From my, admittedly biased, perspective the answer to your first question is no, but not for the reason you might think: I think they wouldn’t have accepted your terms. For them, there was (is) the Church, and there were bodies in schism with the Church. Depending on how many “generations” you meant, cf. (amongst others) St. Ignatius Epistle to the Smyrnaeans.

With Rome or Constantinople, I understand the reasoning for why I can’t be admitted to the table. It’s laid out clearly in their confessions of faith. But most Protestants are not confessional, so on what basis do they draw those lines? That’s the question I struggle with a lot as someone who identifies as both confessional and protestant.

I suppose my frustration is with the fact that there seems to be a certain ecclesiological naivete about a lot of these “multidenominational” types. It sounds great to say Protestants – or Christians more broadly – shouldn’t be divided by “secondary” matters. But your secondary matter may be my primary matter. In fact, the matter you think is secondary (like credobaptism vs paedobaptism) might be primary enough that people who disagree with you cannot be accepted as members of your church. For instance, in most Baptist churches Tim Keller, Lig Duncan, Jerram Barrs, RC Sproul, and Sinclair Ferguson wouldn’t be able to become members. Surely we can all agree that such a reality is significant and that whatever doctrine is responsible for that reality is deserving of being considered “primary”?

One can, of course, try to set up an explicitly doctrinal test – “The true faith is contained in the three catholic creeds,” or “The true faith is that Jesus Christ is Lord,” although, if anyone objects that one’s chosen formula is too inclusive/exclusive, it is difficult to discover grounds on which to refute him.

Now, it is perfectly possible to avoid the question-begging assumption of defining Christians by examining their tenets, or the Church by its teaching. Mgr Ronal Knox did it, when he declared that “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome… And in fact there can be little doubt that, in the West, our labelling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other.”

At least, this is a test, rather than a vicious circle and it is remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

#Smyrna: The only church doing it right(and being Martyred for it)

# Pergamos: State Church, Roman Catholic.

#Thyatira: based on the 111 votes for fornication at their 77th in July,.. Episcopal.

#Sardis: No clue of the word…. progressive Christianity.

#Philadelphia: Those senior believers passing away peacefully before the hour…

#Laodicea: Basic American Christianity… John 3:16rs that don’t realize John penned Revelation 3:16 also(to describe them).

Even though I am usually the Ecumenical wet blanket on the subject, Roger is correct! All these compete different types of Churches Jesus considered His.

Those I love I rebuke and chasten…. Jesus.

Yet rationality demands that we acknowledge that contradictory doctrines cannot all be true.

Either Jesus is present in His humanity and in His divinity in the Eucharistic bread and wine — or He isn’t.

Either that is the intimate way God chose to dwell among, or rather within His people under the New Covenant — or it isn’t.

Either He established a Church on Earth against which the gates of Hell would not prevail, and to which He sent the Holy Spirit, and to which He gave real spiritual authority that Christians are bound to submit to in matters of faith and morals — or He didn’t.

Jesus is generous and is anxious to be reconciled with everyone. He makes His home in all those who love Him. He is also anxious for us to be reconciled with each other and to be one even as He and the Father are One. So should we be anxious for that.

What disturbs me are Christians who seem to be perfectly content with the dismemberment of the Body of Christ on Earth. If one isn’t longing for the Body of Christ to made whole once again, one must not have the “mind of Christ,” as we know Christ desires that we be one in Him. Maybe such a one doesn’t really have His Spirit, either.

I find the above quote from Olson fascinating. How does he tell if he belongs to it?