One question Protestants can’t answer 

The disagreement over "once saved, always saved" seems like a pretty big deal to me. I've read some intense protestant arguments on both sides of that issue, yet both sides still claimed sola scriptura and accused the other of being "false teachers" and not Christian. Seems like Jesus should have left an authority to help the Church interpret Scripture...

Anyone: “Are Catholics Christians?” Me 10 years ago: “definitely not” Me 7 years ago: “yeah, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ” Me now: “yes, and I am a Catholic Christian”, after being confirmed in November 2019, thanks be to God!

The lack of authority regarding what is/isn’t Christianity is what drove me into the arms of the Catholic Church. It all depends on someone’s narrow or wide interpretation of the Bible.

Trent you are ignoring history if your point is that the Catholic Church is unified in its magisterium teachings. We both know that is not the case.

My fiancé and I are on the path to discovering and possibly uniting to one of the apostolic faiths. Re-examining our faith and delving deeper. Great video 👍🏾

Timestamp 21:15 We all know we want Trent to sit down with Mike Winger and dialogue about this. I'd pay money to get Mike to agree to this. I'm pretty sure Pints with Aquinas paid good money for William Lane Craig to debate with Jimmy Akin a while back.

Also -- I have heard more than one Protestant, kind and educated individuals, say there is no physical Resurrection at the end of time; they struggled to believe we would have bodies, because of old age, infirmity, etc... and instead believed we would have 'spirit bodies' -- but that WE would not come OUT of the ground on judgement day... How could the Resurrection from the Dead not be essential?

Lumping all types of Protestants together would be like lumping Rostacrucians, Gnostics, and Opus Dei with Catholics.

You always amazed me with your responses. Thank you Trent 🤗

Love Ready to Harvest! I’ve learned so much on his channel, and he always presents it in such a fair manner.

Such a short, simple and helpful video.

Bro, show ONE example from Scripture where SPECIFICALLY an infant is baptized... ONE.

You should do a video/series on debunking Martin Luther’s 95 theses

Luther, realizing getting rid of the one Pope made everyone his own pope, said "Now there are as many popes as there are heads!"

for me here is root of every thing to be a Christian, 1) you believe in the trinity and they are one 2) you believe in Jesus Christ as our Lord and savoir 3) and you try to do the will of God the Father, this are the things you need to believe and do to be save because only Christians are allowed to go to heaven

Trent, these sorts of arguments arent valid, brother. The Scriptures indicate what's essential. If you want to say Protestants can't be certain with regard to their interpretation of what Scripture says is essential, then the Protestant can just say we Catholics can't be certain with regard to our interpretation of what the Church teaches to be essential.

I think your analysis is flawed in that you seem to be asserting that disagreement among Protestants means they view these issues as secondary. Christians separating from each other into denominations demonstrates these issues are not secondary. None denomination churches, and non Christian groups that claim to be Christian and or Protestant, are not Protestant and it seems you are lumping them in with Protestants further clouding your analysis.

Nice backdrop and setup! Have you thought about putting a crucifix in the background?

I think there’s more “unity” among Protestants today in the sense that many, even most, have eliminated most doctrinal considerations altogether. Of course, that’s not “unity” so much as indifference. I really started seeing that in the “seeker-friendly” movement. Today, you could visit a wide variety of Protestant denominations and not even realize which denomination you’re currently attending, except for seeing a logo somewhere.

Title is a little misleading. As a protestant, I can answer the question (and others you posted) but it may be different than how other Protestants answer.

Perfect video 👍🙏❤️ .... btw, there's also a really good explanation on the topic in the video: "Questions for Protestants (with former baptist Steve Ray)" or something like that

As for stating that the New Testament does not give a list of required beliefs to be saved, I must disagree with Trent whole-heartedly. One must believe in the deity of Christ (John 8:34); one must believe that Jesus died for ones sins - atonement - and is risen from the dead (1Corinthians 15:1-4); one must repent of sin (1Corinthians 6:9-10); one must embrace the Father and the Son (1John 1:1-4 with 2:22-23; eternal Sonship is certainly in view); one must believe that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh (1John 4:1-3); one must practice righteousness and love of the brethren (1John 3:3-10); and so on. There are many things beyond these non-negotiable saving requirements that Christians can be confused about and therefore disagree on - monotheletism vs dyothelitism being one of them. True Christians can be justified by faith alone and yet be confused about articulating the topic; true Christians can misplace faith in Mary and "saints" and still be saved as long as they are ultimately placing their faith in Jesus Christ; and so on. I am not saying these and like issues are not important or significant or even strategic; I am simply saying that one can be confused about them and still be saved. On the flip side, one could be totally biblical on every point and miss salvation. One must truly from the heart believe on the risen Jesus Christ as God the Son, Savior and Lord and on that basis be born of God the Holy Spirit - that is the non-negotiable thing. Nothing else can save - neither Sola-Scripture-theological-correctness nor supposed sacraments.

I agree with the fact that they disagree on VERY important issues. In relation to baptism, some think that you don't need it at all despite what the Bible says.

Great video. I am still working my way around understanding this stuff. I can see your point that "sola scriptura" when applied in a very radical way it can lead people far from where the historic church was, but on the other hand there are conservative Anglican (and maybe Lutheran?) churches that retain almost all of the traditions and beliefs of Catholicism, maybe almost everything except for the Pope. Hypothetically if a future Pope was extremely radical and decided to change Church doctrine on same sex marriage (similar to moves in the Church of England currently, maybe he just changes the doctrine specifically to some western European countries) what would you expect the reaction of traditional Catholics to be? Surely their grounds for rejecting such a move by the Pope would be some form of appeal to scriptures. Surely in principle there are doctrines that could be defended against a potentially misguided church using scripture? Or can we be certain the Catholic church wound never go off track like this?

Excellent listening! Thanks Trent Horn!

Great video, Trent! Such an interesting topic!!!

"There is no entering into salvation outside the Church, just as in the time of the Flood there was no salvation outside the Ark which denotes the Church." - St. Thomas Aquinas

@TheCounselofTrent In fact who is a christian is defined in John 6:66, which explains that Protestants are those who follow Jesus but NOT His teachings, as too difficult to follow, and returned to their wayward lives. Scroll upward of verse John 6:66 to learn Jesus discourse of Bread of Life.

Back when I was Protestant it was obvious to me that Protestants disagreed on many doctrines. And it really bothered me and seemed as evidence that something was wrong. I tried to ignore it, and I think that’s what most of them do.

No one will "lose" their Salvation (only determined on which religion or philosophy) they believe in. (Its our actions, hearts and intents) which will ultimately save us or not!

I think another big question they cannot answer is, "Where is your church in the xth century?" (Where x is 15th century or less.)

They aren't called protestants for nothing.

Hi, interesting video - thank you :) I am happy to admit that the (Roman) Catholic church is the historic church. I guess that's obvious right? But the question is, did it go astray, and if so - when? It's not that "Protestants" deny all church tradition, it's more of a question of when they stop trusting in the church tradition. So early traditions such as creeds, the canon of scripture and the trinity all protestants (I guess) would agree on. But later doctrines regarding Mary etc, they would not be so comfortable in believing. So the difference between "protestants" is at what point do they feel church tradition began to go astray. Many think it was after the edict of Milan, 313 AD, hence the massive diversity of belief (313 was pretty early on in church history). Thanks again, would value your thoughts. God bless you :)

Stumbled onto your site and found it interesting. I don't have any theological training but there seems to be a few concerns that are valid. The fact that Catholics can agree on things and Protestants can disagree on secondary issues is not compelling . Jehovah's Witnesses make the same claim as do many other pseudo Christian Cults. In other words they cite the fact that you can go to a Kingdom Hall anywhere around the world and the teaching will all be the same and uniform. If I'm correct in my understanding Catholicism states that anything the Pope writes or says is infallible / inspired just like scripture. I know many Catholics disagree on his views of same-sex unions and so on so there seems to be a bit of duplicity here. Thx for sharing your views.

I'm so glad the Thief on the Cross had all these answers before He died on the Cross with Jesus

My wife’s family is non-denominational Protestant. They’re so dissatisfied with mainstream Protestantism that they’re the type likely to start their own house church if they felt so led. Based on my talks with them, I believe they would say that the Holy Spirit is the underlying interpretive authority for a Christian. Thus, if one group doesn’t agree with another on the main things it is because they aren’t really listening to the Holy Spirit as individuals living in humble, sensitive, open community with each other discussing and praying together without some authoritarian structure of one kind or another telling them what to believe or get out. They’re really down on any kind of institutional Church authority, Protestant one’s especially since that’s the lens through which they view all Christian authorities. They’ve had so many bad experiences with Protestant authority figures in the different churches they have gone to and they just see the Catholic Church’s authority structure as an extreme form of what they already experienced. It has been very difficult to talk about authority with them. They aren’t afraid to follow their ideas to their logical and extreme conclusions and stick by them. For example, they basically acknowledge that the early Church is the Catholic Church but hold that the Church went off the rails in the first generation even as Paul is preaching to them since human beings are so unreliable. I’ve been looking for materials to help me more deeply explain the Biblical foundations for an authoritative, institutional, hierarchical Church that is protected by the Holy Spirit as an institution from going off the rails. Do you (or anyone) have any recommendations? So far I have Steve Ray’s book “Upon This Rock” and a handful of golden videos on RU-vid by Brant Pitre.

Trent, I view your video title as a sort of taunting dare. And that title is erroneous and dishonest. Nine seconds into your video you make the false statement, "Today I want to talk about ONE QUESTION that Protestants can't answer." Really? After making the unexplained and slanderous statement "Protestants can sometimes argue like Atheists", you spew forth not one but a barrage of questions: "What are the essential doctrines of Christianity?" "What authority tells us what is required to be a Christian?" "What is not required?" "What beliefs would disqualify you from being a Christian?" "Do Protestants agree on the main things?" "Does the Bible explicitly reveal the main things?" (3:08) "Can you lose your salvation?" "Is eternal security an essential doctrine?" "Does baptism save infants?" "Can Christians deny sola scriptura or sola fide?" "What beliefs about Jesus are essential to being a Christian?" (13:16) [ here you contemptuously include the non-Christian Jehovah Witness cult under the heading Protestant. Shame on you! ]. "Are Catholics Christians?" In spewing out this smokescreen of questions, I note that you either did not answer the questions yourself or you gave an erroneous answer. I cannot of course speak for all Protestants any more than you can speak for all Roman Catholics (see below). I can only speak as an individual faith follower of the Lord Jesus. My allegiance is not to historical or contemporary Protestantism but to Christ. Saving faith is not intellectual assent to a list of doctrinal truths, it is personal faith in a personal Savior, the person of the Lord Jesus Christ who is revealed in the Holy Bible. In your red herring list of questions you seem to be implying that soteriology is such a complicated topic that we need an exalted hyper-clergy class to sort all these things out for us and explain them to us. I submit to you that such a hierarchical leadership structure is antithetical to both the teaching and example of Christ who said: “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." and: "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11 But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." The Apostle Paul, used of God to leave behind a large portion of Holy Scripture, replied to the essential question, "What must I do to be saved?" with the simple answer" "“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved." Not a complicated systematic theology. Not a body of doctrine requiring a PhD to understand. No, just a simple childlike faith in the Person of the LORD JESUS and a confident faith in the truth proclaimed from the cross, "It is finished!" Your discussion of doctrinal disagreement within Protestantism connotes an implied untruth that there is complete doctrinal agreement within Roman Catholicism. At 16:14 you do reluctantly concede that this is greatly untrue. Even within Catholic clergy there is public disagreement on many topics, even something as central and important as whether salvation is possible outside of the Church of Rome. One priest on RU-vid, Father so and so (I don't recall his name) was clearly torn and conflicted by the obvious contradiction on this issue between Augustine & various church fathers and, on the other hand, the teaching of Vatican Two. Where is the purported monolithic, unified doctrine? By the way, this troubled priest argued that not even Roman Catholics can have the assurance of salvation. "There is no guarantee" he said, ignoring and contradicting clear statements to the contrary found in God's holy word. Is it not true that even many popes have agonized on their deathbeds, lacking assurance of a heavenly hope? This lack of faith, unbelief actually, is an attack on the attributes and character of God. From the beginning in the garden Satan's strategy has always been to get our eyes off Christ and onto ourselves, either as self righteous Pharisees or as abject failures. The god of all false religions wants to keep mankind in a state of uncertainty. "Did God indeed say?" The God of the Holy Bible, by contrast, wants us to know where we stand with Him, wants us to flourish in that knowledge into an ever greater love for Him. This God inspired the Apostle John to write: "And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may KNOW that you HAVE eternal life" - 1 John 5:1-13. (caps emphasis is mine). By the way, where is the concept of the magisterium found in the Bible? Or Popes, Cardinals, indulgences, rosaries, etc., etc. ad nauseum? Is it not because these man made traditions are NOT found in the Bible the reason why those men who dared to translate the Bible into the common tongue were tortured and murdered in the most heinous ways by Roman Catholic clergy? I do not know what or who exactly your supposed Magisterium is. But then it is far from certain that the Roman Catholic church knows and agrees: (from WikiPedia) "Postconciliar era The debate concerning the Magisterium, papal primacy and infallibility, and the authority to teach in general has not lessened since the official declaration of the doctrines. Instead, the Church has faced contrary arguments; at one end there are those with the tendency to regard even technically non-binding papal encyclicals as infallible statements and, at the other, are those who refuse to accept in any sense controversial encyclicals such as Humanae Vitae. There are also those who, like John Henry Newman, question whether the First Vatican Council was itself an ecumenical council, and as a result whether the dogma of papal infallibility itself as defined at that council was a fallible pronouncement. The situation is complicated by changing attitudes toward authority in an increasingly democratic world, the new importance placed on academic freedom, and new means of knowledge and communication. In addition, the authority of theologians is being revisited, with theologians pushing past the structures laid out by Pius XII to claim authority in theology in their own right such as was the case in the middle ages. Others simply regard themselves purely as academics not in the service of any institution. In September 2018, the Synod of Bishops was granted Magisterium over documents which are approved at their Synods." (end quote). In contrast to all religious confusion, man made traditions, and prideful usurpation of divine authority, my faith is in the trustworthy Person of Christ. I am a born again child of a loving Heavenly Father. I am sealed with the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. Christ Jesus is the faithful Shepherd of my soul who will not let one of His flock be lost. The Lord Jesus Christ is my Surety, the guarantor of a better covenant and a better hope, my Redeemer who has co-signed that covenant with his own name and, as my advocate and only Mediator, pleads His shed blood before the accuser of the Brethren and before His eternal Father. Praise and glory to His name!

Truly, if one desires to be a Catholic that person should read the catechism to see what the church's beliefs are.

All Christian groups struggle with how far they will take ecumenical acceptance, Catholics are no different. I've never visited a denomination that just allowed each member to interpret the Bible as they personally saw fit on every issue. They all have standards for their members (Same as the Catholic Church), they all have an internal line a member cannot cross (same as the Catholic Church), and they all have standards they will accept as what constitutes a true Christian, outside their communion (same as the Catholic Church). Do protestants agree on the main things? I would suggest broadening this question a bit. Do all who name the name of Christ agree on the main things? One of the biggest questions is of Church government. If scripture (and history or tradition) is so clear, why is there so much disagreement over the government set up by Christ? (Maybe this universal disagreement, disharmony and confusion proves an even more sinister truth; namely that it's ALL hogwash). So does the Bible explicitly teach main things? I would say no. That's why billions of Christians disagree on the foundational question of Church government, the very question of who is in charge of this ship. On this issue, we are all in the same boat of fallibility with very educated (yet fallible) scholars disagreeing. Or take for example the question of whether you can lose your salvation. Some groups like the Catholic Church and Pentacostals say you can. Others like the Baptist and Presbyterian Churches say you can't. No group gets to excuse itself from this disagreement. All of these groups have someone or some group in charge that determines the standard of belief for membership in their community, aka what is or is not essential. Same with any question.

I think the difference between Trent and for example Mike Winger, is that when they explain the other side Trent seems to misrepresent many things to fit his point, and Mike would actually try to be as truthful as possible. I think both of them are great and sure they both love God, but sometimes Trent Horn can be a little dishonest about the other side..

This is a really good episode.

William Lane Craig: "I'm sola scriptura therefore I'm a monothelite." Jesus Christ: "Not my will, but Thy Will, be done."

I will say, I honestly just wish (as a Protestant myself) wish that the church from the very beginning never broke up and just stuck with scripture and we wouldn’t be battling all the time. I think if we founded everything on that, by technicality, I would be catholic myself. The only thing holding me back from Catholicism has been the papacy and a a few other dogmas. But I think both sides should always be open to hearing each other out

Something else to think about, the thief on the cross. He wasn't baptized, didn't receive the sacraments, didn't say the rosary, couldn't go to church, didn't tithe, didn't keep the law, didn't keep the commandments, didn't keep the golden rule, didn't pray to Mary. What happened? He just said, "Lord, remember me when thou comest in thy Kingdom." And Jesus said, "TODAY you will be with me in paradise." Not Limbo, or purgatory, but paradise.

I respect Trent a great deal and appreciate the work he does. His description of various Protestant beliefs are pretty accurate. But spending time to criticize divisions within Protestantism while failing to confront divisions within Catholicism concerning The Pope's infallibility, sexuality, same sex "marriages", etc. is a pretty glaring example of "log vs. speck in the eye."

While I definitely think you have a point, and I understand that there's a historical grouping of Protestantism as a whole, something about comparing the views of one church with multiple church's views and saying look catholicism has an answer for this when protestants don't feels unfair. But each of the churches does have an answer, there wouldn't be multiple denominations if there was complete agreement. You can easily take it a step further back and say look at this question Christians can't answer cause the Catholics and Baptists and Presbyterians and etc all have different views, with the implication that you shouldn't join because of that division.

This video is over 2 years old so I don't know if comments are still monitored but, as someone who is completely unaffiliated with any church (left the LDS Church 20 years ago last month, after seeing the movie The Passion of the Christ in 2004) and has never looked into the Catholic or Orthodox Churches until a week or so ago, I have to wonder.... at what point do you make the decision to completely abdicate (if you will) your beliefs/faith to someone/something outside of yourself and your own personal experiences? Surely God doesn't expect us to check our brains at the door and believe whatever we are told to believe by those in positions of power and/or authority in "the Church," as if there is no chance of error because the "Church" (as an organization) is "infallible"? Yet, this is the claim of the RCC, is it not? Papal infallibility? I don't know much about the history of the Catholic/Orthodox Church as it relates to Doctrines/Dogmas, but this is what I was taught to believe about LDS "Prophets," despite the fact that LDS doctrines can and have changed and, because of that, dead Prophets can get thrown under the bus, so to speak, and members are told to believe in "progressive revelation" and the idea that "a living Prophet is better than a dead one." It doesn't matter if what is being taught today stands in stark contrast to what was taught by earlier Prophets, including Joseph Smith, or even the Bible. In researching various Catholic/Orthodox topics in the last week or two I have come to see that much of what is said about Catholicism by non-Catholics isn't always accurate (Mary worship, for example) and I can even see WHY Mary holds the position that she does within Catholic/Orthodox Doctrine, after looking into it. I didn't even need the Catholic Church to show me the link between Eve and Mary, I came to see that a long time ago (by the power of the Holy Spirit, I believe) through my own personal Bible studies. I have not yet come across any Catholic teachings as it relates to the manner in which Paul uses both Eve and Mary as types/figures for "the Church," but I see that as well. One of the things that convinces me of the "inspiration" of scripture is the use of such types/shadows/allegories throughout the OT, all of which point forward to "Christ and the Church." I don't see any of that as the work of men, especially many different men who all lived and wrote independently of one another, separated by vast periods of time, etc. It's like this golden thread that was buried by God that can only be seen through the illumination of the Holy Spirit. So much so (it has been my experience) that many can't even see it if is pointed out to them ("eyes to see" and "ears to hear" and all that, I suppose, as arrogant as that might sound to "the blind" and "deaf"). So, though I can grant that those who are "younger" in the faith are supposed to submit to the "Elders" of the church ("submit to," NOT "be lorded over by"), I also know that Paul said we are NOT TO BE "ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth." So are we to assume that our own knowledge of the truth is ALWAYS going to be inferior to those to whom we have submitted ourselves? to the point that we should NEVER trust "personal" revelation that might contradict Church Dogma (Tradition, not the Bible)? Can an Ecumenical Council of the Church never get something wrong? For example, the anathema pronounced against Origen and/or Origenism (which there does seem to be some debate about, even within the Catholic Church, according to The Advent). How binding is that on members of the Church? Or is it at all? I ask because I know that there are those (though they may be few) within both the Orthodox Church and the RCC who believe the doctrine of the Apocatastasis, a doctrine that I came to believe in November of 2005. Though other beliefs have changed for me over the last 20 years, I have yet to come across an argument against Jesus Christ being the savior of all men (not just in word, but in deed) that I find credible, so it is not a belief that I would be willing to give up just because "the Church" (as a religious institution) has declared it "heretical." (Though, like I said, that is debatable, regardless of what some people in the church might believe.) I believe this is "the gospel of Jesus Christ," as taught by scripture, despite its supposed condemnation by "the Church." Would that not put me at odds with the RCC, even if I wanted to hold communion with it at some point after this investigation, if I am not willing to denounce that article of faith?

“Baptism now saves you” So Protestants all agree on baptism as essential for salvation? I don’t think so

We don’t realize how easily we are influenced, I’ve often swung to either sides of the Catholic/Protestant divide, and I think there are members of Christ’s bride in both camps, what I despise from both sides, is the mockery and bitterness by hardliners.

I'm not a member of the Roman Catholic church I do agree that a Christian can fall from grace (Gal.5:4) and that water Baptism is for the Remission of sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). I do not believe that humans are saved by faith-alone.

I think if most Protestants were honest, there is only one belief required: salvation by grace through faith in Christ alone. That is the only thing all new believers truly believe. The thief on the cross knew that only Jesus could save him, so he asked Jesus to remember him in the most simple way possible. The thief was saved. There are many important doctrines that are main issues. But most doctrinal issues are learned after someone comes to Christ. Even assurance of salvation is something people usually examine after they become a believer. I suppose if you believe that your sins somehow okay a role in your salvation, then that would show up are somehow trusting in your ability to hold on to the salvation Jesus died for. Therefore, I might agree that issue could prevent someone from placing their full faith in Christ alone. Only God knows a person’s heart. Our righteousness is impossible on our own. Only the righteousness of Jesus can save us. If they are honest, most Protestants should agree that everything else comes out of a desire lo love, worship and obey God.

I was infant baptized in a catholic church. I am a protestant now, and I truly believe that this is legitimate, even though It was done born into a Roman catholic family. Also what this gentleman is talking about mostly generalities. I know that protestants are more dispersed than Roman catholic institutions. We need to be in tune with our own soul, no matter what kind of religious family we are born in. After a while, at one point in an individuals life, a person needs to come to grips about who they really are, which is a sinner,and seek out on their own what they need to do to be saved, which is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. And to put their faith, hope,and trust in Him, and Him alone. As a young man I was confused about a lot of things, and went astray at a young age, even though I was born into a religious family, and church, which I attended every Sunday for mass,like my dad. As for this gentleman, who is saying that protestants don't always agree on everything, that could be true. And if this gentleman believes in the apocrypha,to be sacred, and included along with the 66 books that the majority of Christians believe are the only ones to be regarded as Divinely inspired by God, that is his right. But most true Christians do not believe that additional books, like the Roman catholic apocryphal, belong to the sacred Canon.

Most if not all of your arguments are back up by scripture. I did not hear that you used verses in the scripture to present your arguments especially on topics related to essential doctrines of Christianity. Yes, people can share their views but scripture is the final authority to establish doctrines.

It's unfortunate that Dr. Craig agrees with such a belief. It makes me wonder if one can still call themselves Christian if they believe in neo-Marcionism.

"Can you lose your salvation?" Yes, no, maybe... Catholics are wrong LOL that is what unifies them

Yup. Protestants disagree. That doesn't make the Catholic church right by default. That's not logical. Sorry.

I appreciate the video, if I could offer my views to the heart of your points you’re bringing up. You’re looking for a uniform view from Protestants.. to use secular terms (for an easier read between a diverse audience) I would say Protestants as a whole would lean more towards the anarchy side of the scale and Catholic’s would lean more towards the authoritarian end of the scale. Obviously I don’t mean this politically, or literally, but as an analogy. You’re never going to get uniformity out of a more inherently individualistic side of religion. The questions are being framed from a more ‘authoritarian’ side of the scale. I think there is value in both. For example, having extremely detailed and nuisanced writings and council in a more uniformed fashion certainly has value. I think the answer for me on this topic comes in on Hebrews 10:16 “ this is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them;” So this would indicate that the Father will reveal the laws to each individual..

The more I listen to protestants, and read the bible, the more catholic I become!!!

You can argue that the earth was older than a "day" the first day because he did not create light to separate the night from day until the END of the first day . How fast was the world spinning at this time? This would also affect the full rotation of the earth to make a full day.

I am not sure we get to decide what is and is not a Christian. I’m sure some Catholics are Christians just as some Baptists are Christians. I’m a Protestant, maybe an atypical one, but I’m comfortable saying God knows and man thinks about a ton of questions. This may be informed by my science background. Fundamentally, a scientist holds debatable things loosely and is willing to let evidence prove him wrong. I don’t have to do much for a pilot to fly me to my destination. I don’t need to understand the basics of how an airplane works, I don’t need to understand the location that I’m going to, I don’t need to even need to know about the pilot. I just have to be on board the plane. I don’t mean this as I don’t think there are extremely basic things that are likely necessary to be a Christian but in the end I acknowledge it’s God alone who judges.

There are different flavors of Protestantism. Growing up Baptist, i was taught faith alone, and scripture alone, and Church was for authority on matters that were complicated to understand. #RecorveringProtestant

And there are differences in the catholic/orthodox churches. Do a little bit of reading. John 3:16 comes to mind. Believe and you will have grace.

Just cannot take catholics seriously. It makes sense to check teaching against scripture, if you lie to yourself thats your problem. As an evangelical beieiver, i feel perfectly comfortable rejecting catholicism, pentacostalism, lds and jw, based on scripture.

Very thought provoking. I have been challenging my church family to find their foundation. To decide what they believe when times are good and bad.

Do you have a video about why youre not orthodox or the difference between them and Catholics?

1.) Whether you can lose your Salvation or if by moving away from Christ you are proven to never have been saved, neither are a "main issue." Christ is clear that we must continue to walk in him and grow closer to him both in relationship and in lifestyle. Whether that can be lost or losing it means it was never real, ultimately those two are the same thing. If the former is true, then the former is true. If the later is true, the former is still true because the effect is the same. 2.) The only Protestants that believe that the act of Baptism saves your soul are those that cling more closely to the Catholic Church. Saying Peter 3:21 says that Baptism itself saves you is just a lie. The second half of that verse is "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." By completing the verse its pretty clear that Peter isn't claiming that doing a dip in the water saves your soul; its the act of accepting Christ that saves your soul. 3.) Both the idea that you can be saved by Faith alone and that you are saved through Faith and Acts are technically true. It is faith that saves you, but if your faith does not lead to deeds then it is dead. Acts come from Faith, they aren't separate. The idea that they are is from Catholic Doctrine made to wedge the Church between Man and God, institute Rituals and Institutional Power, and control the members of the Church for the gains of the Corrupt Papacy. 4.) So there was a lot of tongue tying and claims being made about Protestants in this section that aren't true today. They were true at one point in time, like the debate between "was Christ always God or did he come later," but by those standards Catholics should be just as guilty of far more. I mean, there were 3 Popes at the same time at one point! The *vast* Majority of Protestant Christians believe that Christ was always a part of the God Head, as was the Holy Spirit. That includes pointing the instances such as the Burning Bush and saying "That was Jesus without the name we know him by now." 5.) So you admit that Catholics struggle with this question, too, so I'm not sure why you brought it up. Bringing up that as a standard to hold Protestants to backfires and kind of makes it sound like you think that Catholics are wrong, too. Consistency is hard for Catholics in the 21st Century, so I won't hold it too much against you, but it must be pointed out. The Essential Doctrines of Christianity are simple. God became flesh, dwelt among us, took our sins onto himself, and died for us. Then he was risen, conquering death, and he commanded us to share this good news to all the world. All who believe and confess that Christ is Lord will receive Eternal Life. While we remain on Earth we must strive to be more Christlike. The issues you've brought up aren't essential in those regards. They are Legal speak, meant to bog one down in weeds and confuse. You claimed one question, then asked 6. I have answered you. Hence, your Title is wrong.

What about "That one question same-sex marriage supporters can't answer"?

Basically my issues with catholicism are these: -apostolic succession -icon worshipping/venerating -Mary perpetual virginity -Venerating /worshipping of Mary -canibalism -purgatory -baby baptism which led all Europe in being "christian" but cursing and acting like sailors but having a Christian etiquette

Luther wanted a free pass. ❤ Please cover in a video how Methodism seems closest to Catholicism.

On baptism, ain't infants already saved? If an infant dies, do they go to heaven or hell? If heaven then baptism is irrelevant on infants.

And, please, do not pretend that all Catholics agree on everything taught by the RCC and Pope. I have met many that do not.

The issue with the differing ideas about "what is essential?" among protestant denominatuons comes from the fact, that they depend on tradition (most often catholic traditions) in various degrees, for their believes. The one outstanding example for this is sunday worship. All sunday keeping denominations depend on the tradition of the roman catholic church to do so, because their is not a single bit of it in the Bible. The Bible clearly teaches "Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy..." Ex 20:8-11. And by the way for all who believe that Jesus is indeed the Lord (!), this is the commandment of the Lord! And it is He who says: "If you love me, keep my commandments!" Joh 14:15 And if you now think, "well, but Jesus nailed that one to the cross.", ask yourself: why did He do so with only this one, that identifies Him as the Creator of all things (cf. Joh 1:1-3)?

This became so complex and overly legalistic. My grain of salt: Matthew 7:15 to 23, more specifically, on verse 20: “by their fruits you shall know them”.

Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age. The Bible is: The rule (standard, guide) of faith - teaching us what we ought to believe and how to live for the glory of God. The infallible rule - incapable of error, certain, not liable to mislead - because it is the Word of God. The only infallible rule - it contains the whole counsel of God for His people. Christians value religious teachers, but they are fallible (liable to make mistakes). We also value tradition as long as it is consistent with the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible does not give exhaustive details on the history of redemption. John 21:25 says that not all that Jesus did is recorded in the book. Some argue for the need of tradition, saying that Bible does not record everything. Apparently they do not realize that tradition is not exhaustive either! Does tradition give us all possible information about the life of Christ, and all that He said, and all the apostles did and said? Of course not! In fact, we would respectfully challenge them to give us one statement that Jesus said that comes to us by tradition and not from the Holy Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the church's authority to teach God's revelation. The Church is 'the pillar and foundation of the truth' (I Timothy 3:15) because it upholds and teaches the Word of God. However the church cannot add doctrines of human origin or contradict the God-breathed Scriptures. The church's authority is subordinate to the authority of the Bible. Sola Scriptura is not a denial that historically God's Word came in other ways other than the written form. Before writing down His message, God spoke through the apostles and prophets, and personally in Christ Jesus, His Son. During the same time the Holy Spirit moved holy men to write down His Word to be the permanent inspired record of His message for the post-apostolic age till the end. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20) and though they are absent, we can still build our lives on their teaching which is recorded infallibly in the Holy Scriptures. Sola Scriptura does not imply that the Bible will always be interpreted correctly, or that there will not be differences and heresies among Christians. Jesus was clear enough in His teaching, yet His disciples often misunderstood Him. The apostles' message was also perfectly intelligible, and yet all sorts of errors and heresies crept in the early church. Similarly, the Bible is not written in a mysterious and cryptic code that needs some infallible decoder to explain its hidden meaning. The Bible is addressed to the ordinary people of God and it can be understood. The problem lies not with the clarity of the Bible, but with people who often ignore the Bible or twist the its meaning because of laziness, ignorance and prejudice. www.justforcatholics.org/a74.htmSola Scriptura (Scripture Alone) is the doctrine that the Holy Bible, being the Word of God, is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for Christians in the post-apostolic age. The Bible is: The rule (standard, guide) of faith - teaching us what we ought to believe and how to live for the glory of God. The infallible rule - incapable of error, certain, not liable to mislead - because it is the Word of God. The only infallible rule - it contains the whole counsel of God for His people. Christians value religious teachers, but they are fallible (liable to make mistakes). We also value tradition as long as it is consistent with the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible does not give exhaustive details on the history of redemption. John 21:25 says that not all that Jesus did is recorded in the book. Some argue for the need of tradition, saying that Bible does not record everything. Apparently they do not realize that tradition is not exhaustive either! Does tradition give us all possible information about the life of Christ, and all that He said, and all the apostles did and said? Of course not! In fact, we would respectfully challenge them to give us one statement that Jesus said that comes to us by tradition and not from the Holy Scripture. Sola Scriptura is not a denial of the church's authority to teach God's revelation. The Church is 'the pillar and foundation of the truth' (I Timothy 3:15) because it upholds and teaches the Word of God. However the church cannot add doctrines of human origin or contradict the God-breathed Scriptures. The church's authority is subordinate to the authority of the Bible. Sola Scriptura is not a denial that historically God's Word came in other ways other than the written form. Before writing down His message, God spoke through the apostles and prophets, and personally in Christ Jesus, His Son. During the same time the Holy Spirit moved holy men to write down His Word to be the permanent inspired record of His message for the post-apostolic age till the end. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20) and though they are absent, we can still build our lives on their teaching which is recorded infallibly in the Holy Scriptures. Sola Scriptura does not imply that the Bible will always be interpreted correctly, or that there will not be differences and heresies among Christians. Jesus was clear enough in His teaching, yet His disciples often misunderstood Him. The apostles' message was also perfectly intelligible, and yet all sorts of errors and heresies crept in the early church. Similarly, the Bible is not written in a mysterious and cryptic code that needs some infallible decoder to explain its hidden meaning. The Bible is addressed to the ordinary people of God and it can be understood. The problem lies not with the clarity of the Bible, but with people who often ignore the Bible or twist the its meaning because of laziness, ignorance and prejudice. www.justforcatholics.org/a74.htm

The Vatican Council expresses the doctrine thus "If any one say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself, that is by Divine right, that Blessed Peter has an unbroken line of successors in the Primacy over the whole Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in the same Primacy, let him be anathema".

I’m a Latter-Day Saint, but I love your channel. My church came out of the confusion among Protestant Doctrine. Despite our differences, I admire your faith in Christ.

WLC is no more a heretic than anyone who believes in faith alone, which I affirm. So I must be a heretic too.

Putting Mormons on the same plane of disagreement as Catholics & Evangelicals are is WILD

Its so simple. Just as the Israelites had only to look upon the bronze serpent to be healed of their snake bites, so must we simply behold the Son of Man lifted up, and believe in Him, and we shall be saved. The technical answer is that we are saved based on whether or not God has chosen to save you, and being "Christian" has nothing to do with anything a human can say or do, and everything to do with whether or not God has written your name in the book of life. For as it is written: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." The practical answer is: by faith alone.

The Catholic Church also use to accept money claiming that those who have already passed would be “pardoned” of their sins and released from purgatory, a place without real biblical foundation mind you, even though the debt of sin was already paid by Christ. It’s heaven or hell, there’s no waiting room, no middle ground. Once you are truly covered by the blood of the lamb, every sin that has been committed or will be committed has been washed away completely.

It certainly does lay it out. The only and most important doctrine to get right is the actual definition of the Gospel itself which Catholics have to circumvent to answer. In fact to the contrary, every single unBiblical Catholic doctrine contradicts the scriptures at every turn. Every single one.

-This is extremely well done.. "questions protestants cant answer" 11:01 when has a counsels ruling corrected your perspective of scripture. 4:10 trent is correct on this is 100%. Charles stanley actually said that a practicing homosexual that has confessed christ (ie said the sinner prayers) will still go heaven but will only loose rewards. Trents 100% correct but 1cor6:9-11/rev21:7-8,27,roms1:28-32 says that charles stanley is clearly wrong which is sola scriptura in essence 4:30 did luther not teach osao? eternal security i believe is his whole premise for denying james 2:19-24-that works dont have any factor at all in salvation so that you could never lose it being the mo. -But the biggest question for protestants is where was the HS, or how was the HS working for 1500s if the protestant way is the only right way. One can definitely see the Spirit at work in catholic/orthodox saints throughout the centuries but when the issue or heresies or correction comes up the next major question for protestants is: who deters what is orthodox vs heterodox? Usual answer: may the best army win.. which also existed w/ in catholic factions as well. Its a terribly messing business 0:50 the bible does in fact lay out lists (rev21:7,8,27;1cor6,:9-11; gal5:16-25,6:8; romans 1) but not precise doctrine and so a church is necessary. But its the Holy Spirit, not an old man in an expensive bathrobe who probably has some hidden grievous hidden sin you dont know about, but its the Holy Spirt who convicts us of sin-jn16:8-and "bears witness with our spirits that we are the sons/daughters of God"-romans 8:16-not any man which is why paul said gal 1:8 which would include "pope" peter as well esp given that said paul rebuked the first pope

I just came across your channel and found this video interesting. I'm Protestant and have known many Catholics through the years. Some were good friends others acquaintances, one is a deacon in your church. As you can imagine we have had some great discussions. From my personal experience I don't see much difference between us. Anyone that's not Catholic who claims to be Christian gets thrown in under the Protestant banner. Each individual denomination and church has a leadership structure. On the flip side I see many under the Catholic banner that don't agree with the Church leadership on several issues and Church traditions. Sometimes leaders in the Church that go against the Pope and traditional Church teachings. As an outsider I see just as much division and strife in the Catholic church as I do with many under the Protestant label. There are many in both camps that love Jesus and have a genuine relationship with him. Then there are those in both camps who like to play church. You either have a relationship with him or not regardless of which banner your under.

Pardon me, this is a long comment, but I want to try and answer some of your questions in the video. First, regarding the question of "Can we lose our salvation?" You brought up the fact that different denominations disagree whether a person is saved for their whole life or if we can lose our salvation at some point. I think you misunderstand what protestants believe about salvation. When we say "faith alone" saves, we mean that a person's sins are wiped away when they make a commitment of their lives to Christ (commonly called "letting Christ in your heart"). All protestant denominations call this the basis of salvation, and we base it on several verses, such as Ephesians 2:8,9, and Romans 10:9 for our proof. The question therefore, when someone leaves the church is not "can you lose your salvation?" but "were they saved in the first place?" Two different philosophies exist to explain this. First is Predetermination (part of Calvinism), which claims that God planned the world knowing who his followers are. During a believer's lifetime, he encounters them with the Holy Spirit, and since God's presence purifies our hearts, those who encounter Him will be drawn to Him and dedicate their lives to Him. If a person leaves the Church, therefore, they must not have truly encountered God, or they would not have rejected Him. The other is Arminianism, which states that humans have the free will to choose God or not. He will present us with opportunities to accept him through encounters with other Christians, the Bible, etc. We determine before we die whether to accept Him or not. If someone leaves Christianity then they have made a choice to ignore or discredit the truth of the God provided by the Bible and other believers. Please take note that both philosophies state that the person who leaves Christianity permanently is not saved, either because of God's will or their own, they've rejected Christ. Protestant philosophy doesn't accept the idea of people living in sinfulness and remaining saved, because the Bible makes it clear that people who are unrepentant sinners are not saved. The point of contention is how much human choice is involved in our salvation. This relates to Protestant views on baptism. It's true we disagree on what age to be baptised, whether we should be baptised by full immersion or by sprinkling water on the head, or even how much involvement baptism has in our sanctification. However, one thing we do not disagree on is that all Christians should be baptised, and that baptism does not create salvation but is the outward acceptance of the inward decision to enter the family of Christ. Since protestants believe salvation comes through a personal commitment to Christ, baptism is not the act of salvation itself, but one very important landmark on the journey with Christ after salvation. In denominations that baptise babies, the baptism becomes an invitation into the family of the church, where kids can take communion, join Sunday School, and be cared for by the church community. Many of these churches have youth group programs where children are taught about their faith and the Bible so they can make a confession of faith to the church at a later age, usually teenager or young adult. In denominations that baptise adults, the expectation is that you have already made a commitment of faith to Christ before your baptism, so that baptism becomes the outward expression of the inward decision. In this case, children who are raised in the church are taught about their faith so that they may make a commitment of faith at an age where they can understand the Gospel and receive Jesus consciously. In these churches, children are often baptised, but usually as older children when they are able to make that decision themselves. Next you asked if all Protestants believe in Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide. I've explained how Protestants view Sola Fide, so let me explain what Sola Scriptura means to us. We view the scriptures as the bedrock of our theology, which means that we test all human theology against the scriptures. This is also why we don't accept a pope or a single theological leader. We recognize the sinful nature of humans, and so we rely on God's word to guide us, not man's word - however righteous he is. As scripture is God's word, it's incorruptible and reflects the will of God in our lives. If we accept the teachings of early church teachers (which we often do) it has to be after testing it through the scriptures. If a teacher matches the scriptures, we accept the teaching, but if the teacher diverts from the scriptures or makes a claim that isn't supported by scripture, we reject it. That's why we also accept many creeds or church fathers, because their teachings align with scripture. As far as the apocrypha, unfortunately modern Protestants commonly don't give it much attention since it's dismissed, but the general arguement I've heard is that it's also contested by orthodox jews, it's the only group of scriptures not quoted by Jesus, it has more to do with history than religion, and it contains passages showing religious beliefs that are inconsistent with the rest of scripture (for example prayer for the dead, when other parts of scripture indicate that the only chance we have to choose our fate is during our lifetimes). So why do we disagree on so many items? As you've mentioned, there are some issues we debate about, but we don't consider them salvation issues. The Bible contains lots of metaphorical and ancient historical references in some parts, which are difficult to decipher. The parts we don't disagree on are issues of how does God save us, what God commands of a righteous person, the nature of God, and God's plan for the world. We would consider deviation from these issues heretical, and therefore outside of the christian faith entirely (even if they are held by so-called Christians). Unfortunately I don't know enough about the issues you brought up about Christology to address them. I wish I could, but you brought up an area of debate I'd never heard about before! Thank you, I'll now look up Monothelitism and Dyothelitism and see what people think about it. In terms of Protestant unity on the nature of Christ, you brought up groups like the Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses - these aren't Protestant groups anyway, and most don't consider them even Christian. Even these groups separate themselves from the identity of Christian. The historical norm of Protestants is to consider deviant viewpoints about the nature of God and Christ as heretical. The brief dive I made into the Monothelitism/Dyothelitism debate showed most of the Protestant theologians believe in Dyothelitism. As to your last question, do Protestants consider Catholics Christian? As I've mentioned before, Protestants believe that salavtion comes through commitment to Christ. If a Catholic is committed to pursuing Christ in their lives and shows the fruit of that commitment, then we can assume they are saved. The same can be said about a Protestant, and also about the opposite situation. A person who doesn't bother to pursue a relationship with God or maintain their soul, no matter what religious trappings they put on, can't be expected according to a Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide philosophy to be saved from sin. Whew! I know this is a super long post, and I apologize for that, but I hope some of it was informative and answered your questions.

One thing Trent is forgetting is the catholics and the members of the church dont understand or even know the fine details like christilogy or attributes of God that Catholic church afrirms or subscribes to. And regarding Salvation, it is by the grace of God who envles one to be saved. So whether Catholic or protestant depends on God's encounter at some point in life to be born-again.

No one believes everything perfectly here on earth. What is the minimum required? Christ is the judge. He sits on the Bema seat. But if a poor sinner such as myself were to guess, I would say the Apostles Creed is the bare bones minimum. Even then one ought to live in true sorrow and contrition. One ought to attend Mass and receive Christ's gifts regularly. But I'm just a miserable Lutheran evangelical catholic. And yes I do believe there are Christians outside the Book of Concord crowd. God speed. 🙏

Christianity - 1) did Jesus live and walk this earth 2) Did he Rise again 3) do you believe he saved us from sin for salvation. That’s all there is. Don’t need to major in the minors . Trent is just trying to raise Catholicism as the “ Perfect Christianity”. Just because the Catholic Church stands firm on one position, doesn’t make it true. If. It was that cut and dry, then Protestants wouldn’t debate it. It’s worth discussing

In all my experience with catholics, their traditions get in the way of what the Bible actually days about starting a relationship with Christ and growing in the Spirit.

Trent asks if he is saved, according to a Protestant. 1. Romans 10:9 is the most succinct scripture for defining salvation. So going by it, is Jesus Lord of your life? Do you consistently, if not always strive to live your life according to his edicts? 2. The second part of that scripture reads, "... and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you shall be saved." Do you? Do you accept and believe his being to be supernatural? 3. The need to be born again. This is a real concern for a Catholic, as the claim that being baptized as an infant equates to being born again has no legitimate scriptural basis. Can you tell me where this comes from? Or can you reference a point in your life in which all things became new? That you started to experience the Holy Ghost moving in you, through you? Advising you? 4. Have you repented, do you repent of your sins? The answer to these questions is what determines whether a person is saved or not. NOT which religion you claim. Catholicism certainly puts it's members at a disadvantage on a few of these, but a Catholic CAN be saved.

I'm a confessional lutheran, most of what Trent says I agree. I think that the idea of scripture and faith alone have been misconstrued with what luther was trying to convey. I disagree with transsubatiation, praying to the saints for their intercession, and the very high view of Mary being queen of heaven. The whole idea of Catholics not being Christian is just absured.

Where in the Bible do you find: the veneration of/praying to Mary? The Rosary? The 7 sacraments? Papal infallibility (even ex cathedra)? Praying to saints? An unmarried priesthood? Peter (the first "pope" was married). How about the selling of indulgences? Marriage annulments? (A money grab). Transubstantiation? Purgatory? Oh, Jesus sacrifice was not good sufficient enough, so you need to burn just a little - what is that?!?!? How about the silence of the Vatican while Hitler committed his atrocities? Catholic doctrine says, Faith + good works = salvation. The Bible says Faith = salvation + good works.

So how would a Catholic answer this question: what does being Christian mean or how is this defined?

We in the Presbyterian church (reformed) use the Apostles creed as our consensus on the essentials of faith. Many other denominations also have similar declarations of the essentials of the faith; many of which tie these declarations to membership into that particular denomination. The bottom line is that Jesus says in John 10:27 "My sheep hear my voice and I know them, and they follow me." In John 16 Jesus speaks about his ascension and in the same context he speaks about leaving the Holy Spirit (the Comforter). Verse 8-11 says, "And when he has come, he will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgement: of sin, because they do not believe in me; of righteousness, because I go to my father and you see me no more; of judgement, because the ruler of this world is judged. " Believers in Christ have many gifts and also the Holy Spirit to help guide us into all truth and to help us with all decisions with wisdom which comes from scripture and from the Holy Spirit. Thank you for sitting down and reasoning with us oft times unreasonable protestants.

As computer engineer and Protestant we need to know that Protestantism is interface and Roman Catholicism is class, one instance. And you can’t compare both in such a way. Interface have many instances, there can be overrides of some methods, but Roman Catholicism is not interface. There is one instance. And that is FIRST think we NEED to understand before we can intellectually debate whatever. 😊And to make instances of interface to look like one instance without interface is foolishness. 🙈 I know that non-engineers will not understand me. It’s ok. Engineers will. ☺️

I would say the question of “loosing the salvation “ is a very USA-oriented…

To your last point. Wouldn't the question of being possibly wrong about who it is and is not Christian or being unsure put your own Catholic Church through out history in jeopardy?

I'm less than 4 minutes into the video and just want to comment quickly.The Deuterocanonical books were never quoted by Jesus as being scripture and in fact, he gives us what He considers to be holy scripture in Luke 24:44 (and other places as well.) The first century Jews rejected the apocrypha as confirmed by Josephus, who gives us his list of 22 books that the Jews considered to be canonical.This lines up precisely with what we have in the Tanakh today, as well as the Protestant Old Testament, (just divided and arranged differently.) There's obviously much more to this, I just briefly wanted to make a comment. God bless 🙏

Considering the number of denominations, i am sure there are more than that. Catholics make ut up as they go depending on the pope in office and which priest you talk to.

The three ecumenical creeds are the essential beliefs. Pretty simple, all classical protestants affirm the three creeds.

There are disagreements in Catholic Church as well, especially after Fiducia Supplicans. Some priests I watch have problems agreeing with it, so I don't entirely agree with the question. Because we have a body, it doesn't mean that the body is right