In addition, the whole range of premises concerning these claims is erroneous.
1. Any comparison of a single denomination to a bunch of others is of course going to look like the one is united while the others are not. Let's call the one 'A' and the others B, C, D, and E. It looks like A is united for being only one entity and its followers then say that B, C, D, and E obviously are not!
But we can take any particular church out of the formula, move it, and then make the same claim. Ergo, 'B' is united (and therefore right), while A, C, D, and E are obviously disunited as a group! It is the same every time we pit a single church--any one--against all the others at once.
But that's not all.
2. Almost none of these churches is internally united anyway. While the denomination itself may have a definite position on some doctrine, every study shows that the people who belong to it are not. They believe all sorts of things that their own church disavows. Most Catholics, for instance, do not actually believe in Transubstantiation, many consider their church's teaching about an all-male priesthood to be wrong, and it is no secret that many think the church is absolutely wrong when it comes to homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, and other such teachings, none of which the church itself says is left to the individual to decide..
There are only a handful of Christian denominations whose members are 100% in agreement with their church on doctrine, or close to that, and some of these are considered cults by the mainstream denominations.
3. The notion that Protestantism is a giant grab-bag and every individual is expected to believe whatever he wants is another fable. Most Protestant churches are even more dogmatic than the Catholic ones and almost none teach that the individual is right to believe just whatever he thinks best. Further, it's less likely that you'll be expelled from a Catholic church for not following the church's beliefs than is the case with most Protestant churches.
4. The idea that choosing to suit is somehow inherent in Protestantism but not in Catholicism is refuted by the fact that everybody is free to make an individual selection about what is the truth in either case!
If you say that all Protestant churches are about the same (which is not true in the first place), but argue that in Catholicism you do not put the individual's judgment ahead of the church's beliefs, the truth is otherwise. You make an individual choice merely becoming a Catholic!
The difference is only that in one situation you choose a church that agrees with you while in the other you make the individual choice to let one of them choose what's true for you. Membership in any church is the result of a personal decision, whether the person actually follows it's teachings or not.
While, generally speaking, we’re all influenced for better or worse by those who came before us, and while some cradle-Christians remain “believers” more for cultural than for personal and true spiritual reasons, and while presumably none of our individual theologies are perfect in an absolute sense, we ideally all seek and discern the truth for ourselves from the sources we may look towards: bible, church, pastor, all of the above, etc.
And it's acknowledged that any denomination will be internally consistent regarding its own beliefs; it’d be rather absurd for a church to disagree with itself. And the question has
nothing to do with whether or not
members agree with their church, or with each other, but everything to do with whether or not
the church’s teachings are true. Truth has nothing to do with democratic vote. Where obvious disagreements occur the church needs to simply decide whether or not it will demand and enforce
alignment with its teachings. At the same time, to expect that members, comprised of fallen, weak, limited, ignorant, and sinful humans,
will never or rarely disagree (and will never sin, just to add the point), would be more than a bit naive.
And there’s not much logic in maintaining that
some churches cannot hold the truth more clearly, more accurately, more fully than others simply because all churches
claim to have the correct understanding. Or in saying that they
all hold the truth equally well. Or in saying that
one church cannot be the original out of the many that have sprung up. Regarding truth, exclusivity is not at all a bad thing (it’s a very
good thing, in fact), nor is it inherently arrogant to assert exclusivity of any particular church. We’re not ashamed of averring exclusivity when it comes to comparing ourselves with non-Christian religions, rather than insisting that all religions are equally valid. It’s all about truth, God’s truth. We people and
our opinions are secondary; we desperately
need the truth and that’s why God has revealed it to us. But we’re an obstinate bunch. What else is new?
And while it’s very true that the decision is individual, with a subjective
and supernatural motive to it, there are also objective reasons for believing in God to begin with, and also in trusting the sources that claim to teach us about Him. If not for God’s revelation to begin with, originally given to a ragtag group of people, we’d remain in relative darkness altogether.
For myself, the divisions and disagreements that inevitably arise from using Scripture as our sole, final, or over-arching rule of faith finally made the doctrine unsuitable for the purpose of having real conviction that the truth had been determined. So I also looked beyond, to the oldest churches, east and west, that, logically at least, should have a continuous link to the beginnings of the faith. And I found that their doctrines are almost uncannily similar on basic tenets, not to mention on liturgy, after centuries of virtual isolation, especially when compared to many other, later, Christian denominations.
I had to resolve objections to negative and unChristian behavior of church leaders/members at various periods in the past (not so hard to do to the extent that we understand fallen human nature) as well as to resolve theological questions-I found that the doctrines regarding faith and justification and the role of man’s will were so much sounder and more balanced and fleshed out in both the eastern and western ancient churches, regardless of the particular terminology used in their definitions and teachings. Anyway, that was part of my own journey, which I’m sure might offend some.
