Historic Conversions in OPPOSITE Directions

Peter Martyr Vermigli and St. John Henry Newman are two of the most famous Christian converts. The former left Catholicism for Protestantism, and the latter swam the Tiber in the opposite direction. In many ways, they're paradigmatic examples of why people convert to Protestantism or Catholicism.
Dr. Castaldo's book on conversion: davenantinstit...
His book on Newman and Vermigli: amzn.to/48ISXlx
His book on the beatitudes: amzn.to/48P4QX7
Support Gospel Simplicity:
Patreon: / gospelsimplicity
One Time Donation: www.paypal.me/...
Merch: shop.gospelsim...
Follow Gospel Simplicity on Social Media:
Facebook: / gospelsimplicity
Instagram: / gospelsimplicity
About Gospel Simplicity:
Gospel Simplicity began as a KZbin channel in a Moody Bible Institute dorm. It was born out of the central conviction that the gospel is really good news, and I wanted to share that with as many people as possible. The channel has grown and changed over time, but that central conviction has never changed. Today, we make content around biblical and theological topics, often interacting with people from across the Christian tradition with the hope of seeking greater unity and introducing people to the beautiful simplicity and transformative power of the gospel, the good news about Jesus.
About the host:
Austin Suggs holds a BA in Theology from Moody Bible Institute and is currently pursuing an MA in Liberal Arts with a focus in Theology and Philosophy from St. John's College, Annapolis. He has served in the local church in a number of ways, including as a full-time staff member,, teacher, church planter, and more. Today, he resides outside of Baltimore with his wife Eliza.
Video Stuff:
Camera: Sony a6300
Lens: Sigma 16mm F1.4 amzn.to/2MjssPB
Edited in FCPX
Music:
Bowmans Root - Isaac Joel
YODRSIYIVB5B6QPM
*Links in the description may include affiliate links in which I receive a small commission of any purchases you make using that link.
OERNFF59LU4GEU5K
HHQQFUFIBM8K6UIK

[@apocryphanow]

Barbara left the Catholic Church to become Mormon. Sharon left the Mormon Church to become Catholic. Tyler left the Baptist Church to become Catholic. Sean left the Catholic Church to become Baptist. Which one has the powerful testimony of how they come to God's Truth and really have a strong walk with God now? This is why testimonies can be tricky evidence. There are testimonies in all directions of churches to go.

[@johnathanl8396]

Well of course, but Gospel Simplicity is trying to present Catholic > Protestant conversions more as online discourse is soaked in Catholic/Orthodox bros trying to "dunk" on Protestants with their constant conversion stories.

[@TheBlinkyImp]

Notice also that if all of those testimonies are legitimate, that demonstrates that God's church can be found in all those different denominations (maybe in differing levels of fidelity). This is much more in line with a Protestant understanding of 'the Church' which encompasses many different forms.

[@julieelizabeth4856]

@@TheBlinkyImp Yet there can only be one Truth. Why God is allowing these divisions is unknown. But it's been said that he writes straight in crooked lines.

[@zeektm1762]

@@TheBlinkyImpYeah except Gods church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. Gods church was instituted by Christ, who IS the Word and IS the Truth. So how can you say that it’s just a matter of “finding the truth” in every institution that claims “church-hood”, like Mormonism, like Catholicism, like Orthodoxy, like Protestantism, etc. There are simply too many theological and philosophical differences that result in primary issues (salvation, grace, scripture, sin, will) being in conflict with each other. And God is not a God of confusion.

[@NorthCountry84]

His reasons for conversions both ways at the end I can see a little. But my move from Evangelical Protestant to Catholicism entailed both an intimate relationship with Christ and the framework of history, biblical studies, the deep philosophy and deep mysticism which reflects a profound personal relationship with the triune God. I mean, Sister Faustina’s book on Divine Mercy, St. Therese of Liseux, St. John of the Cross and St. Thersa of Avila…the list seems inexhaustible!

[@ronaldfelix1000]

I'm not completely sold on Faustina... But for me, being the fan of the mystics that I was , went the opposite way of you to Lutheranism. I could find union with Christ through the Eucharist, with not actually knowing how, but with dependence on Christ

[@billyhw5492]

To be deep in planning a second wedding is to cease to be Catholic.

[@jonathansmith4712]

“Biblically chaste Christianity that has personal relationship with Christ at the leading edge” = the Church with the Eucharist

[@tylercurtis764]

I was looking for a Biblically-chaste Christianity that had a personal relationship with Christ at the leading edge and so I became Catholic.

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Amen.

[@sheylamercado9801]

Amen!!!!

[@taylorbarrett384]

Catholicism is a lot of things. But biblically chaste in this context clearly means tied to the Bible, not going past the Bible, etc. Newman's whole deal is showing that Catholicisms going past the Bible, beyond the Bible, is valid development, even necessary. You can't really be honest and claim Catholicism is biblically chaste in this context, with this as the meaning of the phrase. Praying to Saints is nowhere in the Bible, for example. You can argue nothing in the Bible contradicts praying to the saints, and that it's a valid development. That's fine. But it's not "chaste" in the sense being used here.

[@pedroguimaraes6094]

Did you convert from a conservative Lutheran, Anglican or Reformed Church? These are the churches that actually came from the Reformation.

[@tylercurtis764]

@@taylorbarrett384 I understand what he meant. I was just being a bit cheeky. In all seriousness though, while the Catholic must accept the principle of doctrinal development, I still think Catholicism is the most faithful to Scripture.

[@RandomThoughts77777]

Newman is a spiritual and intellectual giant on a different level altogether to Vermigli!

[@logicaredux5205]

At that time Jesus answered and said, “I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and have revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight. All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Matt. 11:25-27)

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

I agree. But it's really inappropriate to compare them. Vermigli would never claim to be a Patrologist or expert in the Fathers. His claim to fame was biblical analysis and responding to biblical arguments of Catholics and Lutherans.

[@logicaredux5205]

So, Rome got who they wanted, and Jesus got who He wanted. Let us rejoice!

[@masterchief8179]

@@logicaredux5205 Typical Protestant nonsense.

[@johnathanl8396]

Absolutely not true, you’re completely ignorant of Vermigli’s acumen.

[@bkr_418]

Love your channel and your work.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks!

[@ronchandonia1131]

Short but precisely on target! Thanks for another great video.

[@GospelSimplicity]

Thanks for watching!

[@DarkHorseCrusader]

I know that there are always exceptions, but it seems that Protestants who become Catholic tend to be educated members who have done their research before converting such as Scott Hahn, Francis Beckwith, Thomas Howard, and Richard John Neuhaus (to name a few) whereas Catholics who become Protestant tend to be poorly formed in their faith. Thank you.

[@billyhw5492]

They also tend to be divorced and remarried.

[@EthanMiller-ul9sp]

Or intelligent RC to protestant converts dont pontificate abt it

[@DarkHorseCrusader]

@@EthanMiller-ul9sp🙄

[@gattateo]

Bravo on the topic. Btw, glad the guest knew that Vermigli is pronounced “Vermilyi.” (Gn and gl in Italian represent “ny” and “ly” palatized sounds. )

[@answeringadventism]

Vermigli is one of my favorite theologians. Wild story

[@Ben_G_Biegler]

If you are looking for both of the things he mentioned at the end read Joseph Ratzinger

[@kirstenfondren9226]

So Vermigli didn’t understand Theosis 😢

[@ricky01_]

Lost doctrine in the West

[@masterchief8179]

⁠@ricky01_ That’s untrue, brother. The concept of ‘Theosis’/ ‘Deificatio’ is pretty central to Catholic spirituality. The EXACT same word in Greek (“Theosis”) and Latin (“Deificatio”) means what we know as “deification” or divinization, the transformation of the human nature by supernatural grace not into a different nature ontologically speaking, but through making us share - on the ground of participation - in the very divine nature (2 Peter 1, 3-4). There is of course different emphasis in Greek or Latin descriptions of deification: for example, the Greek Fathers emphasize the mystery of foretasting the very inner life of the Most Holy Trinity through prayer and fasting, experiencing what they call the “transfiguring light” of God’s presence; the Latin Fathers tend to emphasize the radical interior transformation when we configure ourselves, in the core process of sanctification, to the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, due to supernatural grace, in the filial adoption from the Father and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is us. But it is incorrect to say those visions are exclusive from one and other, of course. And they say the Syriac Fathers do not have any clear emphasis, not having used this kind of terminology either, but it is clearly a theme in St Ephrem of Syria, for example, who is a Doctor of the Catholic Church. So both views are necessarily a way of perfection and are integral to the Christian experience, focusing in 1) radical transformation, 2) supernatural grace and 3) partaking in the very intra-Trinitarian life. In the Cathecism of the Catholic Church, the part referential to “Theosis” even quotes St Thomas Aquinas in what maybe sounds like a very ‘Eastern way’ to put things (that is specifically an Athanasian expression: to make we “become God”, an acclamation that St Thomas Aquinas not only did not ‘correct’ but quoted in his work - as it is quoted in the CCC): _”460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature" [78]: "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."[79] "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[80] "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods” [81]_ . [78] 2 Pt 1:4 [79] St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939. [80] St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B. [81] St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4. _________ I would recommend you to go for books that can discuss the way the Catholic Church, in its 2000 years of history, always understood “Theosis” or “Deificatio” in clarity and precision. I picked books focusing is the Latin tradition due to the fact that usual misinformation tend to indirectly imply a sort of Eastern Orthodoxy unfair “appropriation” of it, which is entirely NOT true. So I picked some splendid books about this for you to maybe start: _“Called to Be the Children of God: The Catholic Theology of Human Deification”_ , by Carl Olson and Fr Devid Meconi, SJ (foreworded by Dr Scott Hahn), published by Ignatius Press _“With All the Fullness of God: Deification in Christian Tradition”_ , by Jared Ortiz (editor), published by Fortress Academic _“Deification in the Latin Patristic Tradition (Studies In Early Christianity)”_ , by Jared Ortiz (editor), published by The Catholic University of America Press _“Kenosis in Theosis: An Exploration of Balthasar’s Theology of Deification”_ , by Sigurd Lefsrud, published by Pickwick Publications. I hope it helped, brother, to see that those EO apologists are not being much accurate in representing Catholic theology to their public. God bless!

[@countryboyred]

@@masterchief8179it’s absolutely a lost doctrine. Never once in my life have I heard a Catholic talk about theosis

[@masterchief8179]

@@countryboyred With that name it’s not that fashionable with Catholics as it is with schismatics, sure, but I’m afraid you are not really listening either to real world Catholics or to real/ authentic Catholic doctrine. With that being said, I tend to agree with your probable claim that people from Greek heritage (due to the theological trend of Hesycasm in Byzantine scholastics) tend to have a predilection in using the word and expressing soteriology under those terms. Therefore, a Ukrainian or a Ruthenian or a Melkite or a Byzantine Catholic probably will use the word more than a Latin Catholic (or a Chaldean or a Coptic Catholic, for example).

[@DarkHorseCrusader]

@@countryboyredIt is normally referred to in the West as partaking in the Divine nature or deification.

[@valwhelan3533]

Interesting but ultimately conversions are a bad guide to truth. People convert to/from Islam (or Judaism or whatever) each and every day....

[@Theosis_and_prayer]

Very dishonest to claim Vermigli studied the Early Church Fathers and *THAT* is what led him to Protestantism like Newman. Read Professor Douglas Shantz on Vermigli for the truth. Vermigli was much more skilled in the Fathers than most other Protestant heretics of his time, but that was hardly his basis or motive for embracing the Protestant Revolt. Like Calvin and Luther what attracted him to it was sola scriptura and his misguided belief that scripture alone was the supreme authority to end and judge theological controversy, even when those controversies were over scripture itself.

[@imbecilicGenius-hn3jo]

The claim of this video serms to be that Vermigli was highly attracted to the scriptural rooting of protestantism as opposed to being persuaded by his backround knowledge in the fathers. There is an inherant problem in catholicism when tradition and scripture share authority. We cannot serve two masters and naturally one tends to find a way to contradict the other over time. We must choose God or man, John makes it clear that the word is God in the first chapter and Jesus constantly rebukes the pharisees for allowing tradition to get in the way, Paul does the same to the Judiazers. Man cannot be perfected on earth so man in his coruption is quite capable of corupting that which ought to be left alone. Even scripture gets twisted so how much more so can we expect tradition to falter?

[@countryboyred]

The fact you can throw around words like heretic so easily is concerning. This is a big reason why so many Catholics leave the faith- you guys come across as so prideful and arrogant.

[@jnleyson]

​@countryboyred using the accurate word for their status was not out of pride or arrogance. He who willfully adheres to a heresy is called a heretic. Nothing is wrong with that term used in this context.

[@countryboyred]

@@jnleyson it reeks of pride and arrogance. I stand by my comment.

[@cronmaker2]

Good discussion, and while Pole and Seripando may have been open to certain concerns Protestants brought up, they did submit to Trent in the end, not considering its definitions anti-gospel (Seripando wrote and revised much of the decree on justification, and Pole rejected charges he was crypto-Protestant up to his death). Im not sure the supposed RC sola fide sympathizers were a "long list", the debates at Trent on jistification had only a handful of bishops advocating such views.

[@taylorbarrett384]

There was a previous comment about Pole on here that seems to be deleted. I wanted to respond to it. The aurhor essentially claimed thaat because Pole was a loyal Catholic, that therefore he was not sympathetic to Sola Fide. And while Pole was a loyal Catholic, he absolutely was deeply sympathetic to Sola Fide. Anyone interested in studying the man should pick up Dermot Fenlon's book about him and the Catholic response to the Reformation, "Heresy and Obedience in Tridentine Italy"

[@masterchief8179]

Just some complimentary words: as I said, there is no doubt that Pole was a moderate man, theologically speaking, on doctrinal matters, a man who sought to find conciliatory measures in theology while he was not so much balanced under the topic of ecclesiastical governance (being rigorously traditional, in a sociological sense, while overly confident in the ecclesiological case of the papacy and Ecumenical Councils, for instance, therefore a man who was under Tradition and Scripture also in the theological sense). So it can only be untrue that Cardinal Pole was _“deeply sympathetic to Sola Fide”_ (as written to dispute my affirmation), provided that he was a papal legate during the Council of Trent’s judgment on “Sola Fide” and Protestant soteriology in general, precisely. But it is indeed true that he was sympathetic to the Humanist movement (of Erasmus and others) of the Renaissance during his youth days, particularly to the so-called Italian “Spirituali”, an avante-garde theological movement that influenced the University of Padua (where Pole was a Theology student in 1521, sent by the King Henry VIII himself), being none other than Peter Martyr Vermigli one of the fellow alumni with whom he interacted, by the way. Vermigli was a famous Humanist himself. Surely Humanist ideas and beliefs influenced the growth of Protestantism mostly when the Reformers who were more inclined to rationalism sought to capitalize on the movement and claim a kind of “intersection”: those include the emphasis on individual conscience, critical examination of texts, the spirit of questioning over misinformed credulity, self-determination of the individual (we all know where it will lead a future unprotected secular society) and the general promotion of literacy, which was made then a way to squeeze-out “Sola Scriptura” in a more Zwinglian (non-Lutheran) sense of Reformation. So captured was this premised interconnection between Protestantism and Humanism in secular Academia that many universities’ studies of Humanities drank from this methodological source in its historical recounting. Of course, later on Vermigli embraced an adaptation of Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer’s theology on the Eucharist, mostly the spiritualist view as an utmost exigency of intellectual rationalism in a path independent of Calvin, and a theory of predestination much closer to the one of Calvin than the one of Luther. He surely followed his conscience, so he conscientiously chose to dissent against the Catholic Church. So clearly a fruit of Philosophical Modernity, and akin to Calvinist theocratic Republic in Geneva, Vermigli even gave seed to Hooker’s reaffirmation or re-wording of royal supremacy in the Church during Elisabethan England, that means, Vermigli was the one single influence that guided Richard Hooker’s defense of the Act of Supremacy of 1558 during Elisabethan Religious Settlement, paving the way to stabilizing the submission of the Church to the political State. With that in mind, does it even make sense in light of Cardinal Pole’s history (personal and otherwise) to make him a quasi-Protestant Englishman? In England, Vermigli deeply influenced Cranmer’s maturity and archbishopric (NOT Pole’s, one or the other), therefore Vermiglian “DNA” could obviously be found in the Edwardine Rite of Ordination of 1549 and specially the radicalized one of 1552 (put into the Book of Common Prayers) through the intellectual authorship of Thomas Cranmer, which is nothing short of the EXACT reason for Pope Leo XIII, after thoroughly studying the English Reformation and the Anglo-Catholic dialogues, concluded that Anglican ordinations past 1700s were null because they lacked the integrity and the Catholicity of the faith for a period of time sufficient for the ubiquitous invalidity of all previous episcopal ordinations in a lifetime period, due to its intrinsic deficient view of the ordained priesthood (in light of the sacrificial nature of the liturgy). The very fact that Protestants in general don’t have a clue on what the Humanist movement was in general, but particularly in theology, is - indeed - symptomatic of what can be seen, at least as a possible generalization that surely has bright exceptions, in the state of their apologetics, so many times filled with anti-Catholic jargons and a lot of misrepresentation of Catholicism that can be shared (not coincidentally) with secularists in general, either in the academic or the ground level, unfortunately.

[@masterchief8179]

His description of Reginald Cardinal Pole - English Cardinal - as a “papabile” who was supposed inclined to Protestant ‘Sola fide’ and a person that was almost elected for the Chair of Peter is partially true: it is fully veracious only in the second part (in that he was almost elected as a pope, lacking one vote in the conclave). Yet Pole’s alleged sympathies for the Protestant Reformation and theology, either doctrinally or politically, are essentially subsumed into a lot of propaganda. Albeit considered a prudent man in a time when radicalization and mutual hatred was the norm (mostly in England, for the bloodbath and official persecution first against Catholics, then Protestants, then Catholics all over again), Cardinal Pole was nothing but the theological and ecclesiastical leader of the so-called “Counter-Reformation” (or the “Catholic Reformation”) in England, as a response to the vile ecclesial revolution Henry VIII has ignited and started. A lot of his family members were personally accused of treason under the Act of Supremacy of 1534 (which ordered anyone is put to death who denies the king is the Supreme Head of the Church of England, on its own terms). His own mother Margaret Pole was recognized as being executed _in odium fidei_ and was beatified by Pope Leo XIII, in 1886, as a Catholic martyr of the English Reformation. Cardinal Pole’s _Pro ecclesiasticae unitatis defensione,_ written itself during the reign of King Henry VIII, defended the unity of the Church under papal authority worldwide against this all-new idea of royal supremacy. By the way, in 1542 Cardinal Pole was appointed as one of the three papal legates to preside over the Council of Trent (!) - and that means the very Ecumenical Council which dealt with the Protestant propositions like “faith alone” - and history doesn’t record a single episode of troublemaking, doctrinal internal disputes on his part, let alone a papal destitution during the Council. History registers no difficulty in Pole complying with Trent afterwards either. On the contrary, Pole was the well-known author of _De Concilio,_ a treatise on the authority of the pope and of a set of measures introduced by him to restore Catholic practice in England during the reign of Queen Mary. Precisely his faithfulness to Catholicism made him assume his position during Catholic restoration in England: Thomas Cranmer, the radical Reformer of Anglicanism, was deprived of the See of Canterbury in 1555; in 1556 the Pope, after consecrating Reginald Pole a bishop, made him archbishop of Canterbury following Cranmer (the sort of radical Protestant that recanted some of his previous teachings under Pole’s influence, allegedly). Yet history doesn’t take anything from the fact that Pole was deemed a moderate, theologically speaking, in relation to Protestants in an era of martyrdom. Albeit having a clear proximity with the Roman See, he was later involved into “papal polemics” because Pope Paul IV, after the Spanish military invasion of the Papal States, wanted Cardinal Pole to obtain full English military support against Spain (as the pope had gotten from France). Not only Cardinal Pole didn’t move a finger in the anti-Spanish direction, but he actually - actively and publicly - supported Queen Mary’s marriage with King Philip II of Spain. Because of that (and essentially as a political plot), Pope Paul IV cancelled Pole's legatine authority and then recalled Pole to Rome to face investigation for heresy in some early writings, which has never been proven to be true. For Protestants to pick this troubled (late) history of Cardinal Pole’s life - precisely an accusation for political motives, not really doctrinal ones - and depict him as a quasi-Protestant that almost became a pope is (at best) a disfavor to historical accuracy, I guess. St John Fischer and St Thomas More, pray for us!

[@masterchief8179]

Just some complimentary words: as I said, there is no doubt that Pole was a moderate man, theologically speaking, on doctrinal matters, a man who sought to find conciliatory measures in theology while he was not so much balanced under the topic of ecclesiastical governance (being rigorously traditional, in a sociological sense, while overly confident in the ecclesiological case of the papacy and Ecumenical Councils, for instance, therefore a man who was under Tradition and Scripture also in the theological sense). So it can only be untrue that Cardinal Pole was _“deeply sympathetic to Sola Fide”_ (as some guy has written to dispute my affirmation), provided that he was a papal legate during the Council of Trent’s judgment on “Sola Fide” and Protestant soteriology in general, precisely. But it is indeed true that he was sympathetic to the Humanist movement (of Erasmus and others) of the Renaissance during his youth days, particularly to the so-called Italian “Spirituali”, an avante-garde theological movement that influenced the University of Padua (where Pole was a Theology student in 1521, sent by the King Henry VIII himself), being none other than Peter Martyr Vermigli one of the fellow alumni with whom he interacted, by the way. Vermigli was a famous Humanist himself. Surely Humanist ideas and beliefs influenced the growth of Protestantism mostly when the Reformers who were more inclined to rationalism sought to capitalize on the movement and claim a kind of “intersection”: those include the emphasis on individual conscience, critical examination of texts, the spirit of questioning over misinformed credulity, self-determination of the individual (we all know where it will lead a future unprotected secular society) and the general promotion of literacy, which was made then a way to squeeze-out “Sola Scriptura” in a more Zwinglian (non-Lutheran) sense of Reformation. So captured was this premised interconnection between Protestantism and Humanism in secular Academia that many universities’ studies of Humanities drank from this methodological source in its historical recounting. Of course, later on Vermigli embraced an adaptation of Zwingli, Calvin and Bucer’s theology on the Eucharist, mostly the spiritualist view as an utmost exigency of intellectual rationalism in a path independent of Calvin, and a theory of predestination much closer to the one of Calvin than the one of Luther. He surely followed his conscience, so he conscientiously chose to dissent against the Catholic Church. So clearly a fruit of Philosophical Modernity, and akin to Calvinist theocratic Republic in Geneva, Vermigli even gave seed to Hooker’s reaffirmation or re-wording of royal supremacy in the Church during Elisabethan England, that means, Vermigli was the one single influence that guided Richard Hooker’s defense of the Act of Supremacy of 1558 during Elisabethan Religious Settlement, paving the way to stabilizing the submission of the Church to the political State. With that in mind, does it even make sense in light of Cardinal Pole’s history (personal and otherwise) to make him a quasi-Protestant Englishman? In England, Vermigli deeply influenced Cranmer’s maturity and archbishopric (NOT Pole’s, one or the other), therefore Vermiglian “DNA” could obviously be found in the Edwardine Rite of Ordination of 1549 and specially the radicalized one of 1552 (put into the Book of Common Prayers) through the intellectual authorship of Thomas Cranmer, which is nothing short of the EXACT reason for Pope Leo XIII, after thoroughly studying the English Reformation and the Anglo-Catholic dialogues, concluded that Anglican ordinations past 1700s were null because they lacked the integrity and the Catholicity of the faith for a period of time sufficient for the ubiquitous invalidity of all previous episcopal ordinations in a lifetime period, due to its intrinsic deficient view of the ordained priesthood (in light of the sacrificial nature of the liturgy). The very fact that Protestants in general don’t have a clue on what the Humanist movement was in general, but particularly in theology, is - indeed - symptomatic of what can be seen, at least as a possible generalization that surely has bright exceptions, in the state of their apologetics, so many times filled with anti-Catholic jargons and a lot of misrepresentation of Catholicism that can be shared (not coincidentally) with secularists, either in the academic or the ground level, unfortunately.

[@countryboyred]

@@masterchief8179write a book dude. Nobody is reading all that.

[@masterchief8179]

@@countryboyred Most won’t read it but few people will. Actually one curious person reading it does enough for the service of truth and for the fight against anti-Catholic ideology and its perverse ideological machinery, one of the most chronically disseminated social diseases in the Anglophone world (and particularly in the US).

[@Magnulus76]

Newman was a brilliant churchman who was ahead of his time in many ways. The only Protestants that were his peers were John Nevin and Philip Schaff.

[@johnathanl8396]

That is the most ridiculous statement I ever heard lmao.

[@EthanMiller-ul9sp]

@@johnathanl8396why?

[@lupinthe4th400]

You've been working out, bro?

[@GospelSimplicity]

I think the crewneck was doing me favors, lol. I'm a runner, which doesn't exactly translate to large upper bodies

[@rsissel1]

Excellent video, as usual

[@EmmaBerger-ov9ni]

Where is the link to the full interview?

[@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER]

All due respect but saying that "biblically chaste" Christianity leads one to Protestantism is so goofy. How can a protestant church call a counsel like we see in Acts 15?

[@TheBlinkyImp]

Same way the Orthodox do it? The churches agree to meet and have a council. It's not remotely difficult to understand.

[@chuckles222]

@@TheBlinkyImp the last ecumenical council recognised by the Orthodox Church was in 787.

[@SUPERHEAVYBOOSTER]

@@TheBlinkyImp the orthodox have recently demonstrated they do not have the ability to call a counsel... ?

[@johnathanl8396]

@@chuckles222 That doesn't mean they didn't have other councils that they agreed on.

[@gnomulous5544]

@@chuckles222 Many Eos I know claim the Council of Jerusalem to be ecumenical

[@johnlee6780]

It isn't that strange for Catholics going the other way. There is long list of these folks, i.e. Henry the eight, Luther, etc. One common thing that these folks are and it is not that they are against the pope, but rather they want themself to be the pope. Now in Protestantism everyone is pretty much their own pope or they make their pastor their pope. Admit or not, that is what it come down to.

[@not_milk]

If that is the case, you would need to say the same of Eastern Orthodoxy

[@soupeverywhere9565]

Straw man after straw man after straw man

[@andresrodriguezamengual8652]

Hey Austin! Great video, just a quick suggestion on something else. Maybe you could make a video about the recently released document from the Dicastery for promoting Cristhian Unity called "The bishop of Rome". The Catholic Church is changing their position about some arguments that have been on debate about the papacy. God bless you.

[@GospelSimplicity]

I haven't read it. I'll have to check it out!

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

I wonder if biblically chaste Christianity is a way out of priestly celibacy. Like most protestant ministers who wrestle with conversion to catholicism, Newman could safely expect, as a consequence of his conversion, loss of income and shunning from his countrymen, maybe even persecution. Perhaps Vermigli was justified in fearing some of the same, but he could also be looking forward to the alluring comforts of the flesh...

[@johnathanl8396]

I guess Jesus must have overlooked the Apostle Peter's allurement to the "flesh" because he didn't divorce his wife as a result of being part of Jesus' ministry. I guess Paul was allowing for pastors to be "fleshly" when he says that teachers should be "husbands of one wife" in 1 Timothy 3:2. Maybe you're the fleshly one for denying the testimony of Scripture for your own man-made doctrines?

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

​​@johnathanl8396 Jesus had to overlook many things. As for Peter's wife, she's nowhere to be found. Only his mother in law gets a passing mention, whence the Fathers speculated that Simon bar Jonah must have been a widower. If that's the case, I can't imagine the cares of the nascent church would allow him much spare time for courtship and family. Anyway, I wasn't trying to make a doctrinal point, but only to point out the imbalance between the motivations of Newman and Vermigli (who, in fact, did not remain celibate after his conversion).

[@xBurzurkurx]

@@xaviervelascosuarez you are literally trying to make a doctrinal point. Lol.

[@xaviervelascosuarez]

@xBurzurkurx If you consider that considerations about human motivations are a doctrinal matter, then I grant it. But it has nothing to do with doctrinal differences between Protestant's and Catholic's theologies.

[@fiery_hunter3271]

Newman's understanding makes total sense with a background in the Plymoth Brethren. Back then, it may not have been recognized, but now Protestants who learn about them typically reject the Plymoth Brethren as a cult. On a wider scale, Dispensationslism has roots in Plymoth Brethren theology. Currently, Dispensationalism is receiving pushback from Protestants, even to the point of many condemning it as heresy.

[@mj6493]

Hmm. The Plymouth Brethren a cult? That seems a bit harsh.

[@fiery_hunter3271]

@@mj6493 Ex-members have said explicitly that it is a cult, when they consider it in retrospect. From what I understand, early on it was relatively orthodox as far as the theology of its members, but their own teachings (which are by nature schismatic/Solo Scriptura, contra Sola Scriptura) have born fruit such that, as an institution still in existence today, it can most definitely be classified as a cult. Particularly, it is both isolationist and doesn't have the Gospel. It's a bad tree whose unripe fruit may have appeared to be acceptable, but in full ripeness its fruit is clearly unacceptable.

[@fiery_hunter3271]

@JulesBeauchene Ah yes, yes, i muddled that part. It's kinda like having a sibling get sucked into charismatic craziness and then becoming predisposed against that, for obvious reasons.

[@jeromepopiel388]

Sacraments are an OT approach to God. They were sign and symbol of what was to come by promise. Under the New Covenant there is a better way. The way of faith. Sacraments are what is seen. That is not faith Hebrews 11:1 [1]Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. By faith in Christ we are able to enter in the holy place directly Hebrews 10:19-20 [19]Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, [20]By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh;

[@marlam8625]

Sacraments are the principle means of grace. They are outward signs instituted by God in his Church to give us such grace.

[@jeromepopiel388]

@@marlam8625 sacraments were instituted by God in the OT because they did not have access by grace. They were signs and symbols of what was to come through the Messiah. They had a temporal effect, but now we have the real thing. We have God dwelling in us which is far better. We have the same spirit dwelling in us that raised Christ from the dead! We are sons of God. We are empowered to do the same works as Jesus. Hebrews 10:20 [20]By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; So did Jesus minister through sacraments, rituals? I think anyone would admit that He did not, because he ministered in the power of God. He is what the sacraments point to. Can you agree? He is the real, not the sign. Then those who are in Christ are beyond sacraments too. The Galatian church was going back to religious observance and here is how St.Paul reacted.... Galatians 4:9-11 [9]But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? [10]Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. [11]I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain. Do you understand that anything religious is not of faith? It is not the real. Hebrews 2:11 [11]For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, This was not the case in the OT. It makes all the difference. We don't need to go back to sacraments and rituals. Galatians 3:3 [3]Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh. The righteousness are to walk by faith and not by sight. Romans 8:4 [4]That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Can you start to see this a little?

[@marlam8625]

@@jeromepopiel388 Your first sentence conflates sacraments with OT ‘works of the law’. Those 603 ceremonial laws given by God to the Israelites to set them apart and to live in obedience as the chosen people of God. Any of these holy men and women who died and went to the bosom of Abraham prior to Christ’s death and resurrection did so by grace of the future merits of Jesus Christ. He is the source of grace. Because He is the source of grace, he established the means here on earth for us to receive it. It’s what makes us a new creation in Him and makes us partakers in his divine life if we cooperate. Grace that strengthens us to be obedient in keeping his commandments so that we might persevere to the end. As the ditty goes: ‘the law was given so grace they’d seek; then Grace was given so the law they’d keep”.