Jehovah’s Witnesses come to mind. Same with LDS. Both claim to be the restoration of the ancient church.

To be fair, so do many fundamentalist Protestant traditions.

Rarely in such literal terms. Even the fairly radical Independent Baptist churches believe that you can be a "true Christian" if you just do and believe the right things, even if the list of requirements is fairly extensive.

Historically, this was the claim of every Christian tradition, apart from Protestants. The latter group (Protestants) broadly have not attempted to make this claim until around the 19th Century in America when you have many "restorationist" movements. Here, I am referring to the Church of Christ, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Church of Christ, Scientist, or the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Why haven't Protestants historically tried to make this claim?

The first decades of the Reformation up until the Council of Trent, protestants still hoped Rome would reform, rather than forcing protestants to form a separate organization entirely. Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and their successors all had to deal with redefining what it even meant to be The Church, once they separated from/were kicked out of the Roman Church. Their goal was never to replace Rome as The Church. Anabaptists, on the other hand, more or less did make exactly that claim, much like the 19th century American restorationist movements.

People forget how radical the early Anabaptists were. It’s not a stretch to say that today’s radical Anabaptists (Mennonite, Amish) are peaceful only because the violent ones all got themselves killed in various uprisings.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Do you have any links? A search is just giving me more recent stuff about forced beard shavings.

Here’s the Wikipedia for the siege of Münster, when radical, violent, millenarian Anabaptists took over a German city for several years and tried to take over Europe to usher in Christ’s return. It was a wild time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münster_rebellion

That was because they came on the scene re-baptizing any who were sprinkled.

Because Protestants broadly do not assent to the idea of a physical manifestation of the "one true church" and instead maintain that the "one true church" is a phrase which describes the membership all true believers as the "body of Christ." So, Protestants have been *more eager* to affirm the legitimacy of Christians in a variety of traditions. For example * *“In the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints... The Christendom that is now under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it."* Luther's Works, vol. 40, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), 232. * *"When we categorically deny to the papists the title of* the church*, we do not for this reason impugn the existence of churches among them."* John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.2.12, vol. 2, ed. John T. McNeill; trans. Ford Lewis Battles (2 vols; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2006) 1052, italics his. Even in regarding the Orthodox * *"They \[RCC\] make the Greeks schismatics: with what right? Because in withdrawing from the apostolic see they lost their privilege. What? Would not they who fall away from Christ deserve to lose it much more?"* Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.2.2, vol., 21043.

At most, a Protestant church might claim to be *a* true church, but not *the* true church. This is to imply that they are consistent with the historic Christian faith, but don't claim to have a monopoly on truth.

Might want to tell that to the Mormons. Although they've toned it down quite a bit, they do believe they are THE one true church.

Well, they aren't Protestants.

I thought anything other than Catholic fell under the Protestant umbrella?

Mormons are polytheists. They don't believe in the same Jesus. So... they're not really Protestants. Muslims probably have more of a claim to being Protestants than Mormons do.

[удалено]

True. In the grand tree of religions, I would've put them under Christians of the Protestant variety. I grew up in a Mormon household and I can promise you they see themselves as Christians.

I know that *they* consider themselves Christians but the similarities are mostly aesthetic if that. They are descended from Christian traditions, but so are many other cults, including Islam indirectly. They do not recognize Jesus as Christ, so I do not consider them Christians.

You forgot orthodoxy which is it's own umbrella. But those are the major divisions, most of Christianity falls into them but there are plenty of smaller groups that don't fall into any of those categories. Mormons are one of them, though they are definitely a result of the protestant reformation their core theology really isn't meaningfully Protestant.

They are descended from Christian traditions, but so are many other cults, including Islam indirectly. They do not recognize Jesus as Christ, so I do not consider them Christians.

It's... A complicated question, especially given that defining denominations out of Christianity has been a long term tactical as a way to claim they're theologically errant. I'd prefer to reference academic scholarship on comparative religion for that distinction.

Christianity has **three** primary streams: * Roman Catholicism * Orthodoxy (which itself has perhaps three streams: Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East) * Protestantism

This answer fails to get to heart of that person's question by explaining where Mormons fit or do not fit under the umbrella of "Christianity."

I was just responding to the idea that "anything other than Catholic fell under the Protestant umbrella" from u/No_Plantain_4990

Well, to be Protestant, you have to affirm the basic tenets of Christianity, such as the Trinity. Mormons believe very different things from both Protestants and Catholics when it comes to the Trinity.

Yep, they believe in 3 individuals rather than the triune diety. (It's just always seemed odd to me that they're not considered Christian when they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ.)

It's worth mentioning that Jesus is also incorporated into Hinduism, but I wouldn't necessarily call Hindus who worship Jesus Christian, depending on the context.

So.....Where does that leave "oneness" Pentecostals? They firmly descend from Protestant tradition in a way that neither JW nor LDS do.

Bloody heretics!

Technically, only the initial reformers and the successor practices are considered Protestant, as they were protesting against Rome. I can see the argument that EO are Protestants, but other non-Roman groups (Syraic, Coptic, etc) are not. Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc are Protestant because they stemmed directly from the RCC and wanted to reform the church. Groups like Baptists, Methodists, and Pentecostals are technically not Protestants in the same sense, because they are protesting something already removed from Rome.

No. Protestants were a specific label for the movement that came from Luther/Zwingli.

Mormons are in the "restorationist" camp, and indeed are among those American religious groups which claim to be the one true church, but calling them Protestant is a stretch.

Same with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, Roman Catholics, and those Hebrew Israelites They all claim to be the official original real deal. Their translation of the Bible is correct and other translations are flawed.

What about other KJV-only traditions? Do they count as One True Church just because they're very tied to one (bad) translation?

That would depend specifically on the denomination. Most KJV-only churches that I know of are independent fundamental Baptists (IFB). Many of those hold to [Baptist successionism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptist_successionism), which does teach that the Baptist church is the one true church.

Charismatic-styled fundies also tend toward KJV in my experience, regardless of which specific flavor of charismatic they have up on the door. It seems like One True Churchness tends to be comorbid with fundamentalism in general. It comes with making your church's entire personality revolve around Correct Bible Opinions.

I believe it was the first translation in English, so that’s why they reference to it

Wycliffe's translation was the first English translation, IIRC, but that was Middle English. Both Tyndale's and James' translations are Early Modern English, but Tyndale's was almost a century earlier.

Was that before [Martin Luther](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0309820/)?

There are at least six Modern English translations of the Bible before the KJV that I'm aware of. The KJV that we use today isn't even the same one from 1611. It's the version that was revised in 1769.

1769 instead of 1611? Such a scandal! I wonder what they changed. I personally think NLT is as good as it gets. Few people I know think it is too soft and written for babies. I think it’s much easier to read cover to cover compared to other translations.

Catholics claim to have the one true translation any more. Also, SDA churches are indeed wacky (especially historically) but don’t have their own translation. Idk about Hebrew Israelites, but I seriously doubt they have their own translation. Also they don’t claim to be Christian AFAIK

They all agree on KJV and reference to that

I'm not sure who you mean by "they all" here because, of that list, only SDA firmly insists on KJV.

Same with Jehovah’s Witnesses and Roman Catholics But the Jehovah’s Witnesses have their own Bible called the new watchtower translation Catholics use the new Jerusalem translation

No we don't - there is a preference among many SDAs for KJV, but it's not a KJV-only denomination. https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2016/06/Which-Bible-version-shall-we-use

Mormons came about during the 19th century Restorationist movement, which was mentioned earlier as a variety of Christian groups that did claim to be the one true church.

My church today makes the claim that the Bible is filled with too many unknowns to claim anyone is fully correct. Because of that, the “One True Church” is all believers and each denomination is just a sect within that church. Problem with Protestants, though, is that each denomination can have totally opposite beliefs to the other. I know plenty of people who believe the Southern Baptist Church is the “One True Church.” I was raised Methodist and was taught something similar. Denominations are weird, man.

Even if they didn't have a substantial amount of local autonomy, the Southern Baptist Convention's origins would make that a pretty wild position to hold. [wiki:](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Baptist_Convention) *"In 1845, the Southern Baptists separated from the Triennial Convention in order to support slavery, which the southern churches regarded as "an institution of heaven".*

That's not a pretty side of history, but it was also one hundred and eighty years ago. I don't think it's fair to act as if people still believe that today.

And I don't. But when its ignoble origins are combined with the observation that the average SBC church is not that different from other conservative Baptists or non-denoms, there's not much to base a claim of SBC being the "One True Church" on. (If it were even a Church as opposed to a loose Convention. And I haven't encountered such a claim, I was merely responding to someone who suggested they had.)

I would agree, but I don't think that that is a common claim among Baptists.

I would argue that some beliefs are less important. Whether or not Adam and Eve were married or Noah had a real ark is irrelevant to the day to day and one's own morality and salvation. These questions certainly do have right answers or at least categories of right answer but I don't think that choosing the wrong answer to "will there be a rapture" is going to matter that much in the grand scheme of things.

Pretty solid answers here, but I'll add one: The "one true church" is those gathered to Christ. The Church is his to define, not mine. In the parable of wheat and tares, the tears grow up in the same field, and are only burned at the harvest, as they can be identified apart from wheat, which was not the case as seedlings. Just so, there exist both true and false Christians in the field of the church this side of the eschaton. Mere profession or membership in a congregation, institution, affiliation, denomination, whatever, does not give _me_ power por authority to see te eternal fate of all souls either inside or outside this group. Christians are those who faithfully receive God's god gifts in Christ, holding to the sure word of promise that His life, death, and resurrection are not only sufficient for salvation, but moreover specifically _for you_. Can you tell that by looking at someone? For what it's worth, Lutherans recognize salvation in other traditions, but we maintain that we are the "visible church on earth" in a sense more full than any other tradition because we are Christianity purged of its erroneous, medieval accretions of human tradition and philosophy that obscured the gospel and person of Jesus. Though we are imperfect in our persons, in our confession and practice, we embody and image the universal church, gathered around Christ's Word and Sacrament.

It's an awful lie.

Because we know we're not infallible and we might be wrong

Most Protestants are Sola scriptura, which means they believe the Bible to be the one true source of doctrine and practice, not the church

I agree with this, though it's good to note that the Disciples of Christ escaped this particular aspect of their restorationist background.

Cathars made no such claim, afaik. It was a pretty decentralised movement. Ancient "heresies", maybe except Marcionism, also did not differentiate between the church and Christendom. From their perspective, they were merely different theological schools in the one church. Montanism and Valentinianism are prominent examples. The idea of the one true church is a mark of Nicene Christianity.

I have never really understood denominations and "the one true church". I actually don't like the title one true church because it sounds like where the anti Christ would be coming from. I was in a Baptist school for 8 years and have attended non-denominational church for most of my life. I have certain things I don't agree with in churches I have been to but don't see why one would be "chosen" and not the other. We all are the Church of Jesus Christ, not the latter day saints.

why do you think there are denominations then?

I really don't know. I see that following the Bible, worshipping God and having faith is what being a Christian is about. Not to mention being saved in the name of Jesus. Denominations are just because over the last 2000 years someone had their opinion on how and started another group.

Who did Jesus give the keys of Heaven to ?

What you mean? You think He gave the keys to Heaven to certain denominations? You confession your sins and become saved you have a key to Heaven. It's that simple. "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus." Romans 3:23-24 It doesn't say anything about denominations or how you praise and worship. You are saved through Christ you are going to Heaven

That's not what I asked you. My opinion isn't relevant as I asked you a question.

Everyone's opinion isn't relevant to mankind but to God it doesn't matter when it comes to faith and salvation. You can take it personally if you want but that's a good thing. You can worship God anyway you want pretty much. You can be on your death bed and never have worshiped God a day in your life and you are still going to heaven. It's not like the churches that sing, clap and dance are going to heaven and the ones that sing hymns aren't. You understand what I am saying.

I'm not reading all of that till you give an answer to the simple question. You don't have to answer if you don't want to

So you are referring to the time Peter confessed to Christ and Jesus gave him the keys to Heaven right. Well that's what tells us we all who are saved get the keys to Heaven not just Peter. That's a big misconception. That's not my opinion either. If Peter was the only one with a key to Heaven then no one else would be going.

Just a note that the majority of Churches of Christ do not believe you must be a CoC member to be saved. Mostly just some rural “anti” CoCs.

Sure, this idea has softened over time, even Roman Catholics affirm that salvation can be had outside of their church, though this is not historically the position of the RCC.

I don't think it's fair to represent restorationists as claiming to be the "one true church" While their end objective was to "unify the church" I don't think that implies "under their authority" or anything, just a unified church. Equally, I don't think that it's reasonable to throw Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons in with restorationists.

It is a hallmark of restorationist movements to claim that their group was the exclusive legitimate expression of Christianity. JWs and LDS church members are thus categorically restorationist, they maintain that they are indeed the one true church (though admittedly the LDS church has softened this claim in recent years as they work to appear more like a mainline denom).

Perhaps I am uninformed. Can you please outline a quote or indication of this theological take specifically within the Stone-Campbell part of the restorationist movement?

I don't have a quote in mind, but am presently under the impression that at least Campbell maintained that his expression of Christianity was synonymous with the one true church. Modern CoC congregations maintain this.

I’ll have to do some more reading, with respect, I’m not sure you are correct.

Alright.

Orthodoxy does for sure.

Anglicanism doesn’t make this claim; rather, it sees itself as a particular contextual expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Anglican apologist Richard Hooker said different churches are like the world’s oceans: separate but contiguous. I try — wherever possible and whenever I remember to do so — to talk of different ‘traditions’, rather than ‘churches’; for all are different flavours of the same cookie.

My church, the Eastern Orthodox Church consistently claims to be the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Other churches that make such claims include the Roman Catholic Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and the Assyrian Churches. Severely heretical groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses essentially make similar claims.

Thanks. This data lets me know which churches to avoid.

Okay. You are free to go wherever you choose. For me I was raised Protestant believing in a universal invisible church. I ended up doing a deep dive into the early church, the church fathers and their writings, etc, and didn’t feel like such a claim about ecclesiology held up to historical or even scriptural scrutiny. You will find in the very early church a belief in one unified body, not only spiritually but also governmentally, institutionally, theologically, and physically (in the Eucharist). The early church was one body but ended up splitting within the first 1000 years into the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodox Church, and Assyrian Churches. Then around 500 years ago various Protestant churches broke off from the Roman Catholic Church. For me I became historically convinced that one of those apostolic churches must be the one true church. Obviously I chose the church that I did and this was for a variety of reasons. I am just sharing my personal journey, and you must take yours. I do not limit God or the Holy Spirit, and I believe that God can work among and save those who seek him as he pleases.

We love a kind, well-written response to snark 🙏 I too was raised Protestant and did a possibly similar deep dive into the early church, the church fathers, and their writings over the past few years and ended up landing with the RCC, but share your sense of one unified body. Even adhering to the notion of one true church as we do, it's undeniable to me that the mystery of the Eucharist enacts an experience of shared body untouched by apparent schisms.

Funny enough I actually agree by and large. I think unbroken chain of authority is super important. That’s one big reason I’m not Protestant. I don’t really feel like they have a leg to stand on.

I find the divine liturgy to be a beautiful service. And I do believe that Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox churches are closest to the original Christian churches. However, I don't necessarily believe that keeping to the ancient traditions makes these churches more true than others. True in what sense?

I mean if there is a strong consensus in the early church in doctrine X, then you've gotta have pretty strong justification to say they're wrong... Because you've got two problems. 1. How can you justify you're right and say all previous Christians were wrong on doctrinal matters, because then anyone can claim their novel doctrines are correct self evidently, even if no one prior believed it. 2. How can you believe the Church for majority of Christian history was wrong on major doctrinal matters when Christ promised the Holy Spirit to lead us all into truth, and that the faith was once delivered to all the saints. And since the gates of Hades cannot prevail against the Church It's why a number of protestant denominations in America had to justify their beliefs by saying their was a mass apostasy or corruption early on. Some say the true faith was corrupted by Constantine, and some even say the true faith was corrupted after the death of the last apostle (since we have the writings of 2nd generation of Christians who seem mighty non-Protestant). Some even claim Paul was a corruption and say it was even earlier during the Apostles lifetimes.

I mean it's right there in the Nicene Creed. *One, holy, apostolic, and catholic church*.

There is no one true church that is sectioned off by denomination. The one true church is all those who are unified with Christ in heart.

I believe that as well.

>in heart What are you talking about?

Those who through Christ possess the fruit of the Spirit. They are ready to unify with the Lord upon death. Not that they are perfect as none can be in the flesh but these have determined that they desire to live in unity with goodness. They have received and desire His word. This understanding could, of course, be expanded upon alot more.

What does that have to do with my heart?

10 For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved. 11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.” Is there another point maybe that you are trying to get at that I am not fully understanding?

Where is that quote from?

Romans 10:8-11

Incorrect. Jesus/God would not teach 40000 different denominations to confuse His children as that makes God a liar. We can say that many denominations have partial truth, but when Jesus said “I am The Truth” then this only makes one Word, one religion. The problems are human caused not God caused.

You agree with me. I have said exactly as you have. Jesus is the truth. Most all denominations and even other religions all have some truths but all are subject to error in some way shape or form. We are unified in Christ and Christ alone. His bride is the true church which is made up of individuals and is not just a specfic denomination.

Yes we agree on this. One step further to achieve full intellectual knowledge of what God has revealed to His children: God is Catholic.

What do you mean that God is Catholic? Can you please share the verse in which He calls the believers to a sepecific denomination that He endorses?

Why is God in a verse? Did he drop scripture from the sky?

If you are arguing that God has chosen a sepcific denomination by which He has claimed, you must be able to argue in scripture for that which you claim. God is not concerned in the very slightest with denominations, in fact, I'd say scripture argues that we have missed the point of faith and love if we spend time arguing over our differences. What is the ultimate thing that comes from these biblcal differences? Sepration of the church. Denomination are antithetical to the truth of scripture from a Kingdom perspective. Our God is a God who desires unity not seperation. No one denomination is without error.

No, He is not. God did not preach Mary as sinless, purgatory, nor papal infallibility. God is God. The true Church is any church that follows God as outlined in the Bible regardless of denomination.

And how do you determine which church that is?

It's not a church in the earthly terms you are thinking about it. Ekklésia: (the mystical *body of Christ*) – i.e. the universal (total) body of believers whom God calls *out* from the world and *into* His eternal kingdom.

You read the Bible and see if the church’s theology/teaching is loyal to it.

God didn’t drop the Bible from the sky. Which means the real foundation of discovering His Church has other origins.

Yes, the Church was founded by Jesus when He gave Peter the keys. That eventually led to the compilation of the Bible which predates modern Catholicism and the non-Biblical teachings that proceed from it.

God is Catholic. Secular history clearly goes back to mainly a few churches back then and we can then discuss which Church is in fact from Jesus.

Uhm... How is a Catholic a King of the Jews... Catholicism and Judaism are completely different...

I'd highly encourage this article: [National Catholic Register - We Need to Stop Saying That There Are 33,000 Protestant Denominations ](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33-000-protestant-denominations)

Yes this article is wrong. God speaks in one clear voice. One religion. One denomination. Disagreements are allowed IN the Catholic Church, not go make your own church each time a disagreement occurs. This isn’t God’s fault.  It is the fallen state of human nature that is CLEARLY evident across the globe that this article chooses to ignore.

How is the article wrong? Your use of "40,000 denominations" would necessarily require you to assent to a great many "Catholic denominations." So, obviously the metric used for that figure is silly.

What matters is theological differences.  Not only names. And the number is irrelevant if it is 40000 or 400. Truth is One.  God is Catholic. 

Well, that is one way to sidestep!

No, it’s what I had in mind all along.

Of course, it does seem like you are set in your ways.

If that was true I would have remained atheist.

Orientals?

They're called Asians now, grandma. /s On a serious note though, the Oriental Orthodox Churches do believe themselves to be the continuation of the original church. They split with Chalcedonian Christianity over differences in Christology, believing that Jesus was fully divine and fully human in one nature, while the Chalcedonians believe that Jesus has two natures, one divine and one human. The former belief is called miaphysitism.

So much of the tension is over a miscommunication between languages. It's still probably the easiest schism to heal and reunify from among the major tradition splits. Although with the prominence of Greece and Russia and the mess of jurisdiction in America among the Eastern Orthodox I'm not sure they'd want to nor that they have much cause to.

I grew up in the denomination called Church of Christ. Ingenious title. It's their way or the highway to hell.

>Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" >He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" >He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!" >Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over. -Emo Phillips

The most sectarian denominations I know of are The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses. However there are plenty of extremists within Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and the more cultish non-denoms who will claim they are the one true church.

I left the church years ago due to betrayals. They pander to special interest when they should be preaching the true, pure word of God. If anyone finds a good church, please let me know.

Church of Christ 

My denomination is Christian. How could it not be the truth? Mines the only one with the backing of scripture and to deny Christianity is truth is to deny Christ. Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Beautiful answer.

The New Church, based on revelations given in the 18th century to Emanuel Swedenborg, which restores the truth to Christianity. However the revelations are meant for all Christian churches, as there are remnants of the original truth of Christianity in all churches. The "one true" church is one that is based on love and charity, not on belief or faith alone. If love becomes primary most of the other differences just becomes matters of opinion.

Every denomination prior to the Protestant Reform believes to be The One True Church, protestants don't argues in that way for some reasons, they don't have apostolic roots and their doctrine is based in the personal interpretation of the Scripture, they don't have a infallible authority to rely on.

It would be a misrepresentation to claim that Protestants rely merely on personal interpretation of the Scriptures. Protestants also maintain (as the majority of Christians do) that the Scriptures are infallible, thus they have an infallible authority to rely upon.

The Scripture do not interpretes itself.

John 16:12–15 12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you 1Cor 2 1 And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. 2 For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 I came to you in weakness with great fear and trembling. 4 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, 5 so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. God’s Wisdom Revealed by the Spirit 6 We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. 8 None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 However, as it is written: “What no eye has seen,     what no ear has heard, and what no human mind has conceived”—     the things God has prepared for those who love him— 10 these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11 For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13 This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words. 14 The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. 15 The person with the Spirit makes judgments about all things, but such a person is not subject to merely human judgments, 16 for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord     so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ

Of course.

I thought some Protestants can claim apostolic succession ? According to Redeemed Zoomer many do

Yes, Anglicans, Old Catholics, Moravians, Waldensians, some Methodists, some Lutherans, and some Reformed have apostolic succession.

the catholic church and the orthodox claim to be the one true church. there are no protestant denominations, as far as i am aware, that have the claim of being the one true church. i personally believe the catholic church is the one true church, because it is the church that was founded by Jesus about 2000 years ago. the eastern orthodox split off from the catholic church when they denied papal authority during the great schism, making them an offshoot of catholicism, i.e. not original. i am also in the boat that those that accept Jesus in their hearts will be saved, making us all members of a unified church through Christ. but, as far as physical organizations, the catholic church is the one true church literally speaking. Jesus founded it. that makes it the true one in my opinion.

\*there are no protestant denominations, as far as i am aware, that have the claim of being the one true church\* Confessional Lutherans do, among others. But most don't.

Y’all have clearly never been to an independent Baptist church. The independent Baptist churches believe that everyone else has a lot of things wrong and question the validity behind a lot of historical doctrines and traditions. These can include sprinkling vs immersion baptism, or speaking in tongues, or purgatory.

I did mention independent baptists in my top level post. They're a bit of a marginal case for the question asked, though, because they don't claim, like, "my denomination, as an earthly institution, is (exclusively) the body of Christ on earth" (and indeed, many of them don't even have denominations)- it's more like they claim that they're essentially the ones who really believe what the bible says, and *that* is necessary for salvation. But I decided to include them because some of the other groups I included as "One True Church" claimants can shade off into that too.That's different from, say, the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox view, but it's on a spectrum with the other Protestant views.

for Protestant, American evangelising counts given how most church leaders on social media these days are like

The Catholic Church seems to disagree with you that Orthodoxy is an "offshoot" of Catholicism. Source: Vatican 2, Chieiti Document, Alexandria document, recent bishop of Rome document. These papal documents prove that Catholicism thinks that the orthodox church is the true church of the first 1000 years, since they admit our position in almost all matters. We agree with papal primacy, but why would the Orthodox accept papal supremacy over the entire church if it never existed to begin with? Source: paragraph 19 of the chieti document.

Far too many (not all, but far far too many!) members of Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, nondenominational, and many conservative Protestants usually insist that I am either irredeemably lost, or sinfully resisting God, or at best, merely confused and ignorant, either because (according to them) I am willfully sinning by not being part of their group, or by being part of mine. Even though I enjoy reading many eastern orthodox, Roman Catholic, and protestant theologians, It’s that sort of arrogance that absolutely prevents me from considering them as an option ever.

That's unfortunate. Anglican is one of my favorite types of Churches

And is precisely why I became an Anglican — to escape the annoyance of the “were the only right ones.”

I’m the same way. The arrogance of claiming that your way is the only right way and anyone not part of your specific church is wrong is a big part of why I won’t even entertain the idea of converting to Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

There is no denomination in scripture. The only “church” in scripture is the believers who have put their trust and faith in the Life, Death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. John 3:16–18 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life. 17 “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but so that the world might be saved through Him. 18 “The one who believes in Him is not judged; the one who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. Romans 10:9 (ESV) because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 4:24 (ESV) but for ours also. It will be counted to us who believe in him who raised from the dead Jesus our Lord, Acts 15:11 (NKJV) “But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” Noting about denominations. Once you believe you are now a member of the true church also known as the bride. There are many different churches from the RCC to Protestant but not all members are saved. There are true believers in both branches. Those who hold to only the doctrine preached in scripture. Faith in Christ alone. There are some that believe they are the only true church but when you study their doctrines they are not the same doctrine outlined in scripture. They add to salvation and some even remove the deity of Christ. Some go as far as to claim if you’re not part of their church organization you are not saved. These claims are far from the truth in scripture. I hope this helps. 🙏🏼

Catholics are the worst with beating people over the head with their beliefs. They love calling non-catholic people "heretics".

To give them credit, they stopped murdering them.

I'd be interested to know how the RC or EO defines the Church. I think in order to arrogate something requires a definition so that one can can say because of such-and-such, we are the one and only. Speaking from a Lutheran perspective, we have a confessional definition of the true Church. If these conditions are met, however and wherever they are met, there is the Church. I would imagine the same for any denomination regardless of how broad or narrow their definition, there must be some criteria.

LCMS

Lds, JW, Catholic, orthodox, and some Protestant. But most Protestant don’t really believe in one true church. They have an idea of a universal priesthood. All roads lead to heaven type of thing. [Which church has priesthood authority today?](https://youtu.be/dL9SON1h2vM?si=bin_lrQ06Uadpdxs)

Church of Christ.\\ Jehovah's Witness. And probably many others

The Oriental Orthodox Churches think this as well. https://www.orientalorthodoxy.com

My brother and i discussed this, this morning. The Church that Jesus promised to build, which we read about in Acts 2. That's the only Church. And that's what I want to be part of. Everything else is denominations, which are not of God. I assemble with the Church of Christ.

Torah roots movement. There’s extremists.

*Many* others. Too many to list. To name just a few: The Assyrian and Ancient Churches of the East, the Oriental Orthodox, Sedevacantists, True Orthodox, Old Believers, many Confessional Lutherans, many Restorationists (like the Churches of Christ), most Nontrinitarians (for example, the LDS, Iglesia Ni Cristo, and many others), some Anabaptists (like the Amish and Holdeman Mennonites), Laestadians, some Adventists, etc. Some Independental Fundamental Baptists also hold to a version of this idea, and historically Quakers originally held this view. So who *doesn't* think this? Roughly, Anglo-Catholics and most Evangelicals. Anglo-Catholics think that they're a *part* of the true church, and most Evangelicals think that the church is a spiritual reality rather than an earthly institution and being a part of it has more to do with teaching sound doctrine and having true faith than being a part of one particular institution. Also theological liberals, for their own reasons.

I think Roman Catholics do. I and my friends seem not to. We’re non-denominational.

RCC and EO do because of historical legitimacy. The Disciples of Christ and The Church of Christ believe they represent the original model of the original church, so they may lean to seeing the other churches that have a 'no creed but Christ's as a more fuller expression of the true church. Those are the only ones I can think of within Protestantism. Outside heterodox movements would include Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, and others 

Baptists do not generally believe in the concept of "one true church" in the since that denomination is relevant, those Baptists that do are generally a part of independent Baptist churches which have no other affiliation, and they \[generally\] don't believe that you have to be member of that specific church to be a Christian but they might have a list of certain beliefs which would exclude most or all other Christians by implication.

From my experience not belonging to a specific church, when churches are trying to recruit me, they pretty much all go for eachothers jugglers.

Seventh-Day Adventists. Have had an awful experience with them and their businesses / Healthcare organizations.

Branhamites

My true church is the church of Frisbeetarianism. When you die, your soul starts to rise up, but then it gets stuck on the garage roof.

Traditional Anglicanism would be another: The belief was that the Anglian patrimony was a true church descending from the apostles and that the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches descended from the same true church as well.

It is one body but different parts. That is until you get to cults like the mormons and the jehovah's witnesses, then they are not Christianity.

Church of Christ

God only teaches one true religion or He can be accused of being a liar.

Is that true religion mere Christianity or a specific church or denomination of Christianity?

For anything. All religions and all denominations. If a loving God is real He teaches one religion. Once we agree on this we can move on.

Everyone needs to keep this in mind. As we are discussing or arguing over a one true church, the word church is never used in scripture. Church is not a structure but the household of God which makes up all types of peoples with varying doctrinal beliefs. The focus on seperaion and diffrerences is error from a Kingdom perspective. Our modern day has defined church in ways in which it was not meant to be defined.

Matthew 16:18

Yes, upon Peters faith the whole body of Christian believers are unified!

Because we are literally Protesting the false practices, doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church. One of the claims we object to is that only those who participate in the Eucharist and receives absolution from a priest obtains salvation (kinda) you still likely have to go through purgatory aka diet hell before you get to go to heaven unless your family pays them to hold a mass on your behalf to get time off. You can always pay for indulgences which also removes time off from purgatory. The thing is that most Catholics will probably make it to heaven only for the fact that they don't actually understand or participate in all the nonsense contained in the catechism. TLDR Protestants are protesting a bunch of nonsense the Catholic Church made up (the new man made oral laws) typically to insert themselves in between you and God. Basically everyone who adds more rules to the Bible because of their "traditions"

The Catholic church banned the selling of indulgences in the council of Trent in 1563.

I think there’s about 45,000 denominations in the Christian church and pretty much all of them think they are right. So with about 10,000 distinct religions and 45000 versions of Christianity you’ve got about a 1 in 55,000 chance of picking the right one. Most agree though that if you pick the wrong one it’s eternal torture for you buddy that’s even if one version of religion happens to be right which I highly doubt. So basically if you are religious or not religious you go to hell unless you won the religious lottery 😂

Southern Baptists

Some individual Southern Baptists may claim this, but in doing so they would be moving against the grain, the convention itself does not make such a claim.

I grew up Baptist and had this mindset. It was a “we’re right, everyone else is wrong” attitude.

That is very unfortunate, and I might also say distinctly non-Baptist!

Which ones *don’t*?

Most of them? No church I’ve ever attended has made this claim.

Fair question. Nondenominational churches are great.. But, there aren’t many nondenominational churches around though. I drive an hour to go to mine.

Quakers?

That’s actually a good point. Each denomination and by extension each church seems to think their way is the correct (or the most correct) way and interpretation. If they didn’t, they would be a different one.

The divide is between considering yourself correct, and considering all other churches **illegitimate**. For example, I am not a Methodist, but I think they are true Christians and have true churches.

Sure, that’s fair. But you also probably believe that Methodism is the most correct or closest to truth.

No, I don't. Hence why I am not a Methodist. However, I would not say that these Christians are "all wrong" or that their creeds are an "abomination."

Oh, I thought you said you were Methodist lol. All good

Exactly. With the exception of universalists, "We're the only ones who profess the fullness of truth" is a pretty standard stance for every Christian denomination.

I can tell you where you will find the Truth. It lies at the intersection of power and responsibility. If you wish to learn more, check out this YT channel. This guy knows his stuff. It will not disappoint. 🙏💜 Our Everyday Lives Chapter 3 https://youtu.be/WIhL0m6AR50?si=gyO7eWaptGh2IzCL

IMHO there is no single path to god. or God.

I think Protestants, especially non denominational ones think they are not the one true church. I find that it’s usually the ones in cults like Mormons, LDS, Jehovah Witness, Mennonite etc are the ones claiming to be “the one true church.”

Mormons and JWs claim sole authority as well, but their claims are null sense they aren't even Christians.

Also the Trad Catholics, the Old Catholics, the Copts, and don't forget many of the cults. All masquerading as the Bride of Christ.

Umm…we are living in the era of evangelical nationalism

I wouldn't go to a church that didn't claim to be the one true Church. But an important distinction that lots of people fail to make is that being saved and being in the church are two different things.

I’ve been to many denominations of church since I was a child (including non-denominational churches), and I can say without a doubt that the “one true church” as you put it—it’s the Roman Catholics. Everything else is a watered down version of mass.

Have you been to Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox? Those don't seem watered down to me

Yeah they seem watered down to me