You wrote, “Every church feels that it is the one true Church.”
I don’t believe that. I simply believe that *Christ* saves us, regardless of denominational affiliation. I lift of Christ, not my church.
You bring up a good point and it's something else I've been wanting to elaborate on. It's a bit lengthy. To any Catholics reading, I want to point out that I am NOT arguing for this view here... that is not what I do. Instead, I am simply pointing out the way some of us Protestants see things.
Most Protestants recite the Nicene Creed during our worship services. Everything within that Creed is an essential part of our faith, and that includes the reference to the "One holy catholic and apostolic Church." Our interpretation just happens to be very different than that held by Catholics.
Catholics have been known to throw out the, How Old Is Your Church argument when debating with Catholics (I've seen it at least twice in this thread alone). While factually correct in its assessments regarding the ages of particular church bodies, it is a poor example of apologetics as it completely ignores the Protestant understanding of the Church to the point of being irrelevant.
Protestants don't identify "The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ" with any particular earthly institution. We see earthly Churches as being human institutions composed of men. Many of us will grant that the institution now known as The Catholic Church was technically founded by Christ since it grew out of that original body of believers commissioned by Christ. Whereas Catholics believe that this particular institution is synonymous with the entirety of the universal Christian Church, however, Protestants distinguish between the two. We believe that Christ founded a spiritual body, not a structured institution, and that while the latter certainly characterized the former in its early years it is not necessarily an essential property.
Our view, then, is that in early Christianity the universal Christian Church was synonymous with what Catholics would call the Early Catholic Church. Defined doctrine was not monolithic within that body - Protestants would argue that beliefs which characterize our beliefs existed alongside doctrines which are more characteristic of the Catholic Church today. It is easy to forget that things were not as clearly defined back then as they are now, particularly in terms of salvation by faith and Scripture as the as the ultimate measure of Tradition. If I am not mistaken, where doctrine has not been explicitly defined in the Catholic Church there is freedom of opinion.
Unfortunately, the hardness of hearts in men led to splits in the institutional structure of the Church. From a Protestant point of view, where one Institutional Church once stood, after 1054 there were two Institutional Churches (or perhaps even more, if you include groups like the Coptics, whose schisms might have been due more to a misunderstanding than actual heresy). The universal Church itself was not split in twain according to the Protestant view, but merely the institutional administrative bodies that ministered to the members of that Church.
With the Reformation, what Protestants perceive is not the creation of a bunch of new Churches so much as a mass of organizational schisms which led to new administrative institutions based around differing points of view. Considering that we do not believe institutional unity to be a necessity, we are quite alright with this. At this point it is essential to define what Sola Scriptura really is. To the majority of Protestants, Sola Scriptura does NOT mean that all doctrine must be DERIVED directly from Scripture. That is not the classical understanding. Instead, the doctrine derives from the idea that Scripture is the inspired and infallible Word of God. Doctrine, forms of worship, the actual canon - these things all undeniably preferably proceed from Tradition going back to the time of the apostles. What Sola Scriptura teaches, however, is that Tradition must be weighed and measured according to what is taught by Scripture. Traditions which are not taught in Scripture are held not to be necessary for Christian salvation. The application of this is different depending on denomination, of course - some, like myself, see non-scriptural traditions as perhaps good yet non-binding while others believe that traditions not affirmed by Scripture are to be outright rejected. Other differences arose regarding methods of interpretation. Yes, new understandings of Christian doctrine inevitably arose and new denominations were founded around those, but these were considered much along the lines of "Development of Doctrine" within new contexts rather than sudden discoveries of "Real Christianity." Among Protestants, "Real Christianity" is pretty much the same as it is among Catholics - Faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. The differences are in forms of worship and in particular doctrines that are ultimately considered non-essential to salvation.
It is essential to understand that, within the Protestant view, the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" is not identifiable with one institution and is intangible here upon earth. As an Anglican, I accept that my Church has no claim to representing the ENTIRE Church of Christ, which I hold to include Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and a host of others. Outside the Church there is NO salvation, but all Christians ultimately belong to it. This is not to say that the Church is "invisible" by any stretch, however - it is very visible through the various institutional organizations that represent it! It's "unity" consists of our willingness to place aside doctrinal differences in love and charity and focus upon our similarity - our Faith in Christ.
Agree, disagree, whatever... I just wanted to share some of my views on the "Church" subject.