Where does the Bible say that the church is invisible?

[With_Questions]

It might be important to discuss why you say this.
Are you of the opinion that you are once saved, always saved?

michel

Not necessarily…I’m sort of meh on the whole issue. Actually I haven’t come across anything yet that really resonates and totally makes sense.

However, I do consider it important to know that you are saved in the current point in time.

 

[cazayoux]

Not necessarily…I’m sort of meh on the whole issue. Actually I haven’t come across anything yet that really resonates and totally makes sense.

However, I do consider it important to know that you are saved in the current point in time.

I COMPLETELY agree.
Further, I think salvation is something we continually strive for until the day we die.
I don’t think we can ever sit back and think we are ‘there’.
Ya know what I mean.

Cheers!

michel

 

[With_Questions]

I am no expert either, but I do understand how there is no conflict.

First, we must understand how one can be outside of the Church. There are two basic ways: they were never in it and they left it. If we look at the second way first, did they leave knowing fully what they were leaving? If yes, they are in serious trouble. If no, they are not in as much trouble. Back to the first way. Are they not members through no fault of their own? If yes, God judges them as he does all who had no way of being a part of the old covenent (see Paul in Romans, based on natural law). If no, they could have known, they are in trouble.

Now, when the doctrine was put forth, it was thought that the whole world knew the Truth of Christ and his Church. We should note that this was clearly wrong, as the Americas had not been discovered by Euopeans and the job of teaching in Asia and Africa was spotty at best. It was thought at that time that anyone who was not Catholic KNEW that they should be and CHOSE not to. There is the teaching in a nutshell.

Skip forward. We now have people born into Non-Catholic, non-Orthodox faiths that will not learn the Truth at home. Are they guilty of choosing to be outside of the Church? Further, we understand that most Baptisms are valid. These people would therefore be part of the Body of Christ though they may be separated from the fullness of it. We know that God has mercy on whom he chooses, so we cannot deny that he may be merciful on those in this state.

Trent spoke of people who knew the Truth but prefered the Lie. Most non-Catholics are not in this state.

The Popes who write about no salvation are quite correct. But, we must understand that like all sin there is a level of culpability that must be reached.

I hope this helps

Good answer…but one fact check…

Trent spoke of people who knew the Truth but prefered the Lie. Most non-Catholics are not in this state.

A while back I actually glanced at Trent (like I said I did homework before coming here). The reading of the anathemas is something like “Whoever says (insert your Protestant doctrine here) let it be to him anathema.”

The word “whoever” is not the same as “whoever knows the truth but prefers a lie”. So I have trouble reading Trent that way.

 

[cazayoux]

The question assumes that Jesus had a centralized design for the church and that one and only one denomination today can possibly claim to be this centralized church.

Again, Catholicism is not considered a denomination.

An example for the visible authority of a centralized church.
In 382, a council gathered to discuss which, of the multitude of Christian writings, were to be considered inspired and which ones were not.
There were writings that made it into the new testament that were hotly contested (Hebrews, Revelations).
There were writings that didn’t make it into the new testament that many thought should be there.
After much debate, the council made a decision that the entire church, globally and since then, listened to. My point is that we all listen to that council as we all have the same books in our new testament.
We listened to that one, unified church.

The idea that in the 4th century, different churches did what they wanted doesn’t fit the actions that we’ve seen.

Does it follow that God must favor that one denomination today? I’m not sure that it does for a number of reasons but anyway.

God loves all of us.
Scripture and history show that Jesus founded one church that is to be of one accord. From scripture and history, we can show that this church must be visible, authoritative, and apostolic.
1500 years later, a man started his own church.
Is God deciding to favor one community over the other?
Or is the individual deciding they would rather be a part of a splinter or the true vine itself?
God loves every single one of us.
He wants us to follow the church that He established.
Does He love us less if we are not in that church? Of course not.
Does He want us to follow Him as He instructed? Of course he does.
For every one of us, in the Catholic Church today or not, this is still a journey.
Following God is not always easy, but I’d say it’s always necessary.

Cheers!

michel

 

[cazayoux]

The word “whoever” is not the same as “whoever knows the truth but prefers a lie”. So I have trouble reading Trent that way.

So you understand why there was a clarification made since the understanding was lacking from the first council.

michel

 

[ralphinal]

Good answer…but one fact check…

A while back I actually glanced at Trent (like I said I did homework before coming here). The reading of the anathemas is something like “Whoever says (insert your Protestant doctrine here) let it be to him anathema.”

The word “whoever” is not the same as “whoever knows the truth but prefers a lie”. So I have trouble reading Trent that way.

Thanks. The catch on that, and you are reading it correctly, is that there was no other way that word could be said. It was a world where if you were Christian, you were either Catholic or Orthodox. In other words, it was taken for granted that you knew the Truth and chose the lie.

 

[With_Questions]

Again, Catholicism is not considered a denomination.

I am using the word denomination in the sense of “branch of Christianity”. I think this can be justified via the dictionnary.

But if there is another word that means “branch of Christianity” I would gladly use that word instead so we can all be on the same page.

An example for the visible authority of a centralized church.
In 382, a council gathered to discuss which, of the multitude of Christian writings, were to be considered inspired and which ones were not.
There were writings that made it into the new testament that were hotly contested (Hebrews, Revelations).
There were writings that didn’t make it into the new testament that many thought should be there.
After much debate, the council made a decision that the entire church, globally and since then, listened to. My point is that we all listen to that council as we all have the same books in our new testament.
We listened to that one, unified church.

The idea that in the 4th century, different churches did what they wanted doesn’t fit the actions that we’ve seen.

Good answer. A good question for Protestants might be how would the canon have been figured out in an environment like we see today. I’m not sure I could answer that unless the answer is that the canon was so obvious that even a caveman could get it.

You see, I’m impartial. I can ask my questions either way.

God loves all of us.
Scripture and history show that Jesus founded one church that is to be of one accord. From scripture and history, we can show that this church must be visible, authoritative, and apostolic.
1500 years later, a man started his own church.
Is God deciding to favor one community over the other?
Or is the individual deciding they would rather be a part of a splinter or the true vine itself?
God loves every single one of us.
He wants us to follow the church that He established.
Does He love us less if we are not in that church? Of course not.
Does He want us to follow Him as He instructed? Of course he does.
For every one of us, in the Catholic Church today or not, this is still a journey.
Following God is not always easy, but I’d say it’s always necessary.

Cheers!

michel

Good answer.

Now as I have said I am at this point undecided on the design of the church since it is a topic I am not an expert at. However, I would love to see a Protestant who is smarter than me answer the question “Well just how did Jesus design the church”. Saying every believer is a part of the church is an incomplete answer unless you want to stand up and say that the design we see today with I don’t know how many “branches of Christianity”
is what Jesus had in mind.

However, let us assume for the moment that Jesus did design the church along the lines that you say. The fact is that the church split. My question remains why do you assume that you are the church to the exclusion of everyone else. What if the Orthodox are the church? What if the Free Methodists are the church?

Of course you will answer that you can trace yourselves back to the beginning while the Orthodox and the Free Methodists can’t. Of course the Orthodox do claim to trace back to the beginning so then we have another problem that your benchmark is not unique. But anyway, the question is then, why should I use your benchmark.

While running I thought of another benchmark that makes at least as much sense. Paul said in Corinthians that if you don’t have love but have every other gift of the spirit and every other blessing then you have nothing. Jesus said this commandment I give you that you love one another. He further said that is how the world will know that we are His that if we love another (pardon…my paraphrase).

So, if you assume there is a true church out there, why wouldn’t the true church be the church that excells above all others with respect to love.

Now of course the church that does excell in love wouldn’t be bragging about this. And figuring out which church excells in love above all others poses its own set of problems. But you get my drift.

But my bigger question is this.

Even after the one church which Christ establishes divides, why would there necessarily be one branch that is the true vine while the remaining branches are splinters? Just brainstorming and thinking of alternatives, maybe God has the attitue of a plague on both of your hourses and none of you all are the true church now.

Yet at the same time he hasn’t given up on the church and where two or three are gathered in his name there I am in the midst of you. So you end up with the invisible church not as a result of design but as a result of consequence of division.

But as I said, I am not sure how God designed this since I am not an expert and have not studied this out. So these are disjointed rumblings from someone with too much time on their hands.

 

[cazayoux]

I am using the word denomination in the sense of “branch of Christianity”. I think this can be justified via the dictionnary.

But if there is another word that means “branch of Christianity” I would gladly use that word instead so we can all be on the same page.

The Catholic Church didn’t ‘branch’ from anything.
I know this may seem to you like a petty thing to discuss, but really does go to the root of the matter discussed in this thread.
No word that means “branch of Christianity” would fit the church that isn’t a branch of any other church.

…how would the canon have been figured out in an environment like we see today.

I don’t see in any way that this would be possible today.
In fact, we STILL do not have agreement on that very topic, the canon.
The Protestant has fewer book in their Old Testament than Catholics do. Ethiopian Orthodox have even more than the Catholics.

…let us assume for the moment that Jesus did design the church along the lines that you say. The fact is that the church split. My question remains why do you assume that you are the church to the exclusion of everyone else. What if the Orthodox are the church? What if the Free Methodists are the church?

Other than Catholics, the Orthodox would come the closest to having a claim to be the one true church. However, the unity written about in scripture is not seen in the Orthodox Churches either. Like Protestantism, Orthodoxy has branched as well.

Of course you will answer that you can trace yourselves back to the beginning while the Orthodox and the Free Methodists can’t. Of course the Orthodox do claim to trace back to the beginning so then we have another problem that your benchmark is not unique. But anyway, the question is then, why should I use your benchmark.

I’ll have to look this up. I don’t think the Catholic church denies that Orthodoxy has an apostolic lineage.

You ask about a benchmark.
Maybe it’s that there are many benchmarks used to identify the one true church. (as you state an additional one next)
one, holy, catholic, apostolic, visible, authoritative, …

While running I thought of another benchmark that makes at least as much sense. Paul said in Corinthians that if you don’t have love but have every other gift of the spirit and every other blessing then you have nothing. Jesus said this commandment I give you that you love one another. He further said that is how the world will know that we are His that if we love another (pardon…my paraphrase).

So, if you assume there is a true church out there, why wouldn’t the true church be the church that excells above all others with respect to love.

Now of course the church that does excell in love wouldn’t be bragging about this. And figuring out which church excells in love above all others poses its own set of problems. But you get my drift.

Also a difficult benchmark … aside from the realization that all of us are sinners and fail regularly … we have another issue.
How do we define ‘love’.

Some Christians think that out of love for the mother, she should be able to have an abortion.
Catholics and many, many other Christians show love for mother and baby.

Each ‘church’ could probably have great and poor examples of individuals.
I see that Love is a commandment that we strive for our whole lives, but never perfect.

But my bigger question is this.

Even after the one church which Christ establishes divides, why would there necessarily be one branch that is the true vine while the remaining branches are splinters?

At the very least we can look at the church before and after the split or branching. What was taught before the split? This will at least get us a step closer by eliminating any church that teaches doctrine contrary to what was taught before the split.

Scripture says there is one church and Jesus says he would be with it until the end of time.
This give me the confidence that the TRUE church is still here.
… and your basic question was “How do we find it?”

Just brainstorming and thinking of alternatives, maybe God has the attitue of a plague on both of your hourses and none of you all are the true church now.

Covered this in my segment just above.

…where two or three are gathered in his name there I am in the midst of you.

AMEN!!

So you end up with the invisible church not as a result of design but as a result of consequence of division.

I don’t follow this thinking at all as I believe the church MUST be visible.

I’m enjoying the discussion.
Thanks!

michel

 

[With_Questions]

The Catholic Church didn’t ‘branch’ from anything.
I know this may seem to you like a petty thing to discuss, but really does go to the root of the matter discussed in this thread.
No word that means “branch of Christianity” would fit the church that isn’t a branch of any other church.

I’ll comment on this because this is the easiest.

For the rest, I think I might step back to my internal flowchart and make sure I understand everything. I need to understand stuff to make sure I am asking the right questions.

However, a neutral observer must have a term to use that reflects his view of the church. A neutral observer will start with the assumption that all “branches of Christianity” are more or less equal. A neutral observer must be persuaded somehow if he is to conclude that one “branch of Christianity” is superior to another.

In other words a neutral and uneducated observer will not start with the assumption that Catholicism is the true vine and everyone else is splinters. He would not know enough to have that view.

Now he might educate himself in Catholicism and adopt this view. However he might also talk to the Orthodox and conclude that they are the true vine and everyone else is splinters. He also might talk to the Protestants and conclude that nobody is the true vine. He also might talk to all three and get himself thoroughly confused. I dunno.

But he will not start with your assumption. Knowing nothing about Christianity, he will start with the assumption that all branches of Christianity are more or less equal.

So there must be an English phrase or term that this uneducated and neutral observer could use to reflect Christianity from his perspective. I think denomination is one possible term. Branches of Christianity is another. But you tell me what he should use.

 

[cazayoux]

So there must be an English phrase or term that this uneducated and neutral observer could use to reflect Christianity from his perspective. I think denomination is one possible term. Branches of Christianity is another. But you tell me what he should use.

Understood regarding that uneducated observer.
So the first step for this observer is education.

Point 1 - Christianity has 2000 years of history to consider, rather than considering only a snapshot of today.

Point 2 - When we look at history, we see that the authority of the Christian church was in Rome. There is a common uneducated refutation that Peter was never in Rome, but Peter in Rome is easily proven.

Point 3 - Follow this line to see which churches branched from the steward in Rome.

One might still like to discuss whether or not that Rome-based church is the true church or not, but regarding the terminology to reference this church, this is still the *only *church that has not ‘branched’ from anything else, save Judaism.

Catholicism is unique in this matter. It is not a denomination, branch, or splinter.

michel

 

[With_Questions]

Understood regarding that uneducated observer.
So the first step for this observer is education.

Point 1 - Christianity has 2000 years of history to consider, rather than considering only a snapshot of today.

Point 2 - When we look at history, we see that the authority of the Christian church was in Rome. There is a common uneducated refutation that Peter was never in Rome, but Peter in Rome is easily proven.

Point 3 - Follow this line to see which churches branched from the steward in Rome.

One might still like to discuss whether or not that Rome-based church is the true church or not, but regarding the terminology to reference this church, this is still the *only *church that has not ‘branched’ from anything else, save Judaism.

Catholicism is unique in this matter. It is not a denomination, branch, or splinter.

michel

Now I am not an expert in the Orthodox faith by any matter, but from what little I know I think they claim that they are the “true vine” and that you are a splinter. At least that is what I have read here.

 

[cazayoux]

Now I am not an expert in the Orthodox faith by any matter, but from what little I know I think they claim that they are the “true vine” and that you are a splinter. At least that is what I have read here.

Even the Orthodox believe that the Bishop of Rome has authority.
They see it as geographic equal authority, though, rather than supremacy over the whole church.

From an article…
catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=3781
The Orthodox Church has no single primate. It consists of 15 autocephalous churches, each headed by its own patriarch, archbishop or metropolitan.

In this family of Churches the patriarch of Constantinople is “primus inter pares,” but his primacy is that of honor, not of jurisdiction, since he has no ecclesial authority over the other Churches. When, therefore, he is presented as the “head” of the Orthodox Church worldwide, it is misleading. It is equally misleading when his meeting with the Pope of Rome is considered to be a meeting of the heads of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

Historically, until the schism of 1054, it was the Bishop of Rome who enjoyed a position of primacy among the heads of the Christian Churches. The canons of the Eastern Church – in particular, the famous 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon – ascribe the second, not the first place, to the patriarch of Constantinople.

Moreover, the ground on which this second place was granted to the patriarch of Constantinople was purely political: Once Constantinople became “the second Rome,” capital of the Roman – Byzantine – Empire, it was considered that the bishop of Constantinople should occupy the second seat after the Bishop of Rome.

After the breach of communion between Rome and Constantinople, the primacy in the Eastern Orthodox family was shifted to the “second in line,” i.e., the patriarch of Constantinople. Thus it was by historical accident that he became “primus inter pares” for the Eastern part of the world Christendom.

This discussion is showing that the Orthodox Church is actually 15 different, separate churches and are not actually in union with each other.

This is only an article that might help with understanding.
I’ll see what else I can find for a more official view of the Catholic Church by 15 Orthodox Churches.

michel

 

[Reformed]

Protestants claim that the church is invisible. But does the Bible say so?

Do you believe the Bible teaches that the visible church is a mix of converted (born again) and uncoverted people? The biblical terms are wheat and tares, and sheep and goats. The church is invisble because only God knows the wheat from the tares because he created the wheat (new creation in Christ). Those whom Christ will say that He never knew is also part of the visible church but not part of the invisible church. Do you seem to agree?

The Parable of the Weeds

He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” - Mat 13

I Never Knew You

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’ - Mat 7

 

[cazayoux]

Found this.
Eastern Schism

Great article to help in understanding.
The most interesting tidbit to me was that the schism was not due to theological differences at all.
This is different from the protestant denominations that have been created.

 

[Contarini]

Protestants claim that the church is invisible.

Like most blanket claims about Protestants, this needs to be qualified. Protestants generally claim that there is an invisible Church. Traditional Protestants believe that there is also a visible Church. Congregationalist Protestants (including many North American evangelicals) think that the only visible church is the local congregation and that the universal Church is purely invisible. This was not, however, the position of the Protestant Reformers or most of the classic Protestant confessions of faith.

Catholics generally don’t use the phrase “invisible Church,” but they also believe (as Augustine believed) that the body of the elect is not quite the same as the body of baptized people existing at any given time. And that is a kind of “invisible Church.”

I agree that the notion of an invisible Church is not directly taught in Scripture, and it is only a valid theological concept if heavily qualified.

Edwin

 

[Reformed]

Like most blanket claims about Protestants, this needs to be qualified. Protestants generally claim that there is an invisible Church. Traditional Protestants believe that there is also a visible Church. Congregationalist Protestants (including many North American evangelicals) think that the only visible church is the local congregation and that the universal Church is purely invisible. This was not, however, the position of the Protestant Reformers or most of the classic Protestant confessions of faith.

Catholics generally don’t use the phrase “invisible Church,” but they also believe (as Augustine believed) that the body of the elect is not quite the same as the body of baptized people existing at any given time. And that is a kind of “invisible Church.”
I agree that the notion of an invisible Church is not directly taught in Scripture, and it is only a valid theological concept if heavily qualified.

Edwin

Thank you and right on Augustine! So the Roman Catholic also beleives in the inviisble church too!

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Thank you and right on Augustine! So the Roman Catholic also beleives in the inviisble church too!

Well, not exactly. St. John Chrysostom, to give just one example, says:

“It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched, than for the Church to be made invisible.”

T. vi, Hom. iv. In illud: Vidi Dom. n. 2, p. 141.

(Tome vi, Homily iv, In Illud, Vidi Dominum)

Quote reference and numerous other like quotes from the Fathers here:

The Faith of Catholics, Joseph Berington, John Kirk, James Waterworth, Thomas John Capel, 1885, Fr. Pustet & Co., N.Y, Cincinnati, vol. 1, p. 195.

Vidi Dominum (Latin) = (“I saw the Lord”) (“I have seen the Lord”) - Isaiah 1:6

In Illud, Vidi Dominum a.k.a., Homilies in Oziam = Homilies on Uzziah = a series of six homilies on Uzziah (Oziam).

Homelies sur Ozias =: In illud, vidi Dominum (Sources chretiennes), Cerf (1981), ISBN 220401687X

amazon.com/Homelies-sur-Ozias-Dominum-chretiennes/dp/220401687X

---

"But the devil…has moved the heretics *under the Christian name *to resist the Christian doctrine, as if they could be kept in the city of God indifferently without any correction, just as the *city of confusion *indifferently held the philosophers who were of diverse and adverse opinions.

“Those, therefore, in the Church of Christ who savor anything morbid and depraved, and, on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, contumaciously resist, and will not amend their pestiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, become heretics… For even thus they profit by their wickedness those true Catholic members of Christ, since God makes a good use even of the wicked, and all things work together for good to them that love Him.”

St. Augustine, The City of God, Book XVIII, Chapter 51
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_City_of_God/Book_XVIII/Chapter_51

“I’m talking to my fellow students in the school of the Lord. You, see, we all have one master, in whom we are all one; and he gave us bishops a warning, in case we should perhaps have the nerve to grow proud about our magisterium, our position as masters, when he said, Do not let yourselves be called Rabbi by men; for you have only one master, the Christ” (Mt 23:8).

St. Augustine, Sermon 270:1:1

Saint Augustine, Sermons 230-272B (On the Liturgical Seasons), John E. Rotelle, Edmund Hill (Translator), ISBN 1565480597, p. 288.

wellsprings.com.sg/nzc/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=9755

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Well, not exactly. St. John Chrysostom, to give just one example, says:

“It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched, than for the Church to be made invisible.”

T. vi, Hom. iv. In illud: Vidi Dom. n. 2, p. 141.

(Tome vi, Homily iv, In Illud, Vidi Dominum)

Quote reference and numerous like quotes from the Fathers here:

The Faith of Catholics, Joseph Berington, John Kirk, James Waterworth, Thomas John Capel, 1885, Fr. Pustet & Co., N.Y, Cincinnati, vol. 1, p. 195.

Vidi Dominum (Latin) = (“I saw the Lord”) (“I have seen the Lord”) - Isaiah 1:6

In Illud, Vidi Dominum a.k.a., Homilies in Oziam = Homilies on Uzziah = a series of six homilies on Uzziah (Oziam).

Homelies sur Ozias =: In illud, vidi Dominum (Sources chretiennes), Cerf (1981), ISBN 220401687X

amazon.com/Homelies-sur-Ozias-Dominum-chretiennes/dp/220401687X

---

"But the devil…has moved the heretics *under the Christian name *to resist the Christian doctrine, as if they could be kept in the city of God indifferently without any correction, just as the *city of confusion *indifferently held the philosophers who were of diverse and adverse opinions.

“Those, therefore, in the Church of Christ who savor anything morbid and depraved, and, on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, contumaciously resist, and will not amend their pestiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, become heretics… For even thus they profit by their wickedness those true Catholic members of Christ, since God makes a good use even of the wicked, and all things work together for good to them that love Him.”

St. Augustine, The City of God, Book XVIII, Chapter 51
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_City_of_God/Book_XVIII/Chapter_51

“I’m talking to my fellow students in the school of the Lord. You, see, we all have one master, in whom we are all one; and he gave us bishops a warning, in case we should perhaps have the nerve to grow proud about our magisterium, our position as masters, when he said, Do not let yourselves be called Rabbi by men; for you have only one master, the Christ” (Mt 23:8).

St. Augustine, Sermon 270:1:1

Saint Augustine, Sermons 230-272B (On the Liturgical Seasons), John E. Rotelle, Edmund Hill (Translator), ISBN 1565480597, p. 288.

wellsprings.com.sg/nzc/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=9755

 

[raumzeitmc2]

Sorry for the repeat post! Don’t know how that happened!!

 

[With_Questions]

Found this.
Eastern Schism

Great article to help in understanding.
The most interesting tidbit to me was that the schism was not due to theological differences at all.
This is different from the protestant denominations that have been created.

Thank you for the articles. I actually read them.

I do suspect that if I were reading from an Orthodox web site on the same subject, the contents would differ.

I think I will put on hold the issue of Orthodoxy unless someone from the Orthodox denomination chimes in. I believe it is best to let a denomination speak for itself rather than let someone else speak for it.

I think I will continue to use the word denomination in the sense of branch of Christianity until someone comes to me with a better word that has no connotations of superiority/inferiority. It would only be fair to avoid words that imply any branch has a superior status to other branches unless I am convinced that is the case.

I also think I am confusing myself here by trying to be too smart for my own good. I have gone back through this thread and have gotten myself confused. So I am going to back up.

These are the issues as I see them:
(1) Did Jesus establish at the beginning of the church age one united, visible church that He expected everyone who is a child of His to align themselves with.

I think the answer to this is yes, but I am open to reasons why this is not the case. I realize this is not a Protestant answer, but I do think that was the case at the beginning. Since I am unsure of myself here, I would like to focus on this for now.

(2) If yes, does this one united, visible church exist today and can it be readily recognized.

Here the Catholics say “yes and we are it” while the Orthodox say “yes and we are it”. So immediately we have an issue with “readily recognized”. The Protestants of course say no.

For a number of reasons I have my doubts on this also.

(3) If yes to #2, is it the will of God that all of His children be united to this one church.

Here I am quite sure that even if #2 is correct, #3 does not follow and I have my doubts whether that is the case.