I welcome interaction whether in agreement or not. However, comments that do not interact with the content of this video or that merely attempt to push one's platform may be deleted and the repeat offenders potentially blocked.

I have a very close friend who has been a hard core protestant pastor and missionary for almost twenty years. I converted twenty years ago after being a lifelong Catholic basher. I am the last person I ever thought would be Catholic but I am so happy I found the true church after my own research and study. My friend visited Italy this year and had an enlightenment at St Peters Basilica. Although he hasn’t converted he is researching now also. Please pray with me for his conversion. Love your channel and great videos.

"But if it's true for me, and not for you,"..... Truth can be whatever they want it to be if they use their our own definitions. The more I read about the Catholic Church and church history, the more I fell in love with Catholicism, because I'm convinced it the true faith handed down from Christ and the Apostles, and the Church.

I converted to the Catholic Church at a very early age. My family were Church of England, and were not practicing Christians. My first day at school I heard of God for the first time when the Sr.Otteran told us of the Creation I was full of excitement and went home full of the experience. It never left me and I was received into the Church when I was 18. Now at 88 I am receiving instruction on the Internet and programs like this.

Doug, I am so happy to have found you. I returned to the Church 20 years ago, and have never looked back. Thank you for defending the Truth.

Excellent explanation of what makes a circular argument.

The only critique I have of you for this video is that you need to make more videos like it! Lol.

Among the all recent Catholic apologists, you are more logic and historic, thank you. I am a student of philosophy, so I can detect your presentation.

Excellent subject selection and execution! Catholic Church, Mother of Christians and Mother of the New Testament.

You have said what I have thought for years but never been able to put into words, thanks!

This is a wonderful presentation. Love learning more about the church teachings

Great content, after watching a few of your videos, I’ve decided to subscribe. This video has basically summed up my journey to the Church.

So, the doctor's list is nothing more than a vicious circle of Sola Scriptura. Therefore, I rather stick to my cradle faith : The Catechism of Catholic Church. Sir, Douglas , you are simplifying the logic system of philosophy which is very complex but you are make it practical. Thank you so much. God bless your ministry.

17:08 I highly agree with your endorsement of the Historic Method first. I note, it does not limit the essentials to already defined dogma, if it did, no new dogmata could be added. It also, as seen by the Nestorius case, allows people to take a stand on what they, based on tradition, feel as essentials, even if there is not yet any definition of it being so.

I have been hearing a lot from my Protestant brethren that Protestants actually have unity in the essentials. Your presentation clearly shows the inadequacy of this reasoning. Thanks!

Very good explanation Doug. I always hear this protestants trying to define the essentials. But every protestant's denomination has its own list of essentials. This is a big problem for protestants. How do they know if their essentials are the correct one since they all believe sola scriptura they can't appeal outside scripture and scriptures doesn't list the essentials. It all boils down to their interpretations.

For years I enjoyed listening to Hank Hanegraaff from CRI who would quote “In essentials unity, In non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” I learned much from him. But I rarely heard him run down the actual list. I was disappointed he went Eastern Orthodox rather than Catholic; I called CRI once and asked if they had any Catholics on their staff (no, at least then). To me it seem the essentials are the Trinity, the necessity of baptism (or baptism of desire), and the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The fighting over those three alone shows me we still have a long way toward reunification. I don’t know of any Western Protestant denomination that has said, “ya know, the Catholics were right all along” and sought reunification, at least in the 20th century.

Excellent content! Thank you Sir!

This is useful. I send this link to protestants online. Thank you, Doug.

Hey, I just found your channel and I can see the amount of work you put into your videos. I really like it. Keep up the good work! Edit: Just watched an episode of The Journey Home and thought, "Dang, I should google this guy" and turns out it was you! It gave me a chuckle. I do have one question, Doug. You mentioned (in the EWTN segment) that according to St. Thomas Aquinas, if one disagrees with one aspect of faith, then that person lacks faith in the entirety of God's authority on earth. My question is what is the source? I would love to read it. Thanks, brother!

Glad I found your channel

It appears that in Protestantism, what is essentials is essential when it needs to be essential and is not essential when it need not be essential, depending on when it is called upon to be essential... Makes sense to me...

Wonderfully logical presentation. By reverse engineering a subjective list of essentials, one is forced to ignore the well documented historical evidence that can be used to help one arrive at a more objective list thereby revealing their lack of basic research skills. It seems to me that rational minds would see Sola Scriptura simply does not work but still, sincere educated folks keep trying to put a square peg in a round hole.

1:53 It can be mentioned that .... sth can be part of the list, even without being admitted formally as part of it. Nestorius. A layman shouted "that's heresy" from the pew. Pope St. Celestine I confirmed that Nestorius lost episcopal office the very moment he had said -"Christotokos, not Theotokos"- ... and this was obviously before Ephesus.

Douglas. I discovered you recently. Thank you for your insightful comments and faithful witness. You brought to my attention this issue. As a lifelong Catholic, all that is revealed seems essential to me. However it is a new clarity to me to realize that this debate concerning essentials is, well, essential. Thank you for this content. And thank you for your style of conversation.

Another great video. Great job!

Proverbs 3:5-6 5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Yes the Augsburg confession was the first Protestant essentials list. Though I'm Anglican I agree. I'd say other thoughtful Christian s if it's explained would

I would like to know when Protestants first started talking about the difference between essential doctrines (which all Christians must hold) and non-essential doctrines (over which Christians can disagree). This is, of course, very much related to the perspicuity of the Bible. Did Luther ever say/write anything about essential and non-essential doctrines? Did Calvin? What is the first recorded Protestant use of this distinction?

This was really well said!

Some of my protestant friends look at Catholic Church and criticise the clergy they do not want to convert as a result. . I said this to them the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus. Pls don't look at the clergy just look at Jesus because his Church is the only true religion. God bless your work. I am tuned.

Douglas, you dropped my jaw at one point when you mentioned stuff up to Chalcedon. Have you read Adrian Fortescue's "The Early Papacy"? When I first read it years ago, I thought it was perhaps the best long essay I had ever read. If you haven't read it, you will devour it. God bless you!

I am the only one of my family, as far as I know, who made the break from protestant Christianity (mostly lukewarm at that), or from a cult like the JW's for a sister, to take the time and effort to actually research Catholicism. I've been one for over 20 years now.

I love your style. You should have more subs.

Essential viewing. Thanks.

I love this. So true. From my standpoint I Christ didn’t have a set list he wanted people to believe for his sacrifice and forgiveness to be valid. According to these lists and even the creeds etc none of the apostles or the disciples would be saved since they didn’t have they Bible as it is now, the creeds had not been written and the theology had not been created yet. From the beginning there were many different beliefs and interpretations of Jesus teachings and ministry and that needs to stop being skipped over by all the so called orthodox Christian groups. Everyone believes in filling the gospel but they can’t agree on what the gospel is. This is why more is needed then just the Bible and the historic creeds because they are incomplete and late. Catholics use the authority of their priesthood body to judge and rule on these matters. In our church we believe a living prophet can receive guidance to judge and rule on these matters which is similar but different. What we both agree on though is that the Bible alone has proven to not be clear enough to have different people or groups come to the same conclusions so therefore it can not be purported to be the final authority.

Excellent video

First thing that struck me is the lack of the word, 'love' in the list of 14. Big red flag.

8:00 A Catholic list of dogmata from AD 800 would arguably be somewhat leaner than one from 1800 or 1950. Geisler has so to speak managed to reconstruct what CSL in a letter to a Catholic sibling group (or somewhere else) had managed to denounce as a growing yardstick in Catholicism.

Produce more content Doc. This was great and should have been posted on the sadly celebrated Reformation Day...although I don’t think evangelicals celebrate that day...anyway...more vids!

You nailed it.

@4:45 Would Dr. Norman Geisler accept all points of the Creed as what the creed intended to communicate when it was written? For examples, communion of saints, one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, virgin Mary, Catholic Apostolic Church, apostolic succession?

Nice video. We have to get people thinking

12:36 Obvious example: * Evangelicals do not want to divide over YEC, OEC (day-age or gap) ... * Did not want to divide over Joshua 10 and Geocentrism * in connexion with the latter - I don't think they mostly divide over memberships in freemasonry, I could be wrong. I say mostly, there is an honourable exception. Back when I left Sweden, he was still an Evangelical. He wrote a book listing clergy and some other categories (I think even policemen, but unfortunately not medical doctors) who were into Freemasons, Odd Fellows or Templars - the latter being the more usual go to for "frikyrkliga" (roughly speaking Evangelicals), while Swedish Church (Lutheran, and the mainstream part, not the "free synod") tended to favour Freemasons. Since then, Ulf Ekman has converted to Catholicism. I appreciated him ever since back then.

BTW, unless you think I have a low view of Mary, actually I think she is one of the most amazing person (women or man) of the Bible. Her faith to let God have His way in her life even though she did not understand, ranks her at least, with the likes of all those people in Scriptures that put their faith in God. I love the idea that she 'hid things in her heart'.

I liked your video and understand how reason and logic should or would lead anyone to the Catholic/Orthodox faith. Unfortunately a basic faith allows many to create a religion that they believe to be true. It is only if they are asked why they believe that, or show me where it confirms that in the Bible that they stop arguing. One would think that when you see the types for Christ and the Mass in the Old Testament and then Jesus completing them that any logical reasonable person would say why did I never make those connections. Or why their church history only goes back 500 years and they don’t want to know what the people within one generation of the Apostles believed?

Succinct and logically sound… although some may not like the conclusions. And Although its’ main premise is especially relevant in these times (when Truth is touted as relative and not absolute.) Today we are awash in so much relativism that even words like “church” or “truth” are subject to faulty interpretations, and a “hey, if it works for you” mentality.

How anyone can form a "logical" list of Christian essentials and not come away with baptism, confession of sin, and the Eucharist is beyond me. The entire chapter of John 6 literally has 100% to do with the body and blood of Christ, how do you get around this?

Seria genial que refutadas a unos evangélicos que debaten con Catolicos. Puedes verlos debatir con Padre Carlos Mojica, José Plascencia

Geisler only accept 4 councils (Nicea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon). Anyone can tell me what's his or any other protestant's problem with the other 3 councils (Constantinople II, Constantinople III, Nicea II)?

This is awesome Dr. Beaumont, I have one question: how do we Catholics define what a Christian is? We don't seem to exclude Protestantism and Orthodoxy from Christianity, yet they don't affirm all the essentials which we call dogmas. So does their baptism make them Christian and all the theology implied by that? i.e. the Triunity of God, Christ's and the Holy Spirit's deity, and whatever else?

I’m not Catholic, in fact I’m very strongly against it, but props on using the term “begs the question” correctly

Me duele escuchar como los evangélicos no dicen constantemente salgan de esa falsa iglesia, y hay una batalla entre apologetas que uno dice algo luego vienen otros y refutan y es como una persecución, i would like to help us, and fort more our faith Thank you,

Prior to minute 14:30 Douglas you were speaking about the councils that cleared up orthodoxy. You mentioned the deity of Jesus. You did not mention teachings like the perpetual virginity of Mary, and imo, wisely so. The deity of Jesus clearly is found throughout the NT, but the NT is silent on the perpetual virginity of Mary and quite to the contrary. One might wonder why the Scriptures is so silent (in the affirmative) on an issue that seems to be so important to the Catholic Church.

Make an in depth video on creation and evolution.

Just prior to minute 11:42 Douglas you mention the saying of Jesus as found in John 6 about eating the Body and drinking the Blood of Jesus as essential. If it is so essential of the Catholic Church, then why, during any mass I've ever been to, that only the priest actually follows this 'clear' teaching essential of Jesus?

Hi is belief in amillennialism Orthodox or can one be a premil Catholic. Thx.

And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss. And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise. Luke 23:42,43

Protestantism ( sunk in Sodom and Divorce) out of a rebellion in Christian names, underscored in Gnosticism (1 John 2 :19) unto its many thousands of sects where one does not agree with the other, denotes the many parts that the body of Jezebel ended up torn by dogs, incidentally the source of the prophesied Apostasy theologically in the leavens of the Faith.

🙏

It is rather simple. Hear, believe, confess, repent, be baptized for the remissions of sins, and be faithful until death. Christ commanded this.

I'm wondering how much you exclude protestant denominations from salvation, what the reasoning is, and how much you think grace for errors in knowledge play a role in salvation. Thank you.

You lay your arguments out well, but I am still conflicted. Not on the material itself, but the two groups you are comparing. Allow me to state here I do not cite you specificially as it seems to be a common base assumption throughout all Catholocism and its apologists, and that is what I believe to be inaccurate lumping of all protestants together into one big group. There are many denominations each w/ their own unique charecteristics, some greatly noticable while others not so much. I can tell you right now as a conservative Lutheran there are some noticable differences between the Lutheran and evangelical theologies. It's like visiting a single state in the US and then making a specific generalization about the entire country from that one location. It would be like going to Arizona or New Mexico and making a generalized statement that the entire US is a flat, hot desert based on that one observation. While maybe true for the vast majority of these states, there are countless other states in the US that would contradict that statement. So why say in 20,000 words what can be said in 100? My apologies. My point is that it appears to me you are comparing mainly Dr. Geisler to Catholicism under the statement of comparing the entire protestant world to Catholicism, and this is not correct. As a conservative Lutheran, I can tell you the church I was brought up in does not align 100% w/ Dr. Geisler's observations either. In addition, we subscribe to the sacraments as well to include the eucharist and the miracle of transfiguration which aligns this protestant denomination w/ the Catholicism. So to make the blanket statement that protestants are wrong would be in itself wrong as there are many of us protestants who hold many beliefs and teachings that align perfectly w/ the catholic teachings. This is a long post so if you've made it this far, I thank you for your time, patience and understanding. God bless and keep fighting the good fight.

Copts don't accept four councils and neither to the Assyrians. Just to buttress your point.

are you in the Charlotte Diocese Doug?

It seems to me that what is essential is the things a Christian has to know and or do in order to receive eternal salvation. You will have to pardon my southern backsliding Baptist upbringing, but I was raised in the belief that every Christian denomination agreed on these things. I understand what I am saying doesn’t fit with the content of this video and the logical vs historical views of what is orthodox. Biblical interpretation that can be debated by biblical scholars till we’re all left scratching our heads. What is at the heart of this topic is at least in my opinion is not debatable. What is it to be Christian and what the purpose of Christianity is. Is there really a divide between Catholics and Protestants to the extant that one believes the other will not receive salvation and be doomed to hell? For example I’ve never took communion, but if I understood right this is a Catholic orthodox/essential sacrament, so am I doomed? If this is something I can forgo and still have a place paradise then is it really essential? Please be candid with you’re answer. Thank you

Ahh, the problem with lists... Even the New Testament has conflicting lists for certain things (eg. 1 Corinthian 12, Romans 12)! The problem is that any essentials list keeps growing, never shrinking, and the people building the list are fallible. What are we to do? Do we just concatenate all of the lists together? I disagree with the premise that a detailed list is required, and I certainly object to putting the Catholic Church in a position to declare what constitutes orthodoxy. For example, the four Marian dogmas are required belief. In the past, not believing them condemned one to hell. Now however, Protestants who don't believe them live as "separated brethren". That feels much better, but still less than welcoming. Put another way, what information did Zacchaeus know about "the list" when Jesus told him "Today salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost." Likewise, what information did the thief on the cross know about "the list" when Jesus said to him "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise." One of my favorite pieces of art is a plain block of wood engraved with the inscription: "The man on the middle cross told me I can come." That about sums it up! I think we should be out of the business of declaring who is in, or who is out of the Kingdom of God. Let's leave that up to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Amen!

The Apostles Creed outlines the core, Early Christian essentials. The Nicene-Constantinople Creed further expands the theological thought evident in the Early Church. I look at what the Eastern Church and the Coptic Church of Egypt (founded by Mark) has in common with the Catholic Church. If there is agreement then I accept it as evidence of a unified Church that later fractured (The Church of Rome. If I see differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Churches, then I discount the claims made by Rome on that particular issues-indulgences, as a quick example. Many are unfamiliar with the Early Church history. Bishops were and are, equals amongst equals. There is no superiority of one bishop over another. In Acts 15 we see James is the head of the Church in Jerusalem-the Mother Church. God chose Jerusalem to be the seat of His world-wide rule-not Rome. The largest cathedral in the world is an Eastern Orthodox structure known as Hagi Sophia (currently considered a mosque thanks to Erdogan). Rome does NOT rule the world today, the Roman Empire collapsed, and the Church of Rome filled the political void. Where is Scripture is a pope allowed to maintain armies? Recall Peter was told to put away the sword on the night Judas betrayed Jesus. Have you studied the Spanish (Catholic) Inquisition? One cannot white-wash sin. God sees all. Suggested reading: The Didache, an early Christian instruction manual. This oral teaching, later put to pen, pre-dates the Gospels. If one presumes Markan or Matthian primacy, these were penned somewhere in the AD 30-40 time period. The Early Church was known as “The Way.” The Didache, known as the “Teaching of the Twelve” does not mention any gospels because it preceded them. The Church was born on Pentecost, and for thirty-plus years relied on oral instruction before things were written down. The Didache teaches about the Way of Life and the Way of Desth. See: Aaron Milavec, “The Didache.”

It's weird you brought up Orthodoxy but then went on to clarify Christianity within Catholic and Protestant framework. No mention of Christian Orthodox beliefs, including that Catholicism is considered heretical?

Your approach is not like any other. You are dismantling protestantism at it's core.

Opus Dei!

Jesus Saves?

Mattew 24:36 36 “Concerning that day and hour nobody knows,+ neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. Mattew 23:8-10 8 But be not ye called teachers. for one is your Teacher, even Christ. 9 You are all brothers. And call no man father upon the earth. for one is Father, which is in heaven.10 And be not ye called masters. for one is your Master, even Christ.... “YOU must not let people call you ‘leaders’​-you have only one leader, Christ!” (Matthew 23:10, The New Testament) With these words, Jesus made it plain to his followers that no man on earth would be their leader. Their one Leader would be heavenly​-Jesus Christ himself. Jesus holds this position by divine appointment..

What is the church?

Around and before minute 8:22 Douglas, you are making a big deal about your old mentor's list(s) of essentials. I'd disagree with his list. Imo, Paul the apostle's list would start with the Bodily resurrection of Jesus (1Cor 15). Again, imo, ALL other doctrines, essential or non, must flow from that Truth. As Paul said, if there's no resurrection from the dead and in this life only we are blessed to follow Jesus (admittedly my paraphrase), we are of all people most to be pitied. Another reason I'd disagree with the doctor is that one needs to be a Bible scholar to understand his whole list but, imo, most of those saved by Jesus do not understand the list. I can understand the resurrection of the Body of Jesus, at least 'that it happened' even if I don't understand all the 'how's'.

My understanding is as simple as this.. To be a true Christian.. One needs to be a member of the Mystical Body of Christ.. Incorporated into only through an actual water baptism or a baptism of blood.. Martyrdom..desire and invincible ignorance will not help.. The Roman Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ.. It is the only Church of Christ.. The Scriptures are ours and ours alone.. For the Catholic Magestrium alone to interpret.. .. There is absolutely no salvation outside the Catholic Church under any circumstances. All outside cannot and will not be saved. Just like the Ark of Noah.. All outside perished.. So too.. All outside the Catholic Church will be lost

I believe that the essentials are easy. We don't need to list them because neither Jesus nor the Apostles listed them. They taught them. Jude summarized the essentials as "the faith once for all delivered to the saints." Why is that so hard for Catholics? Oh, because they added to the faith once for all delivered. They added man-made dogmas that neither Jesus nor the Apostles taught. That's what Protestants have also done. Catholics get some things right. Protestants get some things right. Orthodox (eastern and oriental) get some things right. None of us gets everything right. But, if we focus on what Jesus and the Apostles taught, we're on the right track. If we add to that councils OR Protestant reformers, then we have added to the essentials. If we persecute those who believe differently to us, we have sinned. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants have sinned in this regard. Yet, the essentials are available to us all, and many do believe in them, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox.

Cor 15 Starts with the gospel which WAS delivered unto you .The Roman church has ignored this point ,that it was ,past tense ,delivered. Because they do not believe in Sola scriptura, but think they can add to and change the prophetic Apostolic message by their own traditions, which they claim to be from the Apostles . The worst of these changes came when Theodosius made the Roman church the only legal religion . He said any pagans who would not join the church would have property confiscated . This changed the gospel from belief and repentance to join this church or you will be punished ,filling the Roman church with unbelievers. This was about Roman Empire unity not Christianity. From then the church claimed to be the only true church ,this developed into only we can interpret the Bible as we are the church that was founded by Jesus ,ignoring all the churches in the Empire . Then the Popes developed starting with the first idea of the authority of Peter being past to Rome . This was first mentioned by Stephanus and built on, with Leo claiming to be Pope . He asserted primacy over all bishops and it was acknowledged at the council of Chalcedon 451. Later Gregory sent Augustine of Canterbury to get the British to accept him as head Bishop . Dionoth the representative of the church said we have our own bishops and refused .Later the king of Kent was deceived by a fake miracle and accepted the Pope ,splitting the church . The reformation did not start with Luther. The 9th cent. false decretals were forged to free the Roman church from interference of the state . Forty forgeries included letter claiming to be from ,Sylvester, Gregory ,and includes a false claim that Constantine said the Pope has supremacy over all churches .From this time the Roman church called others heretics and from the 12th cent. persecuted the Waldensian church almost to extinction by the 17th cent. It should be obvious that any church legalizing torture and burning people at the stake is not the true church .Not to mention the wicked lives of so many Popes .

Stop stating the obvious, you are upsetting people's feelings.

It seems that whatever actually is essential to Christianity would be static, though our discernment and understanding of these things might change. That is, we might think something is essential and later discern that it is not, or vice-versa. We also might grow in understanding of some particular essential. There is often a presumption that whatever was believed earlier was correct and that any subsequent alterations can only be non-contradictory developments. However, this is only probable--not certain. There are countless beliefs held by our ancestors that we now know to be false. This is just the human experience, so the fact that the list might change or evolve isn't necessarily the problem that you make it out to be. You criticize Evangelicals for appealing to Scripture, but it makes sense to appeal to Scripture and other historical documents (including early councils) to attempt to discern essentials, for it would be the apostles and other immediate witnesses to Christ who would know best what he taught and what it meant. This is largely what various Christian groups attempt. The fact that different people or groups might draw different conclusions through this process is not some uniquely-new problem with Protestant Christianity. It has been going on since the time of Christ, and is just as present in Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, etc. If you want to claim that the list is and must be static, then the Roman Catholic Church fails here as well. The Roman Catholic list is constantly evolving with new dogmas being added in just the recent centuries (e.g., Papal Supremacy, Mary's Assumption, etc.), and those that have long been there being "adjusted." We need not bother with the attempts to read these back into history. No one in the first centuries of Christianity had to hold that the Bishop of Rome was infallible or supreme to be a Christian or as a condition of salvation--something that would later be claimed by the Roman Catholic Church. In this sense (as well as your accusation of begging the question), the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of the same criticisms you raise regarding Protestant/Evangelical Christianity. Roman Catholics who criticize Protestants for thinking of themselves as authorities that can change the list of essentials as they see fit had best pluck the logs from their own eyes first. "Why do the Church's determinations stop being counted in the 5th century?" You pretend that this is a question for which there is no reasonable answer. First, the multiplication of suspect dogmas over the centuries is the obvious answer. If a church group invents some new essential dogma of the faith in the 19th or 20th century--something that was never before then required--can it really be taken seriously? But more specifically, councils in and after the 5th century are suspect because it was there (Chalcedon) that Christianity experienced its first major schism (over a highly nuanced and questionable metaphysical definition), after which no ecumenical council could really take place. That is, the "Church" didn't agree at Chalcedon and it hasn't since. Chalcedon was followed by another gradual "Great" schism in the second millennium (largely over Papal Supremacy, the Filioque, and related matters), the various Protestant fractures in the second half of that millennium, and even other fractures in the last two centuries as the Roman Catholic Church continues to define new dogmas or amend old ones (largely a result of Papal Infallibility claims in V1, and claims in and subsequent to V2). In any event, every "ecumenical" council since Chalcedon has really been only a regional synod and lacks the presumed assurance of authority and reliability of a genuine "ecumenical" council. It is interesting that each of these schisms corresponded with a part of the Church basically fabricating some new "essential" that now had to be accepted "or else." It is further interesting that the Roman Catholic Church has its fingerprints on every single one of these sad events (this is not to suggest that anyone else has perfectly clean hands). That all being said, the Roman Catholic Church is truly remarkable and has led countless people to Christ. I just don't think that we need to promote it through misrepresentation or flawed arguments about other groups.

Minute 12:40 Douglas you accuse protestants of circular reasoning. Don't you as a Catholic apologist and the Catholic Church reason often in a circular manor? Why is the Catholic Church correct, even though the Scriptures teach something different, like about the perpetual virginity of Mary (Matt 1:25 and verses about her children, the siblings of Jesus). Seems to me it often 'boils down to' because the Catholic Church teaches infallibly on this and other issues. How do we know the Catholic Church teaches infallibly? Because the church tell us so. We all reason circularly at times. Please take the speck out of your eye before you take the log out of mine. (yes I probably have logs in my eyes and you have specks.)

Please don't just quote part of the verse of 1 Peter 3:21, "baptism now saves you" why not mention that it doesn't remove our dirt, but just done out of good conscience - please be more honest!

Yes .. .JESUS SAVES .....AND GOD SAVES ALSO NON CATHOLICS .....THAT IS A FACT .....

When the papist church changes the essentials list it's not a problem (Like papal infallibility), but others shouldn't

Christianity says "Jesus is God ". Jesus says in John 17:3 " and this is eternal life,that they may know you (Father) THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent ". Paul says in 1 Cor 8:6 "yet for us there is only ONE GOD,THE FATHER". ... Looks like christianity doesn't agree nor follow the Bible....

Without the essential the essence is a waste land, it is wasted in here and here after. Where is the Holy Eucharist in his work, Dr. Geilser? Thus, his corpus of writing is disconcerted.