Audio only:
In this episode Trent reviews the recent discussion on Catholicism between George Farmer and Allie Beth Stuckey on the Candace Owens show.
To support this podcast: https://www.patreon.com/counseloftrent
Transcript:
Welcome to the Counsel of Trent Podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Hey, everyone. Welcome to the Counsel of Trent podcast. I’m your host, Catholic Apologist Trent Horn, and in today’s episode I’m going to be reviewing some of the points that were brought up in George Farmer and Allie Beth Stuckey’s recent dialogue on Protestantism and Catholicism. I’ll also talk about a few of the points that Gavin Ortlund brought up in his review of their dialogue. Before I do that though, please like this video and hey, why not subscribe to our channel? It’s the best way to be alerted when we have new content coming up and it helps the channel grow and reach new people. All right, so a little bit of background. Candace Owens is a personality at the Daily Wire. She’s Protestant but is working through the Catholic-Protestant debate. Her husband, George Farmer, is Catholic, and so Candace had him sit down with Allie Beth Stuckey, who is a Calvinist Protestant and has her own popular podcast.
Overall, I think Farmer did a very good job in engaging Stuckey’s arguments. I don’t know how much apologetics that he’s read, but he brought up several very solid counters and asked really good questions. So I say that’s really good for someone who doesn’t do apologetics all the time. A few cases, he said things that were theologically incorrect, but I think he just misspoke. For example, in part two of their discussion, he talks about Christ having one nature when I think he meant to say that Christ is one person. Otherwise, it was a good engagement. Though some of the parts were frustrating because you have terms that are being used by both sides, but they’re not defined so misunderstandings can arise. I also wish that Farmer had pressed Stuckey a bit more on the fact that she is a Calvinist, so there are many Protestants who reject her views on salvation that come up in part two of the dialogue.
Of course, I always try to be understanding of people in these situations. I’ve been in the hot seat many times and it’s very easy to not use the precise words you wish you would’ve used in a live dialogue or debate. All right, so let’s jump into a few clips and I’ll give you my thoughts.
I had a friend in college, she was Catholic, and she was like, “Well, I got to go to Mass,” and I said something about John 3:16, which is arguably the most famous Bible verse, and she didn’t even know what I was talking about. She didn’t even know that I was talking about a Bible reference. I think that’s very common within Catholicism, and so when they’re actually met with the Bible, when they’re actually met with the gospel, very often someone who is a cradle Catholic realizes, “Oh, I don’t actually know anything about Christianity,” and so often they will become Protestant or they’ll start going to Protestant churches.
I would say biblical illiteracy is a problem for Christians in general, not just Catholics. You can find people who say they’re Christian, by which they usually mean Protestant, or say that they’re Catholic and they barely know anything about the Bible. I’d also say that most Catholics understand salvation, they just may not be used to how Protestants describe it. This certainly is not the way the ancient church portrayed it. For example, Protestants will say you can summarize the gospel in John 3:16. “For God so loved the world that he gave his only son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.”
But the early church did not see John 3:16 in this way. Peter Lillback, the president of the Protestant Westminster Seminary says, “The evidence is clear. Eternal security was not a doctrine that was carefully considered by the uninspired founding fathers of our Christian tradition, the church fathers. It’s hard to believe, but in over 5,000 pages of the Ante-Nicene writings of the church fathers, John 3:16 is only cited twice.” So keep in mind that Stuckey will often make assumptions about what is foundational to Christianity that are incorrect or at least lack evidence for her position.
What is your biggest hangup with the Catholic Church, if you had to name just one to start off with?
The biggest one is the Pope and the authority of the Pope, and I know this is even a debate within Catholicism, but the infallibility of the Pope, and really just the structure and the authority of the Catholic Church. Really one of the causes of the reformation was the sola scriptura idea, that the final authority is scripture. That church itself cannot come up with the doctrines, it can’t come up with the practice of indulgences and say that, “This has divine authority,” that everything a church leader says, whether it’s a pastor, whether it’s a priest, whether it’s a pope, has to conform to what the Holy Spirit has already said through scripture.
There’s a whole other different areas because you also mentioned the Pope and then there’s papal infallibility and that’s a separate doctrine, et cetera. So sola scriptura, where in the Bible does it say sola scriptura?
Farmer takes a good approach in the dialogue by not trying to make a biblical case for the papacy, even though he certainly could do that. You’re really going to have a hard time getting someone to accept the doctrine of the papacy unless he first rejects sola scriptura and believes the apostles’ binding authority continued in some form after their deaths. Once you have those foundations, then you’re in a better position to say one of the apostles, Peter, had authority over the other apostles. And so one of his successors, the Pope, would have similar authority over the other bishops, but you need to make those steps first if you want to be most effective in a dialogue like this. Also, when Protestants ask for biblical evidence for the papacy, I feel that they use a double standard in comparing the Catholic authority structure to their own because first, they define the papacy in a broad way that doesn’t allow for development.
Like saying we need to find the Vatican one definition of the papacy in Matthew 16 or John 21, and then they say “Those verses, well, they’re just not specific enough to prove such a huge doctrine,” but then they turn around and just assume the Protestant authority structure is true. I mean, why should we believe every single book of the Bible is inspired, infallible, and unique in that it’s part of the only infallible rule of faith? Where are the biblical proof texts that make these explicit claims? Many Protestants either make an invalid argument that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith because there are no other infallible rules, which is circular reasoning, or they go to weak biblical proofs by 2 Timothy 3:16, which even many Protestants admit doesn’t teach sola scriptura. If Catholic biblical evidence were as weak as 2 Timothy 3:16, we’d never hear the end of it. Let me also comment on an issue of defining sola scriptura that comes from Gavin Ortlund and Stuckey.
So I don’t believe that a pope or a priest or whatever can say something or a council can come together and declare something as doctrine that is not explicitly supported by scripture.
At one point he puts it like this, stated differently, sola scriptura is the statement that the church can err. That’s really all sola scriptura means. It’s not saying that you’re going to… First of all, let’s just be clear about the misunderstandings here. Sola scriptura does not mean that the church has no authority or that the church cannot make doctrinal pronouncements that are authoritative and binding. All it’s saying is they’re fallible.
Sola scriptura is not the same as saying the church can err. I agree, the church can err in prudential matters. The Pope can teach error when he is not making an ex cathedra statement, and the bishops only teach infallibly at an ecumenical council. So I agree with Gavin, the church can err. What Gavin means is that the church is never infallible. No doctrinal statement about the trinity, the deity of Christ, or even basic moral truths are infallible. Any of them can be revisited. As I said in my debate with Gavin, a church that is always reforming, especially one that can’t tell you what the essential doctrines of the faith are, is a church where everything is up for grabs. Plus Stuckey seems to be going beyond Ortlund’s minimal definition. She says doctrine has to be explicitly supported by scripture and raises this point in the dialogue regarding seeking the intercession of the saints.
But that would be my issue with praying through Mary is that we don’t see her as a mediator in scripture, so I would just need to see the biblical support for that.
I might ask Stuckey in response, “Does every liturgical act or act of prayer have to be explicitly described in scripture? Does scripture show people praying to the Holy Spirit or confessing their sins to the risen Jesus? Can a person go to seminary and just start his own church? Where does the Bible describe a person becoming an elder or a bishop on his own authority apart from the laying on of hands?” It doesn’t. So this really starts to eat away at the idea that every doctrine, not to mention every kind of prayer or devotion ,must be found explicitly in scripture.
His gripe was with not just papal authority but also the practice of indulgences, which is in very like crude terms, the idea that basically you can pay your way into heaven or you can pay souls out of purgatory and-
Well, no. Indulgences are a removal of the temporal punishment for sin. They do not get you into heaven. This is a classic misunderstanding and it needs to be called out when this happens even if it happens unintentionally. So there’s some discussion about the canon of scripture as well as the deuterocanonical books of scripture, and Farmer does a good job of rebutting Stuckey when she says that the deuterocanon is not scripture because Jesus never cited these books like Tobit or Maccabees. He points out Jesus didn’t cite many other Old Testament books either. Ortlund also gives his thoughts on the matter, and I want to address those because it’s really important to figure out if Protestants remove these books or if Catholics illicitly added them.
In the east, for example, well after the fourth century, you’ve got a Protestant canon that is the dominant view… Sorry, you’ve got a canon of scripture that’s the dominant view that’s very similar to a Protestant canon. This comes from the Senate of Laodicea and you see it all throughout the major eastern theologians. Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, all the way to John of Damascus in the seventh century, there’s this idea of a 22 book Hebrew, cannon based, upon the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet.
Ortlund says that there are some exceptions like the church fathers putting Baruch with Jeremiah, but he says overall in the Eastern church they had something more like the Protestant Old Testament canon, but let’s look at these sources closer. You’ll see that in many cases they come from canonical lists where the church fathers recognized the deuterocanon is controversial because the Jews rejected it, but they don’t consider the deuterocanon to be uninspired in the same way that modern Protestants do. For example, John of Damascus or John Damascene from the seventh century believed in an older theory that there could only be 22 books of the Old Testament to correspond to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, but he still uses the deuterocanon like scripture. He quotes 2 Maccabees to show God is omniscient. He calls Wisdom 3:1 divine scripture. Athanasius uses the deuterocanonical Book of Wisdom to defend Orthodox Christology and he calls Wisdom 14:12 scripture.
He also distinguishes the deuterocanon from Apocrypha and says, “The deuterocanon instructs us in the word of godliness.” For some of these fathers, the deuterocanon was a kind of non-canonical scripture, which is a category we just don’t have today, but they weren’t like modern Protestants who reject these books as scripture. They did not equate them with uninspired writings like the Apocrypha. Cyril of Jerusalem divided writings into three groups for example, the proto-canonical books catechumens should read, books of secondary rank new Christians or catechumens should avoid, and books that are not read in churches that catechumens should also avoid. So Cyril wanted those who were new to the faith to avoid the deuterocanonical books. The fact that he said that doesn’t mean that Cyril believed that they were uninspired because he does not equate them with the Apocrypha.
Instead, he gives advice to catechumens who are new to the faith to stick to the books that have the least amount of controversy behind them or the proto-canonical books of scripture. According to Edmund Gallagher and his book, Hebrew Scripture and Patristic Biblical Theory, Cyril himself uses and cites Wisdom and Sirach. “Cyril’s cannon list was written for catechumens, and so he may have intended his prohibition to apply to them alone as those who are unable to properly separate the wheat from the chaff.” If you want more on the deuterocanonical books of scripture, check out my book, the Case for Catholicism, Gary Michuta’s book, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger, and my debates on the deuterocanon, you can find on my channel.
Because I think you would agree that with the current Pope, not everything that he says is in alignment with the Christian faith. So if he says something about climate change or homosexuality or whatever he’s got to say that you know is not correct, by what standard are you judging? Which I would easily be like, “Well, it’s Genesis 1:27. He’s wronged about gender, he’s wrong about marriage.” That’s how we judge pastors. That’s how we judge denominational leaders. That’s how we judge any Christian. Of course, Martin Luther’s contention is that a peasant with scripture is more powerful and has more authority than a pope or a priest without it. So I guess that would be my question. That’s really the sola scriptura contention is by what standard do you measure the rightness of what a priest or pope says?
I would be demanding a gigantic Zack Morris timeout at this point. The standard by which we judge anyone in regards to theology is what God has revealed. That revelation is given to us in sacred scripture and sacred tradition and is kept safe and explained to us through the teaching of the church or the magisterium. So we would ask in these cases, “What does Christ’s church teach?” When it comes to climate change, the church teaches we are not bound to accept prudential judgements of church leaders in the same way we must submit to teachings about faith and morals. When it comes to gender, I have no idea what Stuckey is talking about because Pope Francis has said gender theory and ideology is one of the worst forms of ideological colonialism and the Pope stridently opposes gender theory. Also, there’s just no way scripture can be a Christian’s ultimate judge because Christians interpret scripture differently.
Stuckey also contradicts herself here because she says scripture is the ultimate authority, but she admits each church has local autonomy to decide what scripture means. I mean, a liberal Christian could just say to Stuckey, “Yeah, Genesis says God made male and female, but where does the Bible say that you can’t change from one to the other? A man becomes a woman just as a gentile can become a Jew.” Now, I’m not endorsing that kind of argument. I’m just saying given how new transgender ideology is, it’s not easy to find an explicit condemnation of it in scripture which casts doubt on Stuckey’s claim that scripture can really be the church’s final authority since every church, if not every believer decides what scripture means.
Stuckey’s view seems to be that it’s better to have a bunch of churches disagree and debate each other than to have all of them agree because they might all be wrong. Now, Stuckey and I probably agree a lot on free markets and the evils of government central planning, but when the central planner is God, I’m willing to go with a hierarchical system that has his divine protection instead of some kind of theological free market.
Take the current Pope, which I’ll throw in some deliberate controversy, but basically the Pope came out the other day a while back and said the death penalty was inadmissible, right? Now, what does inadmissible actually mean? It’s wonderfully ambiguous, but basically this cannot be church doctrine and the reason that it cannot be church doctrine, right, so it cannot be an infallible statement from the Pope is because scripture and countless ecumenical councils and tradition speak to the fact that the death penalty is clearly not inadmissible.
I know the Pope and the death penalty, it’s controversial, but we should really put all the options on the table, especially for Protestants who are wondering about whether they should become Catholic or not. So you could say the Pope is just wrong and teaching a false doctrine, but he’s not teaching infallibly. Other views are that the Pope isn’t teaching doctrine at all. He’s making a prudential judgment about the death penalty that Catholics should give respectful consideration but don’t have to follow like doctrine. Or the Pope is teaching a true social doctrine that’s applied differently over time. For example, the church and the Bible allowed for slavery in limited settings, especially when the alternative for many people would’ve been starvation, but now we would say slavery is never permissible, so whatever approach you find makes the most sense, even if there are different approaches, I would just recommend if you’re explaining this, especially to a Protestant, offer as many possible explanations for a difficulty, whether it’s a difficulty involving something the Pope says, the magisterium teaches, the Bible says, issue in systematic theology.
Present all the options on the table and let a person who is considering the faith decide which one seems most plausible to them. Another way to approach the question, “How do you judge the Pope?” Is to say the question being asked involves a contradiction. Asking, “What if the Pope Infallibly teaches error?” Is like asking, “What if the Bible formally teaches error?” The answer in both cases is it doesn’t. You can find similar alleged contradictions in the Bible over time, just as you can find alleged contradictions in magisterial teachings over time, and we would respond to both allegations by showing the text is being applied in an overly rigid way in order to make a contradiction that doesn’t exist or the critic isn’t allowing the expression of a doctrine to develop over time.
Protestants would say the Trinity, the afterlife, and even monotheism are only faintly taught in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible and then become explicit later in the Bible. I would just say that those same explanations related to the development of doctrine should be allowed for Catholic doctrine and magisterial teaching and not just rejected as some kind of way to explain away the data. Protestants and Catholics should be able to use the same kinds of explanations when difficulties are presented against our theological systems.
Scripture is inherent. The Catholic Church teaches this. Tradition is not granted the same inherency right as scripture, and I’m sure there’s going to be somebody out there… By the way, I’m going to get fact checked on some of this stuff, but basically tradition is not granted the same inherency as scripture, but tradition forms the basis for the interpretation of scripture, and so this is why, for example, when talking about sola scriptura, I go back to those first 400 years and say the oral traditions of Christianity in those first four centuries were the teaching authority of the church.
If Farmer means tradition with a lowercase T like customs or common theological opinions that change over time, then he is correct, but if he’s talking about God’s word in sacred scripture and sacred tradition, then he’s incorrect. Sacred tradition is God’s unwritten word, so it’s without error. The Second Vatican Council taught the following, “There exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and sacred scripture for both of them flowing from the same divine wellspring in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end, for sacred scripture is the word of God in as much as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine spirit. While sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the apostles and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it, preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known consequent.”
“Consequently, it is not from sacred scripture alone that the church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore, both sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.” Scripture is inspired in a way, sacred tradition is not because tradition includes unwritten truths lived out in the church’s life and liturgy, whereas scripture includes specific divinely inspired words, but something can be infallible without being inspired, even though Protestants often assume something can only be infallible if it is inspired.
The Nestorian crisis said, led by Bishop Nestorius, said that Christ was two persons and it was two natures within Christ. It could not… And this was the whole… And I’m really abbreviating here and there’s a lot more literature written on this by much better people than me, but it is worth looking into this because basically what this was saying is that Christ was two natures, right? He was his human nature and he was his divine nature, right? And what the church eventually came to define was that Christ could not be two natures. He had to be one nature, right? Hypostatically unified, right? Which is what the Creeds… Exactly.
Farmer probably misspoke here. To say Christ has only one nature is the heresy of Monophusitism. The church teaches Christ is one person with a fully human nature and a fully divine nature. Nestorianism was an overreaction to the Monophysites. It tried so hard to show that Christ has two natures and ended up saying Christ is two persons, a human nature in Jesus and a divine nature in the Logos morally united to the human Jesus. So this really needs to be cleared up, but Farmer is on the right track because once you admit Mary is the mother of God, Theotokos, you build a foundation that makes the other Marian dogmas at least more understandable.
Yes, I make intercession to you, but not because of I’m closer to God, not because I have greater authority, not because I have any special place or privilege, but simply because I am a fellow saint and we are told that the prayer of a righteous person has great power in the Book of James and that power comes through Christ. I don’t see any biblical support for this idea that we can pray to dead people whether they be saints or whether they be Mary, and that their proximity or that their good deeds or whatever it was, gives them the power to take our prayers to God and honestly, I don’t even see the need for that. Why pray to Mary when Jesus, we are told repeatedly in the New Testament, is our mediator?
So a lot can be said here, but this reminds me of the problem of explaining the papacy to Protestants. If you look at everything through sola scriptura assumptions, then the papacy will be difficult to grasp. The papacy makes more sense if you reject sola scriptura and believe the apostles’ authority continues in the bishops. In the same way, if you have a false assumption that all acts of mediation between God and man only take place between individuals and Christ, then understanding Mary or the saints as mediators will be hard to grasp. But if you remind people that, “We pray for each other, which is a kind of mediation, and that some mediators have more of an effect than others,” then it makes sense. And Farmer does a good job in the dialogue of mentioning that fact. For example, James chapter five, which Stuckey brings up, says, “The prayers of righteous people are powerful,” which shows that some prayers are more effective.
It doesn’t mean the righteous are divine, but that God listens to their prayers. We see this in Job 38 where God tells Job’s friends to ask Job to pray for them because God will hear Job’s prayers not theirs. I think this point could have been pressed a bit more because Stuckey agrees we can pray for each other, but says that’s just because of our righteousness in Christ. But clearly the verses are saying some people have more righteousness than others, so their prayers are more effective. And she also seems to assume the saints don’t know what’s happening to us and can’t pray for us. Here. I’d point to the Book of Revelation where the souls of the martyrs in heaven cry out in petition for the martyrs on earth, or Revelation 5:8 which describes how the 24 elders fell down before the lamb, each holding a harp with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
This shows people besides Jesus in heaven bringing prayers to God. I’d also ask Stuckey, “What creature does Jesus love the most?” If Stuckey said, “Jesus loves all creatures or people equally,” I’d ask, “Where does the Bible say that?” That would be an assumption, and it’s one Stuckey can’t hold as a Calvinist because she believes God has a special love for the elect because he chose for them to go to heaven and for others to not go to heaven. So if God loves some creatures more than others, wouldn’t it make sense that God loves his mother, the woman who brought the divine into the world, to inaugurate the new covenant?
Of course, to retain your salvation after baptism, one must avoid mortal sin, which is where most people-
Yeah.
Of course never-
Yeah, so I think that’s the big issue, and really it’s so interesting that we go back to the disagreements that the reformers and the Catholics have. What is grace? I think Catholics would say Ephesians 2 is very clear. “By grace, through faith, you are saved. This is not your own doing. It is not a result of works. It is a gift of God.” So again, going back to… Wow, it’s so explicit. Paul makes sure that he says it over and over again, “This is a gift,” and I think Catholics would probably say, “Well, yeah, we believe in that,” but what you just described to me is that it is grace plus merit. It is faith plus works.
We are saved through grace. I’m not arguing that we’re not saved through grace, right? The catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states that in chapter four. It says we are saved through grace, right? The sacraments are the efficacious working of that grace in the modern world. The first example of that grace is baptism the same way that you would argue as a Calvinist that irresistible grace cannot be resisted, right? That is the whole point of irresistible grace. It cannot be resisted by the human being. The infant has no methodology of resisting the grace of baptism, right? Again, it comes back to the whole methodology of baptism and how important it is to the Catholic Church.
I’m not going to go in depth on their discussion of salvation because it was a lot of talking past one another. Stuckey’s main contention was that Ephesians chapter two teaches, “We are saved by faith through grace,” and that’s not the result of works. She cites Ephesians 2:8 through 9, “For by grace you’ve been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing. It is the gift of God, not because of works, lest any man should boast.” Farmer uses the example of an infant being saved in baptism to show we’re saved by grace alone, but later on, if you grow up, works have a role to play. There was a lot of proof-texting and crosstalk. Overall, it wasn’t very helpful. When Farmer was talking about irresistible grace, that could be a little confusing. Calvinists believe that when God gives someone grace, it cannot be rejected.
When God chooses to save someone, it is absolutely impossible for that person to reject God’s offer of salvation at any moment. Catholics on the other hand believe that if God could give grace to someone so that he’s able to be in a position to accept or reject God’s offer of salvation, or he could accept God’s offer of salvation, be baptized and then reject it later, you can resist God’s grace. Saint Stephen says in Acts 7:51, to the Jewish leaders, “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always resist the Holy Spirit. As your fathers did, so do you.” In infant baptism, it’s impossible for grace to be rejected, not because of a quality of the grace, but because of the infant’s inability to rationally reject the good. But I see what Farmer was trying to do here. He’s saying, “We believe you can go to heaven without doing any works because babies who die after baptism go immediately to heaven. They don’t do anything.”
And it’s good that he said, “After baptism, the only work you must do is avoid mortal sin.” This is crucial to show… And we also need to talk about how when James says we’re justified by works, this means that our righteousness we receive from Christ increases, but works don’t cause us to go from being unsaved to saved. Ephesians 2:10 even says, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ, Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” The works in Ephesians 2 that don’t bring about initial salvation are the works of the Mosaic law, like circumcision. No works like circumcision are necessary to enter the covenant, but you can always leave the covenant through evil works like Apostacy.
But I would be interested to hear you concisely say what the gospel is because that is the indicator to me, not just if you can artic… Not just you, but anyone can articulate the gospel but if you believe in the biblical gospel.
Okay, interesting. You believe that some Catholics are saved. Is Michael Noel saved? My viewers want to know.
Well, I would have to flesh out… I mean, I think so. I would have to flesh it out with-
Get Michael here now.
Michael, Matt Walsh, a lot of Catholics of the Daily Wire.
Of course, I would just want to know what is the gospel and what do you think it takes to be saved? Because if someone tells me, “Well, it takes this, this, and this as a part of the Catholic Church to be saved,” well, then we’re both going to disagree. We’re both going to think the other one is not saved.
I would tell Stuckey the gospel is the good news of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, and how we’re saved by what Christ did. That’s it. In fact, the Bible never explicitly says what the gospel is. The closest it comes is 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says, “Now, I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preach to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand, by which you are saved if you hold it fast, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as a first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures.” So notice there’s nothing in this passage about salvation by faith alone or even putting our faith in Jesus at all.
The gospel is just what Catholics would call the Pascal mystery. That’s why I would say many non-Catholic Christians do preach the gospel, but there’s more to salvation than just the gospel, and even Protestants would admit that unless they assume the gospel is just the same thing as their sola fide, by faith alone theology, which is of course something the Bible doesn’t teach. All right, well, I hope that this helps, and I’ve actually reached out to Stuckey about having a dialogue, but I haven’t heard back. If anyone can pass that message along to her, I would really appreciate it. I’d definitely be happy to sit down with her to have a chat about these subjects and just to help keep the dialogue going. All right, thank you guys so much and yeah, I just hope you have a very blessed day.
If you like today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.