic church (universal) but certainly not the Roman Catholic church. Let’s look at Peter, he only came to Rome to be martyred. The popes claim to be the successors of Peter. The popes are surrounded by immense wealth, carried into the Vatican masses on chariots by the Vatican guards. Peter was a poor fisherman. he wasn’t even a smart guy. he was anything but infallible as the Scriptures point out. None of it adds up in Scripure for Catholicism. You can twist and spin to make them fit but the truth is they don’t fit. Not even close.

Do you believe in the descend of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost?

 

[allischalmers]

This family moved to a new town. They asked a gas station attendent where the Church of God was located. The attendent thought of a moment and the replied: “Let me see, the Methodist have a church over on Second Street. The Baptist have a church on Front Street. The Catholics, Presbyterians, and Pentecostal all have one on Main Street. That’s about it. I don’t think that God has a church in this town.”

 

[deacon_d]

See the problem with your point is that Mt 18:17 tells us that if we have a problem with one another to go to the Church, what Church, the Church of believers. What believers the two others I was suppose go to before the Church.

I know what you are saying but let’s take a look at that entire passage:

Matthew 18:15 “If another believer[d] sins against you,[e] go privately and point out the offense. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back. 16 But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses. 17 If the person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. Then if he or she won’t accept the church’s decision, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.
18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you forbid[f] on earth will be forbidden in heaven, and whatever you permit[g] on earth will be permitted in heaven.

19 “I also tell you this: If two of you agree here on earth concerning anything you ask, my Father in heaven will do it for you. 20 For where two or three gather together as my followers,[h] I am there among them.”

I think when Jesus says take it to the church he means believers in Christ. Notice he recommends the use of 2 witnesses so that the story can be corroborated in case it needs to be taken to the church. If the person who committed the offense still refuses to reconcile then Jesus says take it to the church. Then he further confirms that where 2 or 3 are gathered in HIS name HE is there among them which would constitute the church (not the entire church of course). Then he further confirms the power of binding and loosing (Forbid and Forbidden) to the church.

For the sake of this example let’s forget about Roman Catholic/non Catholic given these labels didn’t exist in 30AD when Jesus was preaching.

So here’s a scenario. I take $100 from you and you make an accusation stating the evidence you have to me. I deny the accusation which then prompts you to go get 2 witnesses so that they can hear the details from both parties. No agreement is reached so then you seek resolution by taking it to let’s say 3-4 people you are know are believers in Christ along with the 2 witnesses. Now that we are gathered in HIS name Jesus is there with us. The church (3-4 believers) hears the evidence and renders a judgement that I have to return the $100. According to Jesus this decision is now binding here and also bound in Heaven. Now it’s up to me to reconcile. If I don’t reconcile then Jesus says to treat me as a Pagan or corrupt tax collector.

Hope this helps. Of course I could also be out of my mind

 

[SyCarl]

There is a difference between Knowing and believing.Protestants Believing comes by faith only, Catholics Knowing can only come by Truth and faith.

We can know only what God has revealed to us by His Word. To me it is the ultimate in pridefullness to say that we can really know anything. God is infinite and can not be known by our finite being. Paul confirms that we know only in part. So we must beleive by faith.

9 For we )know in part and we prophesy in part;

10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.

11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things.

12 For now we (V)see in a mirror dimly, but then (W)face to face; now I know in part, but then I will know fully just as I also (X)have been fully known. 1 Corinthians 13

I am not questioning Pauls faith, I am trying to understand your simplicity theology, You would not have this simple faith had it not been for the Roman Catholic Church. She gave you your bible to which you derive your simplicity theology. The only difference is , you were not taught the scriptures from the 2000 year old Roman Catholic Church, You are either self taught bible Christian, or you get your teachings from a non- catholic perspective, or we would not be having this communication.

I do not have a simplicity theology. I am addressing the subject of this thread. If someone holds and follows the basic truths I stated, I beleive that the are part of the catholic (universal) church. By the way, the Church did not give us the bible. That was given to us by God. What the Church did was fix the canon that had come to be used. Of course my view comes from a non-Catholic (note the capital) perspective but I dare say that I know more about what the Catholic Church teaches than many Catholics do. I did a lot of reading and investigation when I married a Catholic so that I could understand her faith.

I agree, for 1500 yrs, there was only one Holy , Apostolic, Catholic church, Then the protesters to the True faith caused the many interpretations of Christian faith and theology, that many churches outside the Catholic Church reguire many different views of Christianity and scripture interpretation.

You are not right in stating that there was only one church for the first 1500 years. There have been divisions from very early times that have persisited to this date, although there may be some reconciliation coming now. There has been the Assyrian Church of the East and related bodies since the Nestorian controversy and the Council of Ephesus. This Church is not that large now since it flourished in what was once the Persian Empire before the Islamic conquests. At that time it had 10s of millions members. There are also the many Monophysite churches that came about with the splits after the Council of Chalcedon. Examples of these are the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. Then of course there was the Great Schism in 1054 when the Catholic and Orthodox Churches split.

 

[SyCarl]

There is alot I can say to that statement, but I will keep it simple. No. Luke 6:32 For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. I was referring to the enemies of the Catholic Church, although if the shoe fits many have worn it.

All Christians worship the same God and I am certainly not an enemy of the Catholic Church although I disagree with some of its teachings.

Please define your catholic Church that is not identical to the Catholic Church. If you are trying to explain Catholic rites, thats another topic. Please inform me, so that I can stay on the same page with you.

The catholic Church (small c) is the universal Christian Church made up of all beleievers that Protestants are referring to when they say the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicean Creed. The Catholic Church (capital C) is the name of a particular organization whose members form part of the catholic Church.

Sy Carl, forgive me for asking, but do you have any knowledge of Jesus Christ instituting Sacraments in the scriptures? Because if you dont, that explains why you just put a limit on God’s love.

Jesus instituted 2 sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist. I know that the Catholic Church accepts 7 sacraments. I do not see Jesus instituting these in Scripture. As such, although we do not call them sacraments, we do many of the things that go by that name for Catholics, whether you believe that Protestants can validly perform sacraemnts is up to you.
.

You are definitely Catholic if you believe in the following doctrines.
1.Jesus has given us a Church his body, with authority on earth to bind and loose, and the keys to the kingdom of God.

2.Jesus has given us 7 Sacraments

3.Jesus has given us 2 commandments

All these have been with the Catholic Church for 2000 years

Can you explain your simple Christian doctrine of faith in 3 statements, and back it up with scripture? Please dont say only faith, sola scriptura thats not in the bible.

1. There is one God who has revealed Himself to us by His Word which has been left to us in the Scripture.
2. Jesus is the Son of God, the Messiah who came as a man, perfect obeyed God, died for our sins and rose again in voctory over sin and death. The Holy Spirit has been snet as our guide and comforter.
3. We are to love God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength and our neighbour as ourselves.

I notice that in your 3 points you did not mention the salvation that is through faith in Jesus. I know that Catholics do believe this salvation.

To be gathered in his name you have to have his body, first. Jesus is not a puff of smoke. He comes to us Sacramentally, with authority and power., Not with fists down, but with love, and a self will given over to God. Remember, Truth has to have both a body and the Spirit, his flesh and his divinity. to believe in God and know his presence, heaven and earth has to meet. You cant have this simple Christian theology without recieving his body, soul and divinity. You get this obeying Jesus Commandments, not man. If you got a problem with the Catholic Church obeying and following Jesus commandments, then thats another story we can talk about.

With respect to the sacraments I could, and have elsewhere, go into great detail from Scripture as to how Jesus is present in the sacraments. I do not necessarily deny the Catholic view nor do I necessarily accept it. It is with could reason that the early church fathers refer to the mysteries. With respect to the sacraments we do as we were told fully trusting that God will fufill His purpose in them, whether we fully understand it or not.

See this is what I mean, Who gives you the authority to say Jesus did not ordain a priesthood? or they must follow him (Jesus group), You might check your theology before making a statement like that. Do you want me to show you where Jesus institutes the priesthood, and why the body of Christ does not change.

Why do you think Jesus is called our High priest. We are all called to be priests, and royal priests at that. There is plenty of scripture Jesus ordaining the apostles to be his priests. Rev. 20:6…The second death has no power over these, they will be priests of God and Christ, and they will reign with him… If you need more let me know, check out Hebrews.

I have not yet been convinced that Jesus instituted any priesthood but His own and the priesthood of all believers.I have also never been shown how the Catholic Church has the authority it claims except by its own say so. Yes I know that the Church says it was given this authority by Jesus, but how is this shown. It is said that we cannot have the bible without the Church first authenticating it. Therefore you cannot use the Scripture to show the Church’s authority because on the Catholic position we cannot have the Bible until the Church has already established its authority.

Yes I agree, but are you 100% sure Jesus is where you say he is? (or are you going off your feelings and emotions or goose bumps,). Did Jesus promise this simple Christianity to you?., You see I believe and I know where Jesus is because he has given us his word, and his promise I have in his Roman Catholic Church./QUOTE]

It is not where I say Jesus is, it is where He says He is. I know the peace and confidence I have in relying on Him, even though I know I do not deserve it. It is not feelings and emotions or goose bumps. It is being assured of His love and promises.

 

[deacon_d]

**I wont give you a history lesson, this will come in time here. You cant change, nor can the Catholic church change the teachings of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church and her members would rather die first , and many Saints have, before denying or changing what Jesus has revealed.

You cant group all different denominations under the Catholic Church,because it is not so. You have to be in communion with Jesus’s body and his authority he placed here on earth, that is Catholic, and the Chair of Peter.

Now all denominations fall under one name and that is Christian, but not Catholic.

Now, if you check your denominations history , they ALL CAME FROM THE HOLY APOSTOLIC CATHOLIC CHURCH, there is no denying this. Other denominations took with them teachings from the Catholic Church, and changed, added, removed Catholic doctrine from their denominations.

I will just end with this thought, Protestants or non Catholics have PART TRUTH WITH THEM, the Catholic Church has the Fullness of truth. (this we can investigate further)

Peace and love**

I don’t think anyone would disagree with you on changing the teachings of Jesus. But we’re not supposed to ADD to them.

With regard to fullness of the truth, this is a term that the Roman Catholic church constantly uses because of the claim that certain truths are revealed only to her and no one else. I was a devout Roman Catholic for many decades and used to make the same claim. Now that I attend non Roman Catholic services I challenge any Roman Catholic to tell me what truth we have or had that no one else does.

The truth is very simple and doesn’t require, as someone else mentioned, a theology degree. I remember being told we couldn’t read the Bible by the Roman Catholic church because we weren’t qualified to interpret it’s meaning. If that’s the case then why was the average Joe who lived in Crete doing manual labor with no education at all able to understand Paul’s letters just fine when they were read in the church??? I doubt there was a glut of Doctoral Theologians walking around saying no wait you can’t interpret this. Let me tell you what it means.

Not trying to create tension with you but this animosity has got to stop. I used to believe that no one outside the Roman Catholic church had a shot at salvation. After reading the Bible over and over and over Jesus tells us very clearly what’s necessary for salvation. BELIEVE IN ME. We can talk about works and baptism separately if you like.

PEACE

 

[Chellow]

I don’t think anyone would disagree with you on changing the teachings of Jesus. But we’re not supposed to ADD to them.

With regard to fullness of the truth, this is a term that the Roman Catholic church constantly uses because of the claim that certain truths are revealed only to her and no one else. I was a devout Roman Catholic for many decades and used to make the same claim. Now that I attend non Roman Catholic services I challenge any Roman Catholic to tell me what truth we have or had that no one else does.

The truth is very simple and doesn’t require, as someone else mentioned, a theology degree. I remember being told we couldn’t read the Bible by the Roman Catholic church because we weren’t qualified to interpret it’s meaning. If that’s the case then why was the average Joe who lived in Crete doing manual labor with no education at all able to understand Paul’s letters just fine when they were read in the church??? I doubt there was a glut of Doctoral Theologians walking around saying no wait you can’t interpret this. Let me tell you what it means.

Not trying to create tension with you but this animosity has got to stop. I used to believe that no one outside the Roman Catholic church had a shot at salvation. After reading the Bible over and over and over Jesus tells us very clearly what’s necessary for salvation. BELIEVE IN ME. We can talk about works and baptism separately if you like.

PEACE

The fullness of the truth as it says in Ephesians 1:21-23 is derived from the body which is Christ’s Church. The question is which Church? Let’s see, it says Church (singular), so only one Church. Now we have to look at history and find if their is any continuation of any Church in history. Look at any history book and your find only the Catholic Church. Which by 1Tim 3:15 is the pillar and foundation of truth.

 

[allischalmers]

The fullness of the truth as it says in Ephesians 1:21-23 is derived from the body which is Christ’s Church. The question is which Church? Let’s see, it says Church (singular), so only one Church. Now we have to look at history and find if their is any continuation of any Church in history. Look at any history book and your find only the Catholic Church. Which by 1Tim 3:15 is the pillar and foundation of truth.

Yoou must have given a wrong reference. Ephesians 1;21-23 speaks about Jesus being the head of his Church, which is his body (that is every believer)

 

[Genesis315]

Ephesians 1;21-23 speaks about Jesus being the head of his Church, which is his body (that is every believer)

This is exactly the point–the question is how to define a believe. In the epistles, the Apostolic writers are very clear that those false teacher and heretics who profess different Gospels are cast out of the assmply, the Church, which is the Body of Christ. We are also warned not to follow them.

If Christ were the head of all denominations, our Head would not be perfect and Divine but schizophrenic and disordered sending conflicting messages to different parts of the body.

 

[Chellow]

Yoou must have given a wrong reference. Ephesians 1;21-23 speaks about Jesus being the head of his Church, which is his body (that is every believer)

Indeed Jesus is the head of the Church, and the Church is the Body.

Now is it a body of believers or is the Church a kingdom (an organization)?

We find in Mt 18:17 that if a brother offend us we are to take it to two more and than if he still will not hear ,take it to the Church.

So you see the Church is not believers, it’s an organization, because it says in the passage you went to a brother (believer), then to the Church.

If Church = Believers scripture would not have told you to go to the Church in the end because you already went to the two or more believers before going to the Church.

 

[Erich]

Did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible Church? From Is the Church Visible or Invisible?

Certainly it was to a visible, authoritative body that Christ declared, addressing its first earthly leader, “I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). What good would it have done to bestow the keys upon a Church so formless as to defy any effort to identify it? Then, too, Christ speaks of a visible Church when he recommends recourse to it for settling disputes among his followers: “Refer it to the Church” (Matt. 18:17). He tells his followers, who make us the Church on earth, that they are “the light of the world. A city set on a mountain cannot be hidden. Nor do they light a lamp and then put it under a bushel basket; it is set on a lampstand, where it gives light to all in the house” (Matt. 5:14-15; see also Luke 8:16,11:33).
…
Christ’s Church does have an invisible quality in that it is his Mystical Body on earth. But to understand the Church as having no visibility at all - and, as a consequence, no authority at all - conjures up a Church as tenuous as feathers in the wind. It’s almost as if Jesus, in setting up his Church, didn’t quite know what he was doing.

And from Fundamentalist or Catholic?

Christ established one Church with one set of beliefs (Eph. 4:4–5). He did not establish numerous churches with contradictory beliefs.
…
Since the Christian Church was to exist historically and be like a city set on a mountain for all to see (Matt. 5:14), it had to be visible and easily identifiable. A church that exists only in the hearts of believers is not visible and is more like the candle hidden under the bushel basket (Matt. 5:15). But any visible church would necessarily be an institutional church that would need an earthly head. It would need an authority to which Christians could turn for the final resolution of doctrinal and disciplinary disputes. Christ appointed Peter and his successors to that position.

To those who still think the Church is made up of all believers regardless of denomination, I would point out/ask the following (from Disunity on Essentials):

Protestant apologists commonly respond that, although Protestants may disagree among themselves on “non-essential” matters, they are united in the “essentials” of the faith.

One problem with this argument is that Protestant churches have no effective method of determining which beliefs constitute essentials and which do not. The absence of a functional magisterium leaves each group of Protestants to decide for itself what beliefs are essential. If one group decides that a particular doctrine is essential or non-essential, then other groups have no effective way of refuting it. They could, of course, appeal to Scripture, but presumably the interpretation of the relevant passages is under dispute, and Scripture does not tell us which of its teachings are essential and which are not.

Good tests of practical unity in Protestant churches are: Whom do they let join? Whom do they let preach? Whom do they let pastor? If a particular congregation, as a matter of policy, will not let an individual with a particular belief join its fellowship, preach from its pulpits, or serve as a pastor in one of its churches, then this belief is considered an essential for unity. When these tests are applied, one can see that there is a great deal of practical disunity among Protestant churches—a disunity that goes far beyond the “essentials” named by Protestant apologists.

 

[Erich]

Jesus instituted 2 sacraments, baptism and the Lord’s Supper or Eucharist.

How did he not also institute the Sacrament of Reconciliation in John 20:21-23?

21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. 23 Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Would he have given his apostles (i.e. the ones he just sent in verse 21) the power to forgive sins if he didn’t expect them to use that power?

And when was the only other time in all of Scripture when God breathed on anyone? Genesis 2:7, where God breathed on the first man and gave him life. Just as Adam’s life came from God, so now the apostles’ new spiritual life comes from Jesus.

 

[deacon_d]

Did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible Church? From Is the Church Visible or Invisible?

And from Fundamentalist or Catholic?

To those who still think the Church is made up of all believers regardless of denomination, I would point out/ask the following (from Disunity on Essentials):

The only response I can give to this is my personal testimony which would take too much room here. As someone else in another thread wrote, when you encounter Jesus, you know it’s HIM. Trust me when I tell you he does unbelievable things in other churches outside the Roman Catholic church. If those churches were not part of HIM why would he be there? Somebody please answer that.

 

[deacon_d]

How did he not also institute the Sacrament of Reconciliation in John 20:21-23?

Would he have given his apostles (i.e. the ones he just sent in verse 21) the power to forgive sins if he didn’t expect them to use that power?

And when was the only other time in all of Scripture when God breathed on anyone? Genesis 2:7, where God breathed on the first man and gave him life. Just as Adam’s life came from God, so now the apostles’ new spiritual life comes from Jesus.

I don’t disagree that reconciliation as you say is important. But I look to how Jesus taught us to pray. The key words, “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who’ve sinned against us.” Immediately following Jesus giving us the Lord’s prayer he says:

Matthew 6:14 “If you forgive those who sin against you, your heavenly Father will forgive you. 15 But if you refuse to forgive others, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Roll this forward to John. Jesus is giving the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, something which we all receive at Baptism. Then tells them they can forgive and not forgive. Hmm. Doesn’t that tie very well to the message in Matthew. It’s almost like Jesus final instructions to them is, remember you can forgive and not forgive. But my father will only forgive you if you forgive.

According to the Bible, only GOD can forgive sin. I can forgive someone for sinning against me personally. But GOD still needs to forgive the person that committed the sin. No human can do that. Look at what’s in the Bible:

Matthew 3:2 “Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. ”

Matthew 3:8 Prove by the way you live that you have repented of your sins and turned to God.

Matthew 4:17 From then on Jesus began to preach, “Repent of your sins and turn to God, for the Kingdom of Heaven is near. ”

Mark 6:12 So the disciples went out, telling everyone they met to repent of their sins and turn to God. Notice they didn’t say, come to me for confession.

Acts 2: 38 Peter replied, “Each of you must repent of your sins and turn to God, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. Then you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Did Peter say sit with me behind a screen so I can hear your confession and forgive you. NO!!

 

[Genesis315]

The only response I can give to this is my personal testimony which would take too much room here. As someone else in another thread wrote, when you encounter Jesus, you know it’s HIM. Trust me when I tell you he does unbelievable things in other churches outside the Roman Catholic church. If those churches were not part of HIM why would he be there? Somebody please answer that.

People of any religion will tell you God or their gods are doing great things for them. It may be God, or it may be the devil appearing as an angel of light seeking to confirm people in their errors. That’s why we have an objective norm by which to judge our personal experiences.

Likewise, Catholics acknowledge that people outside the visible Communion of the faithful may still be united to the Church en voto if they are in good faith. This would be like those who were casting out demons in Jesus’ name, but not with the Apostles, those Gentiles in Acts who received the Spirit before Baptism, and those in Acts who were Baptized but had not yet heard the preaching of the Apostles or been confirmed by the them.

However, in those cases, those people were later fully encorporated into the Church by the Apostles, but, as the Epistles show, those who refused to join in the unity of faith and hear the Church were deemed cut off.

 

[SyCarl]

How did he not also institute the Sacrament of Reconciliation in John 20:21-23?

Would he have given his apostles (i.e. the ones he just sent in verse 21) the power to forgive sins if he didn’t expect them to use that power?

And when was the only other time in all of Scripture when God breathed on anyone? Genesis 2:7, where God breathed on the first man and gave him life. Just as Adam’s life came from God, so now the apostles’ new spiritual life comes from Jesus.

I would agree that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. However, there is nothing to indicate that such authority was to be passed on to anyone other than Apostles. The Apostles’ had much authority that was unique to them such as the raising the dead. Nowhere in the Gospel accounts or Acts do Jesus ask someone to confess their sins before forgiving them.

 

[deacon_d]

People of any religion will tell you God or their gods are doing great things for them. It may be God, or it may be the devil appearing as an angel of light seeking to confirm people in their errors. That’s why we have an objective norm by which to judge our personal experiences.

Likewise, Catholics acknowledge that people outside the visible Communion of the faithful may still be united to the Church en voto if they are in good faith. This would be like those who were casting out demons in Jesus’ name, but not with the Apostles, like those Gentiles in Acts who received the Spirit before Baptism, and those in Acts who were Baptized but had not yet heard the preaching of the Apostles or been confirmed by the them.

However, in those cases, those people were later fully encorporated into the Church by the Apostles, but, as the Epistles show, those who refused to join in the unity of faith and hear the Church were deemed cut off.

No disrespect but I’m always amused when Roman Catholics respond in this manner as I frequently have been. Trust me when I tell you, there’s no mistaking Jesus. I don’t care what your background is. GOD know what’s in our hearts. Just because someone may be a part of the Roman Catholic church, that guarantees them nothing. We’ve always heard that we will be surprised by who makes it to heaven and who doesn’t. Ones who you are so sure will may not, and vice versa. It’s what’s truly in your heart. Not what religious denomination you are affiliated with.

 

[SyCarl]

Did Christ found a visible Church or an invisible Church? From Is the Church Visible or Invisible?

And from Fundamentalist or Catholic?

To those who still think the Church is made up of all believers regardless of denomination, I would point out/ask the following (from Disunity on Essentials):

The visible church and the true Church are not the same. The true Church is the body of Christ which will be with Him in Heaven. Augustine recognized that only those who would be with Jesus in Heaven could be called the Body of Christ. Can you point to anyone in any church, Catholic or otherwise, and say that the person will be going to Heaven? No, because you don’t know what they truly believe. Only God knows that. How can the true Church be visible if it is not possible to point to anyone you can positively say is a member of it.

I see nothing wrong with giving spiritual keys to an invisible Church. It is not something that was given visibly. When reading the New Testament you must determine from the context how the word church is being used. It can refer to a single congregation in a particular city, it can refer to a larger visible institution or it can be refering to the true Church. It is similar to the distinct made by Paul about national Israel and true Israel or between someone called a Jew and someone who was in reality an Jew.

 

[Chellow]

I would agree that Jesus gave the Apostles the authority to forgive sins. However, there is nothing to indicate that such authority was to be passed on to anyone other than Apostles. The Apostles’ had much authority that was unique to them such as the raising the dead. Nowhere in the Gospel accounts or Acts do Jesus ask someone to confess their sins before forgiving them.

In Acts 1:20-26 the apostles did do just that, by lots Matthias was counted with the eleven apostles. It said apostle, it also says he accompanied them the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among them. It says that others accompanied but they are not counted as apostles.

 

[SyCarl]

In Acts 1:20-26 the apostles did do just that, by lots Matthias was counted with the eleven apostles. It said apostle, it also says he accompanied them the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among them. It says that others accompanied but they are not counted as apostles.

However there were some pretty strict qualifications for who could fill the position.

“Therefore it is necessary that of the men who have accompanied us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us-- beginning with the baptism of John until the day that He was taken up from us–one of these must become a witness with us of His resurrection.”
(Acts 1:21-22 NASB)

Such requirements could not continue to be met since no one new could be added to the pool of recuits.