Why I and this Eastern Orthodox Apologist aren’t Protestant

In this episode Trent sits down with Eastern Orthodox apologist Craig Truglia to discuss the why they aren’t Protestant.

---

Welcome to the Council of Trend podcast, a production of Catholic answers.

Trent Horn:

Hey everyone. Welcome to the Council of Trend podcast. I’m your host Catholic answers apologist and speaker Trent Horne. In today’s episode, I want to share with you a dialogue that I had with an Eastern Orthodox apologist, Craig Trulia. So Craig and I sat down not to talk about something we fundamentally disagree about, like let’s say the papacy, but to talk about something where we have fundamental agreement, substantive agreement. That is why we both are not Protestant. Sometimes when I sit down with Protestants, I’ll ask them, why are you Protestant? Not just, why aren’t you Catholic, but why are you Protestant? I’ve noticed a lot of times the answers will be I’m Protestant because I’m not Catholic. I’ll talk about this more in my forthcoming book when Protestants Argue Like Atheists, because I feel like that this is kind of an illicit shifting of the burden of proof.

Trent Horn:

I’ve talked about that before here on the podcast, because I’ll ask them well, why are you Protestant? And I’ll hear well, I don’t believe in the papacy or I don’t believe in the dogma of the assumption of Mary. Okay. Well, why wouldn’t you be Eastern Orthodox then if your big concern is, let’s say the papacy or the dogma of the assumption of Mary, because in the Eastern church you have long standing traditions about Mary’s door mission, for example, things like that. Then I’ll ask them and I get these very light answers, and I feel like for many of these Protestants, it’s I’m Protestant because I looked at Catholicism. I’m not convinced. I’m not as familiar with east orthodoxy. Protestantism is just more comfortable. It’s what I was raised in or it’s my community. Honestly, I think that happens often. So that’s why I want to really press them on that.

Trent Horn:

I thought it would be so interesting to have another non-Catholic perspective on Protestantism, for Craig and I to be able to sit down and just chat about that. So I shared a little bit of my thoughts and then Craig actually had this very long detailed list and it’s great. So he shares it and then I hop in every now and then to say, here’s also my thoughts at that where I agree and a few points where I actually disagree with them, because you would expect that just because two people are not something, like they’re not Protestant, doesn’t mean they’re going to agree on everything else. So it was a real treat to be able to sit down with him. I hope to engage in further theological discussions with him in the future. But for now, here is our conversation, a Catholic and an Orthodox explain why they are not Protestant. Check it out.

Craig Trulia:

So I’m not sure if the reason you have that you’re not Protestant is the overwhelming evidence against it. But how about you start unpack for us your reasonings and then we’ll go into mine and we’ll interject and do it all together at that point.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. So I’ll be brief then about the reasons for me. What’s interesting is that my reasons might be different from other people who are Catholic, who, like you said, maybe they grew up in the Catholic church. So they’re not Protestant because they have that kind of inertia of being Catholic. They’ve never seen a reason to leave the church that they love. But for me, being a convert is very different and especially a convert from deism. So when I was in junior high and high school, I believe there was a God out there, but I didn’t subscribe to any religion. So I approached Christianity from kind of this neutral vantage point. So I was first convinced of mere Christianity. Like, look, if I investigate philosophy and history, there is a God. He raised Jesus from the dead.

Trent Horn:

Christianity is true, but then now what do I do? So one of the reasons, probably the biggest reason that I’m not Protestant is I don’t see how you can get across the gap from mere Christianity, there is a God and Jesus rose from the dead, to what I would call mere Protestantism. You have a 27 book cannon of the New Testament. Divine revelation is found explicitly and only there. Divine revelation ended. Public revelation ended in the first century. This is a very specific cannon. This is the authority for Christians, a sole infallible rule of faith, what you might call mere Protestantism. One reason that I’m not Protestant is that I don’t see how you can get the gap from your Christianity to that authority structure playing by the rules of Protestantism. I don’t see sola scriptura in scripture or in church history, especially amongst the apostolic fathers.

Trent Horn:

When I look at Protestants who try to cite sola scriptura, it’s usually from post-nicing fathers, not from anti-nicing. Maybe they get one thing out of [inaudible 00:04:54], but that’s it. But tradition and Episcopal authority, it all seems very clear to me. So I can’t get from the gap from mere Christianity to mere Protestantism without something like sacred tradition or an authoritative teaching office in a hierarchical church. If I get those things to get me to let’s say the cannon and the new Testament, I’ve now gone past mere Protestantism by invoking another authority. So for me, when I dialogue with a Protestant about, well, here’s why I don’t accept the papacy, these biblical proof texts aren’t enough. There’s not enough support in, let’s say the anti nicine fathers. It’s too ambiguous. Well, if that’s not good enough to prove the papacy, it’s not good enough to prove mere Protestant authority, the 27 book cannon in the New Testament, coupled with sole scriptora, the purpose perspicuity of scripture.

Trent Horn:

Then I also think now I know that some Protestants don’t like hearing this, that it sounds cliche, Patrick Madrid once said that sola scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy. I wouldn’t necessarily put it that far, but I had my dialogue with the other Paul and father James from Barely Protestant. We were talking about, well, are Protestants in agreement about essential doctrines. Really that dialogue was interesting. I feel like the other Paul said, well, no, but that doesn’t matter. Father James said, yeah, but you just have to define a Protestant as being everybody who believed things in like the first 75 years of Protestantism. Even then, there are also important disagreements, but you redefine it so much, and I just don’t think that works because evangelicals outnumber historic Protestants now two to one in the US.

Trent Horn:

When people say Protestant, they mean evangelical non-denominational.

Craig Trulia:

Yep.

Trent Horn:

If they’re not Protestants, I want to know what are these people. What term are we going to use? For me, if you try to distinguish them, they’re evangelicals, rather than Protestants. They’re using really the same sola scriptura methodology. They’ve just chosen to accept some traditions and not others, but they’re using sola scriptura in that regard. So it creates these kinds of really … you don’t have the essentials. You don’t have unity and the essentials. I believe that Christ would give us a visible means of at least understanding the essentials of the faith that we need to have. Let’s see, I’ve got one or two other things here. It’s also hard to say why I’m not Protestant. It’s because it’s such a big target.

Trent Horn:

Cause if I wasn’t Catholic, I’d be Orthodox. And if I wasn’t Orthodox, I’d probably be Anglican or something like that. But for a lot of Protestantism, to me, it contradicts what’s in scripture. I think Calvinism clearly does. A lot of things where scripture exhorts us to do something or to avoid something, there’s contradictions there, especially with the sacraments about works really justifying us. They really do increase our righteousness before God in cooperation with Christ of course. The other two would be a lack of a sense of the liturgy of the Christian tradition coming to us, not just through the written word, but that the liturgy is a way of receiving that apostolic truth and transmitting it, that it’s not just something we do on Sundays. That’s really like the beating heart of the faith. Then just its lack of historical connection.

Trent Horn:

I’m actually really interested. I know Gavin Ortland’s been doing a lot more work on this. I think he’s going to write a book on it. Because I think Protestants have not tried to take the father seriously, and I know he has. I fundamentally disagree with him on a lot of his interpretation of the fathers, but that historical disconnect for many forms, especially of evangelicalism or non-denominational, that’s very difficult for me. If you’re going to do something, like make an argument from silence against something like the assumption of Mary, I think that’s incredibly fatal to the central pillars of Protestantism that you also do not find, not just in the apostolic church, but many of those doctrines like eternal security. You don’t find until you get to Calvin or forensic justification. So yeah, I don’t know. So that’s a lot that I’ve thrown out there.

Trent Horn:

On the liturgy thing, maybe I’ll put this at the bottom level because our most important reasons should come first. Like I said, if I picked among Protestantism, it’d be a high church thing I’d go with. When I was first investigating Christianity, I went to some Protestant churches. They were like non-denominational evangelical and it always felt kind of hip and trying to be almost commercial or trying to wow me with a good product. Not to downplay Protestants who are very faithful and they are. If anything, Protestants … if I look at graphic design, I can know whether it’s Protestant or Catholic, because if it’s good, it’s probably made by a Protestant. And if it’s cheesy or not good, it’s probably made by a Catholic.

Craig Trulia:

If it doesn’t exist, it’s Orthodox.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. Right. If it’s just etched out on a multicolored candelabra somewhere, then it’s Orthodox. But when I went, it was just like, oh … I remember once I went to a church where it was a converted storage facility. So it was like, they took an old … you go to a U-Haul storage, and it’s got all the little U-Haul … you drive in a big U-Haul facility, you drive your truck in, there’s all these little pods with these storage facilities. So this church bought it and they converted each of the pods into, it was one campus with like five churches in it. So it’s like one church. But if you go to this building, it’s white vestments and linens and traditional hymns. And if you go to the other building on the property, it’s rock and roll, and another property is a coffee shop and the sermon is played on the TV.

Trent Horn:

I’m not saying every Protestant church is like this, obviously, but that sense of when I would go to these churches, I felt like how it’s too slick. It’s too slick. Everyone’s really nice and impeccably dressed and coming to greet me and talk to me. I was almost relieved when I went to a Catholic church and somebody just handed me the worship aid and no one talked to me, and I just kind of walked in and it’s not slick in that regard. Cause I felt there’s almost kind of an authenticity in that respect. I feel like in the [inaudible 00:11:36] communities, whether it’s Catholic or Orthodox, you have that more ancient sense and something that is adopted more modern understandings of what’s aesthetics, if you will. So that’s what I’ll throw out there and I’d love to hear yours, and I’ll jump in every now and then for concurrences or dissent.

Craig Trulia:

Please drop in because they always have me on this channel. They don’t always have you. So just from the onset, I want to talk about, there’s common reasons why people stay Orthodox and Catholic, which aren’t intellectually compelling, but the real world are compelling, even if there’s not this super high mindedness about it. A lot of Orthodox and Catholics stay as such because their family has been such forever, family ties. They don’t see any pressing reason to leave. They’re following Christ. They’re going to church. They’re worshiping. They love God. In a humble way, they’re like, all right, why do I need something else? I’m happy where I am.

Craig Trulia:

I think something that you never hear in apologetics, but is very important in the real world, is that Orthodox and Catholicism offers spiritual support. What do I mean by this? You could go to confession. There’s a liturgical calendar with fasts and holidays where you start to get a life rhythm that’s around the gospel. So without even thinking too hard about it. It’s a Friday. Because you fast that day, you know well, Christ died for me this day, and it informs how you act, how you live. It’s funny how we think with out stomach so much.

Trent Horn:

It’s interesting to see Protestants kind of adopting this stuff. Protestants will talk more about lent or it’s interesting. When I read somebody like Alexander [inaudible 00:13:28], who wrote the Two Babylons. That’s the 19th century source for all the Jack Chick fundamentalism stuff out there, Alexander [inaudible 00:13:36], the Two Babylons. He tries to say, look, Catholicism is rehash paganism, but he’s not like a modern Protestant because he’ll say Christmas and Easter are pagan. The Bible doesn’t talk about celebrating Easter. Doesn’t talk about celebrating Christ’s birth. So it’s fascinating to me that the more original Protestants would … well, it depends, right? You have the first generation of the reformation, like Lutherans and Anglicans still retaining things like the liturgical calendar. Then you get more into the 19th century Calvinist and other rise of fundamentalism, really outright rejecting this stuff. But then more of its resurgence coming back, because it is good for us, like you said, and people have a natural affinity for it.

Craig Trulia:

And why leave? You’re just used to it. You’re being fed spiritually.

Trent Horn:

Yeah.

Craig Trulia:

Why would someone leave? People are making comments and the Eucharist, they live for the Eucharist every Sunday. So you’re being fed both spiritually and physically. So people just feel this draw, they keep coming and no reason to leave. I think one thing which you were hinting at about Protestantism, which you don’t really have as much. There is diversity, internal diversity of course, in Orthodoxy and Catholicism, is the general keywords general uniformity between parishes. So I could get a change of venue. Let’s say something happens with the priest here or whatever, or I have kids and then there’s a new priest town with a family and there’s more family support there. I could change parishes without my whole life being upended. Now there’s new doctrines and everything.

Trent Horn:

Yeah.

Craig Trulia:

So there’s a sort of repeatability, even though there’s eternal diversity, but far less diversity, which you’re going to get in Protestantism because epidemic reasons. Even within Lutheranism, we can have more eternal diversity. Doesn’t matter that they’re all Lutheran. They’ll be all over to place. It’s because quite frankly, it’s edifice built on sola scriptura.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. You’ll have some Protestants that are in the same church, but the church ends up splitting over homosexuality. Even among Catholics, we some wonky priests and one wonky Cardinal, but the teaching is understood and you know someone’s dissenting from it and others are not. But you still go and you still have the universal catechism for every church. I think that’s a good point.

Craig Trulia:

I think honestly, because the center point of our worship is the Eucharist, it’s sort of, you could look past the homolytics to some degree if, even if they’re pretty bad, because that’s not the most important thing. But in Protestantism, it’s the other way around. They’ll commune anyone, but they’re not going to let anyone preach because that’s the center of their worship.

Trent Horn:

Yeah.

Craig Trulia:

Now, before I get to my reasons for not being Protestant, let me give what I perceive to be common reasons for leaving Protestantism among other people. One would be love for church history. People just get kind of obsessed with this. It’s important if it informs your understanding of the scripture and worship and helps you grow in humility and repentance, but it could be excessive and almost becomes a kind of factoid thing. I’ve heard people say, I could tell people become Orthodox, that they’re into history.

Craig Trulia:

So it’s a common reason. It’s not terribly spiritual, so it’s something people should be mindful of. Also, I hear a lot among both Roman Catholics and Orthodox is this kind of desire for epistemic certainty. It says, how do we know the scriptures are true? Well, we have an infallible authority that could determine what they mean, but as I’ve said elsewhere, that’s sort of like kicking the can down the road. All right. So then what interprets infallible authority? But it is a huge reason why a lot of people will leave Protestantism, and it’s something where I think for intellectual reasons is not all compelling, because there’s a problem of interpretation, because we’re all fallible people.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. I don’t like that argument when it’s pushed too hard. For me, it’s more, I have a better chance at arriving at these truths and having a foundation through a Catholic epistemology than a Protestant one. So I put it almost even more probabilistically than just … I agree, you don’t want to over overstretch that argument.

Craig Trulia:

I think the last one, which is actually I think a good one, is a love for the church. People read the scriptures, they see the body of Christ being referred to. It’s a literal body. It speaks of there’s different members or different gifts. They see that there’s actual ordination of bishops and they have a role they’re ordained by other bishops and they want the scriptures teached. They want what’s really there. So, that’s a very common reason. They have this love for the church and the church is the body of Christ. So why not?

Trent Horn:

Well, I think the other thing is they love the church, but I think one of the reasons that I’m not Protestant is that when I read scripture and look at the early fathers, the church is not merely the invisible bond that exists between the baptized. So I feel like that if you love the church, that’s very difficult in Protestantism when the word church has such a minimal understanding to it. That if it really is just the bond that exists between Christians, well, in Protestantism, that can’t possibly have authority over me, since everybody disagrees on so many things. I know you’ll bring up the point about schism later, which I think is super important that if you have the church, it’s like, okay, as long as we’re all Christian, whatever that means to people, then you can have all kinds of disagreements and lack of communion with other people. Calling it a church, the word really loses its meaning, I think, unless you have some kind of sacred order. So the word hierarchy means a sacred order within it. So I think that you’re right. If someone loves the church and you ask about Protestant ecclesiology, it’s kind of bare bones, what you’ll find.

Craig Trulia:

We’ll unpack that in way more detail. So now finally, my reasons why I’m not, and I think this is a real obvious one. So I’ll start with this. No Protestant sect really does everything the scriptures require. You think that’s a kind of basic thing, but no Protestant sect does this. We have confession, but pretty much there’s order for confession. Let’s say Lutherans, but no one really does it. Anglicans technically have confession, but no one really does it. It’s mostly in disuse. That’s why it’s increasing disuse in orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism is a kind of protestation of our faith, which is bad. Because what do the scriptures say? 1 John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”

Craig Trulia:

So why would we not have confession? It’s so common for people to say, I’m not going to confess my sins. Other person that’s not necessary for a salvation. Haven’t you read the Bible, this what the Bible talks about? You know, don’t we want to confess, we read about this James five 16 that we confess to the elders. And so which is presbyters, which is the Greek word priest. So people know. So that being said, it seems to me that yeah. All right. For a Protestant act, doesn’t let me actually do what the scripture say.

Trent Horn:

Well, what’s interesting is when you look in the new … I would ask the Protestant, where does the New Testament tell us to confess our sins to God or to confess our sins to Jesus? It doesn’t say that. It says to confess our sins, but in each context it’s talking about to other people. James five is the presbyters, the priests. 1 John 1:9, I see Protestants quote this all the time. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive our sins. The assumption is that well, because God will forgive our sins, we must be confessing our sins to God. That’s not warranted in the passage because, if you look at the verses before and after it’s talking about when we are saying things in public to other people. Verse eight, if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves.

Trent Horn:

And verse 10, if we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar. It’s talking about when we tell other people whether we are or aren’t a sinner. So John is saying here, look, don’t tell other people you’re not a sinner. Tell other people your sins. So it’s very clear here. Of course with John 20:23 with the apostles having this unique story. But I think that’s a great point that the Bible would give us very clear what do we do if we grievously sin after we have been baptized?

Trent Horn:

Sure. It happens to people. You’d think Christ would give us an answer to that, and he does in this sacrament.

Craig Trulia:

It’s because in a modern context, the ancient form of confession, [inaudible 00:23:11] communion is much muted. [inaudible 00:23:14] Jesus, the confession sense was a public affair in the early church.

Trent Horn:

Right.

Craig Trulia:

The absolution was given by a priest, but it was a public kind of penance. There’s a public confession and St. Ambrose talks about it. It would be so that way the people in the parish could pray for you and for your sin or you’re a kneeler. So they know, all right, he did this sort of sin. That’s what they need help with.

Trent Horn:

Right.

Craig Trulia:

And you could see, well, when the church became more widespread and not persecuted anymore, it kind of like, well, you don’t want everyone knowing Mr. Smith’s business, because they’re going to use that against them politically, and confession became increasingly private. In Orthodoxy, there’s still confession in front of people, but you whisper in the priest ear. So you could kind of see the visages of the earlier practice. But that’s why you would read the passage from 1 John.

Craig Trulia:

You would read the passage from 1 John, and someone in the first, second, third, fourth century would know exactly what it’s talking about because there is a public audience. To not confess your sins in front of them would be to be a liar because everyone’s doing it. Because we’re divorced from that context, increasingly so even just visually, people can’t make the connection.

Craig Trulia:

Now, another thing I think is, again, the scriptures say we ought to be doing these things but you don’t really see in Protestantism. It’s just like the Eucharist. Jesus Christ says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” in John 6:53. You think, “Okay. I have to be very careful to spiritualize this passage and I think it doesn’t actually pertain to eating his flesh and blood,” which he says is the bread and wine.

Craig Trulia:

So that’s why I have to say, is it morally safe to not commune when the literal and simplest interpretation, we’re talking about the perspecuity of scriptures, literal and simplest interpretation of the scriptures demand that this pertains to the Eucharist. All right. Let’s just be honest. Perspicuity of the scriptures only applies when it disagrees with Orthodox and Catholic doctrines, so that makes the Protestants inconsistent. They will invoke perspicuity when, “Oh, I don’t see the Assumption in Revelation 12. I don’t see the Ark of the Covenant as the Theotokos. I don’t understand that typology. The scriptures are simpler.” But yet-

Trent Horn:

Or purgatory and things like that.

Craig Trulia:

… with the Eucharist, it doesn’t apply anymore.

Trent Horn:

Yeah.

Craig Trulia:

I also think just generally, just look at the scriptures. When they speak of self-examination and Eucharistic piety, you actually take serious that the sacrament can kill you if you commune unworthily. Does any Protestant really believe this? Like, they’re giving commune to everyone. I know Protestant teachers that give communion to people that aren’t baptized. None of them seriously believed you could get sick and die as St. Paul talks about in 1 Corinthians 11. As they claim, well, “Faith is what saves us. The Eucharist contributes nothing to salvation.” Then why would you ever commune if it could kill you?

Trent Horn:

No. What I don’t like, and I think Protestants should be mindful of this, is sometimes when we’re investigating these issues, I feel like a Protestant will start with the presumption that baptism is for showing that I’m a Christian or the Eucharist symbolizes my relationship with Christ, and the Catholic and Orthodox say different. If they can’t make their case, then I’m fine sticking with my presumption here.

Trent Horn:

But well, to me, you’re right. Well, no, that presumption should be, why are we starting there? Why wouldn’t we start with, let’s say, John 6, just starting with what the text literally says. I think for many Protestants, they will say John 6 can’t mean what it sounds like because we don’t have a sacramental priesthood. For me, I would say, well, maybe you should reconsider the necessity of the priesthood then.

Craig Trulia:

Well, a lot of people find themselves reinventing the wheel and starting to add elements if they’re not already Anglicans and communions which have this… magisterial Protestants, for lack of a better term.

Trent Horn:

Yeah.

Craig Trulia:

Now, let me talk about another sacrament that the scripture say exists, but you just don’t see it in the real world, generally, among Protestants, and that’s unction. James 5:14-15, “Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, let them pray over him, anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith will save the sick.” So it seems to me a pretty obvious thing the scriptures talk about, which you almost never see anywhere. I’m going to presume maybe the Anglicans have it. I’m not sure. I’m going to guess that they do. I know the Lutherans don’t. So people know this sort of Baptist church, my mother-in-law goes to, they actually have a bottle of olive oil and will do it. So I’m not saying it doesn’t exist anywhere. But the list of my reasonings is you don’t find any Protestant sect really doing all of these things that the scriptures talk about, and that should concern people. Why don’t they do all of these things?

Trent Horn:

Yeah. It’s strange it’s not universal. Like, nearly all Protestants, except for like the Salvation Army, practice baptism. They disagree what it means, but they will baptize or they’ll offer communion. But the scripture seems very clear where it talks about this happening a lot, that when people get sick, you receive unction, the anointing of the sick. But you’re right. That, and confession, those are the rarities when they should be as common as baptism or communion.

Craig Trulia:

I think just so Protestants watching this are aware that the… Because I actually don’t know. You could let us know, Trent, how the Roman Catholics exactly do it. But I could tell you the Orthodox, the Orthodox still do healing with oil. By a default, pretty much every Wednesday before Pascha, they do it. There’s some that do it more frequently. I knew a parish who would do it. Once every three months, they’d have an unction service. There was actually a Roman Catholic parish where I grew up in Mahopac, New York, and I lived like three houses down. They had a healing service every Thursday, and true story, it worked. Now I probably just presumed, “Those Roman Catholics,” I was only 16 at the time. But that being said, I presume it was just blessed oil and not unction because it wasn’t a priest each time. But the point is, at least in my limited experience, I’ve seen Roman Catholics trying to do this thing. Obviously, they give unction when people are close to death. But let me ask you, Trent, does unction exist among Roman Catholics just like when people are sick?

Trent Horn:

Oh, yeah, well, absolutely. Not just when people are sick, but the catechism says that the anointing of the sick can also be given to people who are going in, let’s say, for like a major surgery. Now, some Catholics mistakenly think that anointing of the sick is only like when you’re five minutes away from death, and that’s not the case. It’s for severe sickness, even for undergoing a major surgery. The catechism is clear that the sacrament is efficacious in both providing spiritual healing for a person and physical healing if it is God’s will for that person, that if it is his plan for them that through the oil, they will be healed. But yeah, that seems very clear to me. It is unfortunate you don’t see a lot of these things, and of course, the counterpart being confirmation, the oil that strengthens after baptism, not seeing that really in Protestantism either is unfortunate.

Craig Trulia:

Now, I’m going to try to stick in the sort of sacramental order, so I’m going to skip one of my bullet points and just mention, for example, chrismation you see in Acts 18:8, 16-17. They don’t receive the Holy Spirit until they apostles lay hands on them, even though after they’ve been baptized and everything in Samaria, if I remember right.

Trent Horn:

Yeah.

Craig Trulia:

And Protestants don’t do this. They’ll dunk people in water. There’s no chrismation. It seems again, to me, just not doing everything the scripture say, and this is one of my reasons for being Orthodox. I can actually go somewhere and see everything that’s in the scriptures.

Craig Trulia:

Here’s the funny one. Speaking in tongues. Now, obviously the Pentecostals have their version of speaking in tongues, though St. Irenaeus would call it the monoca, these undecipherable languages. But just so people are aware, Orthodox will regularly do litanies, read the scriptures, and do Paschal greetings in multiple languages with known translations. So you actually have speaking in a different tongue and a translation, what 1 Corinthians 12 to 14 talks about. Just so people know, this is not an American thing. For example, here’s a tradition. You could watch the Moscow Paschal liturgy, and on Pascha, you try to find someone that could read a gospel passage in as many languages as possible. Obviously, Moscow’s a big city. They could have like insane amount of languages.

Craig Trulia:

But when I was at Herkimer, New York, we had Russian, Ukrainian, Slavonic, Bulgarian, Kamai, German, French, and English. That’s eight languages. So you could be in just Herkimer, New York and they’re doing the same thing. So we actually do have speaking in tongues, and my apologies, yeah, we’re reading the scriptures. We’re talking about real revelation in different languages. We’re saying Christ is risen in different languages. So it seems to me, I could actually go somewhere and see legitimate speaking in tongues that no one appreciates outside the Orthodox communion because it’s just not insane.

Trent Horn:

Well-

Craig Trulia:

It’s just normal speak in other languages.

Trent Horn:

Right. Okay. So what is your understanding then of normally this would be called glossalgia and it would be people moved by the Holy Spirit, speaking a language that others don’t understand because it seems to me that’s what Paul is describing in Corinthians. He gives prescriptions for how to do that so people will not think that they’ve lost their minds. Because it does seem to me like speaking in tongues, because there are charismatic Catholics who do this, that in many cases it does occur in a language people don’t understand. Do you not agree with that? Or…

Craig Trulia:

Orthodoxy doesn’t have a charismatic movement. So we would understand those to be decipherable languages. Now, this kind of gets to a later point that I’m going to make. But I’ll just say briefly, we do believe that there’s saints, like saints in living memory in the 20th century. I don’t know who alive does this right now, but I’m sure they’re out there. We believe there’s saints that could converse in other languages that they don’t know and could understand other languages they don’t know. So, we see this as a gift of interpretation and translation or the ability to actually speak a language you don’t know. So it’s always an actual human language.

Trent Horn:

I see.

Craig Trulia:

It’s just there’s no charismatic movement.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. That would parallel to me what you are describing the experience at Pentecost in Acts 2, where you preach and everyone understands their own native language. But to me, that’s just what the point that I would add is I don’t discount glossalgia. I see that as having an ancient element there as well. But in any case, just a minor point.

Craig Trulia:

I just want to bring up, because there’s a comment here on the topic that there’s… I forget what it’s called. I think they call it yaya or something. There’s this sort of they sing the liturgy and then afterwards they just start continuing singing, but it’s just more like you start humming and you’re kind of making up words. So I think it’s called mumble rap is a thing these days. It’s kind of the Orthodox version in that. It’s different. So people conflating it, this… No, it is a different thing. It’s Orthodox mumble rap, perhaps.

Craig Trulia:

But anyway, again, we’re still not done with the Bible yet. The scriptures have ordination of apostolic succession, but this doesn’t exist at all within Protestantism with perhaps the exception of the Anglicans. Now, what’s Titus 1:5 say? “I left you behind in Crete for this reason, so that you should put in order what remained to be done and should appoint elders in every town as I directed you.” So you have St. Paul appointing Titus, and Titus appointing other people. We’re going to apply the regulative principle. That’s apostolic succession. Let’s-

Trent Horn:

Well, it’s interesting. The Bible never describes someone becoming an elder or a bishop by just assuming the office. Think about it. How can you become a pastor in just, say, broad Protestantism, mere Protestantism. How do you become a pastor or an elder? Well, you get hired in a church, oftentimes, but you can start your own. You can just say, “I am a pastor,” under your own authority to do that. But the Bible never lays out a direction for anyone to do that. In order to have pastoral authority in the church, you must receive it by having the laying on of hands from others who have who have already received it, and they’re instructed to not do so in a hasty way. So I do think that it’s problematic understanding of church because the letter to the Hebrews, it says… Well, actually here’s what’s funny.

Trent Horn:

Okay. I was watching a video. I don’t know. It was The Dividing Line a long time ago with James White. He was talking to these Protestant guys who were off their rockers, basically. They were criticizing him. He was at a live event, and he was talking with them. He asked them, he said, “Who are you guys?” I want to say it’s Hebrews 13. It says, “Submit to your elders for they been placed with authority over you.” And he asked them, “Who is your elder?” And they say, “Jesus is our elder,” and James White just totally dismissed that. He said, “You got to be rooted in your local church. You can’t be like these guys.” I’m like, well, I don’t think he’s got a good foundation to say something like that, really. When people can form their own authority by reading scripture and saying I’m carrying out what scripture says, that you can’t follow out what the Bible says. It doesn’t say, “Cling to a particular set of written documents that are canonical. Obey, submit to your elders.” Ignatius of Antioch, “Follow the Bishop.” It’s completely foreign from modern Protestantism.

Craig Trulia:

You not only have if they were really Sola Scriptura, they wouldn’t ordain people apart from how the scriptures actually talk about it. Ordination, apostolic succession. Our first extra biblical document, 1 Clement, someone who was actually named in Philippians chapter four, so he’s at least a pretty good authority on some stuff because he knew an apostle, explicitly condemns self-ordained leaders. Explicitly condemns it. That’s our earliest… That’s actually the whole point of the letter. That’s its topic. So imagine having not only a non-biblical ecclesiology, but historically speaking, oh, we have context from the fathers as a guy like Dr. Ortlund would say, he gets some sort of context from this. The first historical document that exists and likely predates even a few books of scripture, explicitly condemns how he and so many of the Protestants are alleged religious leaders. That to me is very concerning. Why can’t we just do what the scriptures say?

Craig Trulia:

My other proof text for this would be 2 Timothy 2:2. And it says, “and the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” So literally our model in the scriptures is the doctrine of the apostles of St. Paul. It’s given to Timothy, and then Timothy is instructed now to give this to other faithful men. That is our model. It’s not some guy alone in the woods with a Bible or some self-ordained pastor or just someone who learns to interpret things well. That is our model. You’re supposed to get that information from someone with apostolic succession. That’s what’s actually in the scriptures.

Trent Horn:

Here’s the other thing, if Sola Scriptura were true, and this goes back to Protestants who say there’s not enough biblical evidence for the papacy or apostolic succession, if Sola Scriptura were true, wouldn’t we see the Bible talk about, at least hinting towards there is going to be a future time when the scriptures will be the sole infallible rule of faith? Like, it amazes me that this is the formal principle of the Reformation. This is a central pillar of Protestantism, yet the biblical and historical evidence for Sola Scriptura is scant, really. I know there’s people in the comments. I’ve got the three volume… Actually it’s scattered amongst my bookshelves, the three volumes, the King and Webster Holy Scripture, their three-volume study in Sola Scriptura. But reading through that, I’m like, wow, you really have to mine one Bible verse and a few apostolic fathers.

Trent Horn:

Honestly, that’s why I have a lot of respect for someone like Gavin Ortlund, who just says, “Yeah, we don’t really see this clearly in scripture.” But I’ve noticed more Protestants making these kinds of logical arguments for Sola Scriptura, trying to say it would just make sense that we would have this kind of authority, but what’s good for the geese, good for the gander. It’s like, okay. I think that would make sense that God would give us his Word in a written and unwritten form, and that if he had covenants, where you have those who are mediating for us, it doesn’t take away from Christ being the one mediator. But it seems clear that scripture continues that. In the Old Covenant you had the high priest, the ministerial priests, and then you had the laypeople. Christ is now the new high priest, and we are the lay people, a kingdom of priests. But there’s no reason to think the ministerial priesthood has been done away with. And actually, as you’ve showed, evidence in scripture that it’s quite active.

Craig Trulia:

Now, I’m going to kind of rapid fire somewhat some of these other reasons from the scriptures. In Orthodoxy, we can pray for the dead. Like, we’ve seen 2 Timothy 1:16. We still have head coverings like you read about in 1 Corinthians 11. It’s not completely in disuse though among the Greeks and the OCA. There’s issues. But there’s still head coverings in Orthodoxy for women. Men still, for example, will remove their hats when reading the gospel and the consecration. This is important for me because we found the scriptures in Orthodoxy, there’s no doctrine of “no more miracle since the ending of enscripturation,” which is just a totally made up doctrine. Like, Protestants try to explain the reason, other than Pentecostal, we don’t actually have people doing things like the saints do is because after enscripturation, which is of course the made up word, there is no more miracles. God is no longer speaking. We have everything we need in the scriptures.

Craig Trulia:

But Orthodox still have saints today that can interpret tongues, heal, read minds, tell the future, et cetera. Just so people know, because whenever you make these appeals to miracle, we must concede that many of these things we place under scrutiny are not going to the convince skeptics. All right. I’m just saying. Orthodox actually believe in the things the scriptures say happen are still happening. That’s my point. We could take the scriptures at their word, but I just think we should have humility because miracles tend not to be very convincing to outsiders. I’m only stating that Orthodox believe that they’re real.

Craig Trulia:

So, let me give my conclusion on this topic. I can’t think of anything the scriptures demand that the Orthodox do not do. But no Protestant does all of these things in reality, though some on paper may do some of them or most of them, like maybe Anglicans or Pentecostals to some degree. So what are the chances that Orthodoxy is not the Christianity the apostles taught when we literally do everything that the apostles demand? I think that’s a pretty basic criteria. So, those are my comments on the issue of no Protestant sect really does everything the scriptures require. Trent, do you have anything to add or should we go onto the next topic?

Trent Horn:

No, I think that I’ll clarify that it’s common. I’m actually working on another book on Protestantism, and I have a chapter on B. B. Warfield’s book, Counterfeit Miracles. There are Protestants who believe in continuationism, that miracles go up to the present day. I love their works because they call out the other camp, which are the cessationists who say, “Yeah, miracles were done in the first century.” They’ll say, “First, if you just read the Bible, you wouldn’t arrive at that conclusion. It doesn’t follow from Sola Scriptura at all, cessationism.” Then number two, the Protestants who defend cessationism, like Warfield, their arguments against Catholic or Orthodox miracles are the same as the arguments that atheists make against biblical miracles. That’s going to go in my book that’ll come out soon, When Protestants Argue like Atheists. I feel like they take this on a little bit. So I just wanted to add that point about miracles.

Craig Trulia:

Well, thank you. Thank you for adding that because I think you’re more steeped in apologetics about that stuff. I’m just giving again, my personal reasons off the cuff.

Trent Horn:

But you’re right. Those Protestants who deny the existence of miracles after the apostolic age, I really think that puts them in a bind that they have to say Pentecostals, Orthodox, and Catholics are all demonic or something. Now, I don’t believe that a miracle is proof of a sect having 100% correct theology. It couldn’t be. I think there are legitimate miracles that some Protestant groups perform. You can find these within Orthodox saints, within Catholic saints. But I do think that, let’s say, God chooses to do a miracle through a Protestant pastor. That doesn’t mean that he is affirming every single element of Protestant theology because we, Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants do share important central elements of the Christian faith. But when these kinds of miracles are performed, let’s say, there’s a Eucharistic miracle where the host becomes literal flesh, or the miracle of Fatima or something like that, then I think that points more towards… And it’s similar things you see in Orthodoxy, for example. It definitely is a stronger endorsement of a theological apparatus that precludes a lot of Protestantism, is how I would put it.

Craig Trulia:

Just so people are aware, the flavor or the kinds of miracles that are popular among Orthodox versus Roman Catholics tend to be visually different, like just so Protestants are aware. Let’s say, like stigmata’s a thing in Roman Catholicism. Doesn’t exist in Orthodoxy. Weeping icons is a thing in Orthodoxy. Roman Catholics have a kind of a different version. It’s like usually statuary sometimes. Do they have myrrh? I know there’s blood, but they have weeping versions of stuff as well.

Trent Horn:

A little bit. Yeah. I don’t know of a Catholic counterpart to the miracle of the fire in Orthodoxy, the fire in Jerusalem. That’s another one that I think would be unique there. But you’re right. I think that lends itself towards that if God does miracles, they will be culturally appropriate for people to understand the power of it. So if you have, let’s say, a stigmata would make more sense in a Latin community that has more of a devotion to an understanding of that in its art or piety versus other things. Let’s say, if a miracle occurs an Orthodoxy, it might be more in accord with the piety and cultural practices of that area.

Craig Trulia:

So that could be a whole video on its own. It’s…

Craig Trulia:

So that could be a whole video on its own as a third rail actually. And this is not about things Roman Catholics, Orthodox are different on, so I’m going to press forward. And reason number two [inaudible 00:48:16], schism is a sin and I don’t have to pretend that it’s not serious. All right? And so whenever we see schism talked about in the scriptures, it’s always bad. So it seems like, all right, if something’s bad in the scriptures, we should consider this actually bad. So in First Corinthians 1:10, if you read the New King James version, and they have the little headings for the passages, which are obviously not originally the scriptures, it’s just the translation, the publication’s opinion of what the passage is about.

Craig Trulia:

And so the verse I’m about to read is in a passage that is called “Sectarianism is sin.” All right? And so First Corinthians 1:10 states, “Now, I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing and that there be no schisms among you.” All right, so the problem that Paul is advising them not to do, these schisms, is sectarianism. Now, in Galatians 5:19-21, and this is the passage that converted me to orthodoxy. I think maybe I’m the only person in history that read this passage and converted. But this is the passage that converted me to orthodoxy. And St. Paul writes, “Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath,” so far lots of bad stuff, right? “Selfish ambitions, dissensions,” usually translated the next one is, heresies, but [inaudible 00:49:47], the Greek word literally is sects. S-E-C-T-S, I don’t know how my microphone brings out that word.

Craig Trulia:

“Envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like, of which I tell you beforehand just as I told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” And so that to me sounds like a big deal, right? We’ve got to be treating this issue like it’s a big deal. There is no denial that in all first century sources explicit on the question, they render heresies as sects, including Acts of the Apostles. And so where there’s any unambiguous mention of the Greek word, it’s always as sect. You could read it in Philo and Josephus and whatnot. That’s how the word was used. And so it’s interesting being that etymology, the study of the nature of words, in the first century some would say, “Well, this is clearly what it meant in the first century.”

Craig Trulia:

Dr. Ortlund makes an argument, because we had it in the show, “Why Are You Orthodox/Protestant?” And he argues that he can infer a different meaning in the Pauline epistles exclusively because they’re not specific enough in delineating that sects are spoken of. Which to me is sort of strange, because in Acts of the Apostles it’s unequivocal. And Philo it’s unequivocal, in Josephus. And so all right, it’s unequivocal everywhere, and so where it’s just not specific enough, I’m going to prefer the interpretation that it cannot be sect, it must just mean heresy, which is a later meaning of the word.

Trent Horn:

Right. So to jump into clarify here, what you’re saying is that Paul is saying here he’s condemning the sin of schism, which would be not giving proper recognition of authority, not yielding or submitting to a proper Christian authority, and that some people try to obscure the passage by saying, “Well, he’s talking about heresy.” Now, of course Catholics define the terms differently so I’m going to try to make it broad. Schism is not submitting to proper authority. Heresy is refusing to believe or believing in contradiction to doctrine that Christians must believe. So it seems like Dr. Ortlund and others could say, “Well, yeah, we believe the right doctrine. That’s what he’s talking about here.” And I’ll let you continue, but just to make sure [inaudible 00:52:19].

Craig Trulia:

And by the way, it’s good not to believe in wrong doctrines. So we’d agree with him. But the question is, what we’re seeing Paul actually saying, if we just went by the simplest etymological answer, it’d be sectarianism is that damnable sin, which those who do such and who practice such do not inherit the kingdom of God. And they’ll-

Trent Horn:

It’s not merely that they believe false doctrine. It’s that by refusing to submit to the proper authorities in the church, that will lead them to things like false doctrine. But I think when you look at the context of the passage here, what he is saying is that people are engaged in not virtuous conduct or vices, vicious conduct, in that their emotions are preventing them from giving this proper submission. And to me the context, especially the historical context when you look at Clement or Ignatius, that this was a problem in the church, that that’s what’s going on here.

Craig Trulia:

And it’s important because, as you’re pointing out, the things in all this is conduct. There’s parts of the scripture where they’re emphasizing, I don’t know, the thought life. But here it’s all about how we’re treating others. Just look at the words around the word sects, right? Selfish ambitions, dissensions, in the Greek that’s dichotomos, by the way, where we get the Greek word dichotomy. So dissensions like little divisions between people, sects, and envy. So these all imply divisions due to selfishness or chauvinism, like hatred of your fellow men, not doctrinal differences specifically. So this kind of translation of the word sect to be heresy the way we speak about it in general conversation today, to me doesn’t do justice to the immediate context of the actual passage, let alone the etymology of the term in the first century.

Craig Trulia:

But let’s just sort the sake of argument say that Dr. Ortlund and other Protestants, because I feel they’d be compelled to, they’re rendering the passage as heresy, not as sect, is intellectually respectable. I’d say, is it morally safe to then not think sectarianism is this dangerous sin based upon that inference, that this is a respectable inference, and to deny the simpler reading? I don’t think that’s morally safe. And I think third I want to make the point, is it morally safe to deny the explicit teaching of every single Christian author on this subject in the early church with the exception of Tyconius, who, so people know, he was a schismatic orthodonatist who was schismatic. So it makes sense Tyconius would teach the invisible church doctrine in his commentary on the book of Revelation. But is it safe to not believe this is a big deal when every other single author on this topic thought it was a big deal?

Craig Trulia:

And I want to point out, like I referred to before, this includes St. Clement of Rome, a first century source who knew St. Paul, who stated concerning those in schism, he says in chapter 59, “They will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger.” And he says, “Those therefore who do anything beyond that which is agreeable to his will,” and he’s speaking of schism, “Are punished with death,” First Clement 41. So this seems to me a big deal. And as we point out before, the people in schism in Corinth, they weren’t gnostics, they were super zany or whatever. They were just not ordained. They weren’t ordained properly. That’s why Clement speaks of apostolic succession. That’s the whole context behind it. And so punished by death, serious danger. This sounds like serious stuff. So we must note that, who would understand the meaning of Galatians 5 better, us in the 21st century or someone who knew Paul?

Craig Trulia:

I’m going to someone who knew Paul. I really think Protestants have no good response to the issue of schism, and they often, I presume not deliberately, misrepresent the fathers on this question. Now, let me give you an opportunity maybe to add anything if you’d like to, Trent.

Trent Horn:

No, I think what-

Craig Trulia:

[inaudible 00:56:39] poor Dr. Ortlund, God bless him, I want to say this. He, I believe, has overtaken James White as the standard bearer of anti-Catholic Orthodox apologetics given to the fathers. And that means something. I think otherwise James White was the go-to guy. And so all these things are-

Trent Horn:

I will say this. I really enjoyed the recent exchange I had with Dr. Ortlund. We are planning to have future exchanges. He brings a very irenic quality and an academic rigor to his critiques of Catholicism. And so I think that that’s very good for all of us to arrive at the truth. So that’s why I always look forward to seeing a new video from his that’s offering a perspective on something like Catholicism or things like that.

Craig Trulia:

He makes great videos.

Trent Horn:

Yeah.

Craig Trulia:

Yeah.

Trent Horn:

But then the other point you’re raising about schism, I think it’s important here, is to first to ask our Protestant brothers and sisters, “All right, what is the sin of schism? Let’s define it. It’s not heresy. Schism refers to the sinful rejection of authority, not the sinful rejection of doctrine.” It’s the sinful rejection of following a particular authority. All right? So an authority within the church. And if we agree, okay, scripture is clear, it recognizes schism. It says it’s a serious sin. Then my next question would be, is it possible to be in the sin of schism if you’re a Protestant? I just don’t think it is if you believe that your authority is scripture. Otherwise, “Well, I have other authorities. I have my pastor, I have this or that.”

Trent Horn:

Yeah, but you can always end up saying, “I follow my pastor except when he contradicts scripture,” or, “I follow my church and its articles except when it contradicts scripture.” So you always have an out, where you can say that your true allegiance is to scripture alone, not to these other human authorities. And I know there’s going to be ones who say, “Well, no, and Anglicanism, Lutheranism.” I know that they say that.

Craig Trulia:

They have splits too, though.

Trent Horn:

Right, that it’s not considered sinful. Even in Anglicanism, look at all of the different churches and offshoots even within that. If we recognize schism as a sin, the Bible condemns it. But I don’t think that within Protestantism, it’s not schism. It’s forming a new community basically. I just don’t think it’s possible to actually fall into the sin of schism because you don’t recognize any of these other authorities, human authorities within the body of Christ you have to be loyal to. It’s scripture alone. And I think that’s a problem.

Craig Trulia:

And you’re stealing my thunder, because we will cover that. I do want to reply to something Dr. Ortlund said, because I made a categorical statement that every Christian writer on this topic other than Tyconius I think that’s explicitly writing about schism says, “Yeah, this is a damnable, horrible sin.” And Dr. Ortlund claims that Augustine teaches that those outside the church can be saved. And like I said, it demands those who aren’t just going to say the fathers are wrong, someone like James White, that it demands, I feel, misinterpreting the fathers, again, not deliberately so, but taking stuff out of context. So Dr. Ortlund, for example, says, “Oh, I read something in book five, I think chapter 27 of On Baptism against the Donatists, which says nice stuff about people in the Donatus communion, and so that means there’s salvation outside the church, schism’s not this horrible deal breaker.”

Craig Trulia:

And I just want to point people to the discussion to the Caesarean church in paragraph six, because this is to me a categorical statement from St. Augustine. And St. Augustine says he can do everything outside the Catholic church except salvation. He can have honor, he can have sacraments, he can sing alleluia. He can say amen, he can hold the gospel, he can have faith and preach in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But nowhere can he find salvation except in the Catholic church. So it seems to me like, how do you take this vaguer passage of Augustine saying good things about the Donatists but ignore when Saint Augustine directly addresses the question, says no, there’s only salvation within the Catholic church?

Craig Trulia:

Now, I want to point people to one other passage. And I want to almost build up the credibility. When I make the statement that schism is categorically among all the early church writers as this damnable sin, I’m not saying this lightly. This is serious stuff. And so let’s take another passage from St. Augustine from the same book that Dr. Ortlund was citing, and it’s On Baptism against the Donatists. This is book one, chapter three. And I remember reading it and I forgot the passage, and it’s like right in the beginning. Let’s see what Augustine says. He says, “If anyone were compelled by urgent necessity, being unable to find a Catholic from which to receive baptism,” so obviously he’s talked about a catechumen, right? Because it’s someone looking for baptism, they’re not yet baptized. And so while preserving Catholic peace in his heart, should receive from one without the pale of Catholic unity the sacrament, which he was intending to receive within its pale.

Craig Trulia:

So this catechumen was intending to become baptized a Catholic. “This man, should he immediately depart this life, we deem to be none other than a Catholic. But if he should be delivered from the death of the body, on his restoring himself in body in the presence of that Catholic congregation, which in heart he had never departed, so far from blaming his conduct, we should praise it with the greatest truth and confidence.” And so this clearly shows when St. Augustine’s talking about these exceptions of salvation outside the church, he’s talking about people that are faithful Catholics, right? Faithful Orthodox. It’s someone who was a catechumen in the Catholic church, for whatever reason he’s traveling or something, he’s cut off, it’s like, “I might die. I’m going to get baptized.” Because just so people know, we have saints that baptized themselves, right? Like Satorinus, for example, St. Ambrose talks about baptizing himself. It’s a kind of pious thing, and we’re not going to say it’s good and you should do it.

Craig Trulia:

But the point is, it’s pious for a saint to seek baptism when it feels like they can’t get it from anywhere. That’s what you see in the hagiographies. And so would you consider someone like the thief on the cross or a Christian martyr that’s not yet baptized or something like that, or someone that’s in a shipwreck like Satorinus, and he’s a faithful Christian who’s not yet baptized, are they out of the church because they haven’t yet received the sacrament yet? And the answer the church always gives is no, because in the heart they have faith in Christ and they have love for the church. It’s a complete package, right? They have love for Christ’s body. And so to say all these exceptions exist in Augustine so that means he believes in salvation outside of the Catholic church, not only puts into dispute Augustine’s literal words that says there’s no salvation outside the Catholic church. When we see Augustine’s actual explanation of how this works, what you see is someone who’s spiritually a Catholic.

Craig Trulia:

And so I really have to think people have to ask themselves this when they’re reading the fathers when they see something they don’t like, like schism’s a sin, it’s not that big a deal, it’s not really a sin, it’s not that big a deal, or whatever. The reinterpretations of statements from the fathers, like did Augustine really say salvation’s only in the Catholic church? They really sound to me like Satan speaking. What did Satan say? What’s the first fly in the scriptures? “Has God indeed said you shall not eat of every tree of the garden?” Of course that’s what God said. Of course that’s what the saints said. If we have to say, “Well, did they really say it? Well, what’s the spirit behind that? Is that a spirit from God or is that demonic?”

Craig Trulia:

And I think this sort of blatant reinterpretation of something so obvious in Augustine’s writing indicates the work of the demonic, in my honest opinion. Now, this is nothing personal, Ortlund or anyone who does this. Because all false doctrines come from demons, Satan’s the father of lies. You and I, Trent, we disagree upon many doctrines because we’re in a different communion. So ultimately one of us is wrong, one of us is demonically deceived about this or that.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. But I think what this is showing though, and that’s why this is actually a project I’m … It’s so funny, I’m right now in the midst of essentially I have three books that I’m juggling. One is a second edition of my pro-life book, it’s almost done because of the Dobbs decision, book on Protestantism, and another book on liberal Catholicism. I want all of those to be done in about a month or so because I really want to do a deep dive on the question of, were the early church fathers Protestant? Because you have people like Dr. Ortlund and others, when I’ve read their monographs and other books, who, because we see this, I think, a lot. Easily one of the most common reasons you hear, you mentioned this earlier, someone becoming Orthodox, or when I hear somebody become Catholic, it’s, “I read the fathers and they don’t sound Protestant to me.” Not even that they sound Catholic or Orthodox, but that they do not sound Protestant.

Trent Horn:

And so I think Protestants have woken up to that criticism and have gone to the fathers with I think very creative readings of them. And I’m glad that you pointed this out, the example of Augustine and others. That’s why I want to do a deep dive in that, that at the very least I would say, I’ll give you an example. Honestly, I don’t have a desire to debate the papacy with a Protestant. Because we are already so … You and I could have a discussion about the papacy because we already have so much in common, we already recognize apostolic succession, the role of the patriarchs, the role of the bishop. We can actually get down to the nitty-gritty. But if I’m trying to debate someone who doesn’t even believe that there’s something like an authoritative bishop, much less that he’s the Pope, I have hardly any room to go with this individual.

Craig Trulia:

But Trent, you could get so many clicks.

Trent Horn:

Ugh. Because that’s ultimately what matters, right. So for me the question with the fathers, it would be something that’s very meticulous to sort out with with vocabulary and history, let’s say where you and I might disagree with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. But to me, when I just try to establish Reformation Protestantism and especially modern Protestantism, looking back at the fathers it really is like night and day to me. And there are some who want, and that’s why I’m very surprised at Dr. Ortlund, because he comes from more of a low church, Calvinist Baptist tradition, to find that antiquity in the fathers I think is a stretch, but he does so with rigor and it does demand a reply. So I know he is working, I believe he’s working on a book right now summarizing everything he’s done on his YouTube channel and things like that. Very eager for him to write that, because I’d love to read it and other books to give a reply just on that one question.

Craig Trulia:

Sadly for people, we’re not yet done. The issue of schism. Now, you did refer to this before, Trent.

Trent Horn:

Yeah, yeah.

Craig Trulia:

And it was the issue of, what can by the Protestant definition ever qualify as schism in the real world?

Trent Horn:

Yeah.

Craig Trulia:

In the real world, right? If an elder or some other prominent figure leaves, James White or Dr. Ortlund or Father James from Barely Protestant leaves their church and literally opens a Bible church right across the street and takes half the congregation with them, they might not be happy, but none of them would seriously consider they’re schismatic and they’re going to hell over this. And so, just like you referred to before, there just seems to be no real criteria. And so this leads me to this conclusion. If this whole way of thinking in Protestantism has removed all force from this sin, which the scriptures outright condemned, which the fathers outright condemned, then the only thing we can conclude is that they are guilty of it and they don’t want to owe up to it.

Craig Trulia:

It kind of reminds me, like Matthew Vines, I don’t know if he’s still a thing. He was like the gay Christian thing back in the day. I don’t know if he’s still doing it any more or if he even identifies as a Christian any more. But if people follow Matthew Vines, he’d make these arguments from the Greek that the Greek really wasn’t condemning polygamy.

Trent Horn:

[inaudible 01:09:33] and pederasty.

Craig Trulia:

Yeah, and stuff like that. Like homosexuality’s really not a sin. And so it’s clear when people are guilty of a sin they generally will then redefine the sin so that they’re not guilty of it any more. Because we’re always justifying ourselves. We rarely will say, “Man, I really am screwing up here.” And so to me, if Protestantism has no actual functional definition, application of how do we avoid schism, then this seems to me to show pretty conclusively it’s because they’re guilty of it. That’s just basic common sense.

Trent Horn:

That’s interesting.

Craig Trulia:

And so that’s my last comment on the issue, I don’t know if you have any, Trent.

Trent Horn:

No, I think that’s great.

Craig Trulia:

So here’s my last issue, which I think is important. And it can’t be Protestant, because within Protestantism I cannot honor the saints. I would have to think they’re almost all wrong. That to me is a big deal. It just feels to me wrong in my gut that the people that actually bequeathed to us the multiple biblical canons which tend to be around 66 books according to one, 73 in the other, but pretty much they gave us our canon, they wrote down the scriptures because there weren’t printers back then and photocopiers. So we’re actually depending upon these people to give us our Bible, but yet we have to think they’re this horrible with everything.

Trent Horn:

Well, if you think of that, think about what legitimate, especially evangelical non-denominational, because I think many of them, sadly they might, if they’re historically ignorant, would write off the saints. But those who really do look to history, and that starts you down the path towards an apostolic communion like Catholicism or Orthodoxy, looking at the witness of the lives of the saints. But if you’re Protestant you have to say, “Yeah, but these people worship the Eucharist,” which in your theology would make them idolators, engaged in necromancy if they seek the intercession of the saints, that they accepted writings as being inspired that actually were not, like the deuterocanonical books of scripture or the other books in the Orthodox canon, that they were flagrantly wrong about the nature of scripture. You’re right that you would, it’s kind of like the Lord, liar, lunatic dilemma with Jesus. Is he-

PART 3 OF 4 ENDS [01:12:04]

Trent Horn:

… lunatic trilemma with Jesus. Right? He’s either lying about being God, but he’s so virtuous. He’s either a lunatic, but he’s so wise. He’s got to be who he says he is. So the Saints, they’re either these charlatans, or heretics, or demonic, or they really were filled with the Holy Spirit.

Craig Trulia:

Yeah. Yeah. It seems to me something that is insurmountable, honestly. I can actually… As surprised that I’d actually have to not care that all the Fathers are addressing the question that schism’s a sin, or they inferred a literal canonical boundaries to the Church, so there are people that are in and out. I’d have to just not care whether that’s the case. I’m happy that I can actually care that no Fathers taught forensic justification, which honest and reformed Protestants admit. So right, if you’re Protestant, you have to just not care about it, then it doesn’t matter they didn’t teach it. Some Protestants are actually honest and’ll say, well, right off the bat, “Clement and Ignatius just clearly did not emphasize the Gospel,” as they put it, instead of saying, “Well, maybe the way we are delivering the Gospel is incorrect.”

Craig Trulia:

Now, there are Protestants that simply call the Saints wrong on this or that issue, which to me is very impious. I didn’t like this as a Protestant. I’d say, as a Protestant, “If you show me this from the Fathers, I will believe it.” And lo and behold, I converted. But for the record, there are some Orthodox and Catholics usually when there’s something they can’t show from the Fathers, will say, “Yeah. The Saints are wrong,” or, ‘This saint is wrong.” And this to me is an obvious Protestant post-Enlightenment tendency. It’s something we should avoid. And again, these are my reasons for not being Protestant, because I don’t feel comfortable, this calling people that are Saints just wrong. I consider it impious.

Trent Horn:

Well, I mean, well, we do have to be careful. They’re not infallible. So I mean that… But I think especially… So for me, it would be more the wholesale rejection of the Fathers and the Saints that Protestantism ends up entailing. That’s where on my end, I would think things are very problematic.

Craig Trulia:

I would say the Orthodox versus even the Catholic treatment of Saints is a little bit different in nuance, but that’s another discussion. The-

Trent Horn:

See, it’s not fun for us to talk about Protestantism unless the differences creep up between us every now and then. But that’s what’s funny for to me though, is like, I know the Other Paul, I haven’t had a chance to watch his video yet. It’s like a full-time job just watching every… Trying to watch everybody else doing you when it’s on double time speed, to keep up with everybody’s arguments and this or that, that he tries to say, “Well, no.” If you compare Solo Scriptura and the lack of unity among Protestants, you need to compare what he calls Ecclesialism, the idea of a magisterial authority or tradition authority, and the differences in doctrine there.

Trent Horn:

And I agree there are… But to me, I think anyone would… Like if you compared you and I and our doctrinal agreements and differences, to me and Gavin Ortlund, or you and Gavin Ortlund, or James White or N.T. Wright even, or somebody like that, I think when people… They would find way more agreement between us than as you go further out on the web towards Protestants. So I do think that it’s stark in the differences.

Craig Trulia:

And as you infer, the reasoning behind that would be because common roots and common authorities.

Trent Horn:

Right.

Craig Trulia:

Now there are some Protestants, I find, kind of speak out of both sides of their mouth to say the Saints are wrong, or they don’t suit their needs. But otherwise, to put it, yeah. We really honor, should heed what these Saints teach. And I think that just so people have a good grasp of this, is the Magister of Protestants claimed, for example, versus Roman Catholics at the time to better represent the Saints, right? You don’t really see Protestants making that argument anymore that they’re more authentically following what the Saints teach than Roman Catholics, or they seem to have given up on that.

Craig Trulia:

And so, there’s sort of vestiges of this tendency, like every Protestant wants to own Augustine other than Armenians, right? They’re not going to say Augustine’s in Hell, the reform for example. But it seems to me that the verdict of history has turned so starkly against Protestants that more and more of them are just comfortable like James White or the Other Paul to flat out saying, “They’re ignorant or wrong.”

Trent Horn:

Well, Augustine… That’s funny. So B. B. Warfield, a 19th century, late 19th or 20th century, I believe, Protestant, Calvinist theologian. He said of Augustine that Augustine’s theology… Paraphrasing. He said Augustine’s theology of grace conquered his theology of the Church. And so what Warfield, as a Calvinist said, I love Augustine on grace, but I can’t stand everything he says like what we’re talking about now with schism and the role of the Church. So you’re right. It is fascinating.

Craig Trulia:

I sometimes wonder what Augustine they’re reading about so Trilogy because you have Eucharistic commemoration that liberate people from Hell and stuff and like, wait, protestants don’t do that, but St. Augustine talks about it explicitly in the Handbook of Faith, Hope and Love. Yeah. It’s these great one-liners, which, like you say, they show this honor for Augustine, but I think to James White’ credit, to Other Paul and some others, when they just say, “Yeah. The Saints are wrong. They just didn’t understand the Greek well enough. They syncretized real early,” they’re being more intellectually honest for their own tradition. Doesn’t mean they’re correct obviously, but at least they’re saying, “We can’t own these Saints and really believe what they say, because they’re utterly inconsistent with our traditions.”

Craig Trulia:

And that’s why, like you point out earlier, that evangelicalism, this sort of post-Magisterial Protestant version of Protestantism, really has nothing common with the original version of Protestantism. Original Protestantism wasn’t low church. It was sacralist. There were state churches, Dutch reforms. Scotland was reformed. Northern Germany, Scandinavia’s Lutheran. They were state churches just like they were state Roman Catholic churches before that. Then they became state Protestant churches. It’s Protestantism. The fact that it’s changed shows that, well, what changed with losing its sacralism is its connection with Saints that would’ve thought nothing bad about there being a state church, and the Saints have nothing in common with evangelicalism. You just don’t find any hint of this whatsoever.

Craig Trulia:

So I think that being Protestant ultimately demands rejecting the Saints and finding what they believe objectionable, even though for centuries, Christians fully embraced their writings and affirmed their teachings. So that’s why I feel I can’t be Protestant, because it would require pretty much just discarding the Saints, the people that actually give you the scriptures, the people that actually gave us to Christian religion. The Christian religion had come from the 21st century. It was preserved for 20 centuries. And so I feel you would have to almost have this great apostasy theory in order to be a Protestant.

Craig Trulia:

Even those who say, “I don’t really believe that,” well, functionally they do. They have to. I just don’t see their alternative. I think when we see these hard things the Saints… It’s important to keep this in mind. The scriptures have difficult Saints, like the Saints have difficult Saints. Right? And the ones you’ll see on the atheist Bible, if that thing still exist, like parts Scriptures they talk about dashing the heads of infants on rocks, and then if you read the Saints, they’ll say, “This has to do with the passions or thoughts,” that we’re always submitting every thought to Christ. And in that sense, we’re dashing infants on rocks.

Craig Trulia:

And so obviously this is a scandalous statement that they interpreted it typologically like that, right? That we’re not talking about literally smashing baby heads. But the Saints, for example, made these other difficult teachings. But no one found these scandalous. So the quote, Saint Cyprian in Letter 54, Paragraph 24: He who is not in the Church of Christ is not a Christian. That’s what he’s saying to schismatics, that there’s a sense in which they’re not Christians. And you think of, well, this is so scandalous, should be reinterpreted, that someone would have done so before Luther. But no. Because everyone took him at his word. This is what everyone believed.

Craig Trulia:

So statements as the preceding have been faithfully preserved. They’ve been reiterated. They’ve never been corrected or twisted to mean something else. And so to me, it’s we got to accept this from the Saints. And so if we honor the Saints, then we got to accept these teachings. We have no indication that these anti-Protestant teachings would’ve been something that there was some sort of resistance against among any mature Christians.

Craig Trulia:

So I think it seems to me morally dangerous to be Protestant. The fact that they dishonor the Saints. And I keep saying morally dangerous because I can’t offer the listener epistemic certainty within this hour and a half, two hour video that everything we say is right. They’re going to have to do their own research, but I can say, “Well, I can’t give certainty,” but I can say, “Well, the fact that what I’m saying has… You’re going to admit some element of truth. You’re going to have to look into it.” Then there is a moral component. So if you can never know all the facts, you can’t read everything, then you have to say, “Well, what’s the moral danger for me continuing this in this way?” Because there’s no precedent for Protestantism. So let me put this in a real lame, low IQ way. Protestantism equals unprecedentism, right?

Craig Trulia:

There’s just no precedent for it. If you want to know what it is, it’s embracing this belief system without precedent. The reformers of less or limited access to sources would never own this label. They would never say the Saints are wrong. They would never say that it’s okay that we disagree with the Saints, they knew less than we do today. It appears that anyone dealing honestly with the primary sources would have to be like James White and not like the Magisterial Protestants. And I’m just not comfortable being unprecedentist. I believe we need precedent for our beliefs that are not legitimate. And so those would be my concluding remarks on why I’m not Protestant. And Trent, let me give it to you and also give opportunities to the audience to ask some questions.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. I’ll just briefly add onto that. I like that the way you framed it there, because for me, I mean I try not to make a kind of a simple gotcha argument against Protestantism per se. But what I want to look at is what I would call historical pedigree. So I carry very much that if the deposit of faith was given by Christ to the apostles, that we should see, and I subscribe of course, to Cardinal Henry Newman’s view of doctrinal development. I think everybody has to agree with doctrine development. And that’s not just Newman. That goes all the way back to St. Vincent of Lérins in the fifth century.

Trent Horn:

When I look at the Fathers and then the Saints… They’re not mutually exclusive obviously, but you look at the holy men and women of God in the Church going back, I would want to see, all right, from the deposit of faith, do we see a nice even progression and understanding of these practices? Are we just going to quote Christology at Ephesus but we’re not going to quote the Mariology at the Council of Ephesus? Am I seeing this nice progression of doctrine?

Trent Horn:

I feel like one reason I’m not Protestant is that I see more honestly looking at the history, and I think many other Protestants will agree with this, at best you have a very thin thread, and it’s like the Cambrian explosion and the fossil record. It’s like this thin thread, and then in the 16th century, you get everything kind of exploding out. That to me is indicative of much less of a historical pedigree than I would be comfortable with, than what I would see in something like an apostolic communion, be it Orthodoxy or Catholicism.

Trent Horn:

On your point about schism though, I want to add one other element is, what about the issue of excommunication? Paul does this First Corinthians 5, with the man who’s sleeping with his stepmother. The Bible makes it clear. Brother sinned against you. Bring him to the church. I think it’s Matthew 18. Bring him to the Church as your last resort. So it seems like the Church has authority to send people out of the Church, hand them over to Satan as a medicinal punishment. But in Protestantism, you get booted from one Church, you walk down the street to another. You can’t really have that authoritative structure to cut someone off for their own good, essentially. So that might be another point you might file under schism and excommunication going with that.

Craig Trulia:

And then the same was Matthew Chapter 18. Protestants are fond of saying we’re two or three agreeing my name there in the midst of them. But that’s in reference to Church discipline. When disciplining those that are going to be excommunicated from the Church, and like you said, if there’s no practical application for when schism really exists or excommunication really exists, that seems to me to show it’s because they are excommunicate. It’s because they are in schism. Why else do they have no practical application for these things?

Trent Horn:

Yeah. Well, yeah. We can go to questions obviously, if anybody has any.

Craig Trulia:

So guys, you have Trent Horn on, and so take advantage of this, because you could always hear me answer questions, but not always Trent Horn on this channel. So let me scroll up, and we have a few. We won’t kill you, because now that I’m running out of battery on this computer. I forget my charger.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. I’ll probably have to head home here in a second, but yeah. We can take a few.

Craig Trulia:

So, we’ll do three questions to Trent.

Trent Horn:

Sure.

Craig Trulia:

We have… Trent. Is it possible that Protestants have been existing since the first century?

Trent Horn:

Yeah. Oh, there is a book. I don’t want to say The Trail of Blood. What is it? Oh, no. It’s well, no. That’s the track relating to it. Yeah. There are claims that maybe like this. One group that makes this are Baptist secessionists. And so they’ll claim that you can always find Christians who believe Protestant theology going back to the first century, and they’ll say the heretics throughout Church history, like the Waldensians, the Novatianists, all these heretics throughout Church history, they were actually Protestants that are being persecuted. But that’s a terrible argument, because when you go back to those heretical groups, they either don’t believe Protestant doctrines, or they believe heresies related to Gnosticism that Protestants reject today. A good book that refutes that is Baptist Secessionism: A Crucial Question in Baptist History by James Edward McGoldrick, called. So Baptist Secessionism by McGoldrick puts that to rest.

Craig Trulia:

Yeah. I was very surprised that Dr. Ortlund even used the kind of pre-Crypto-Protestant pre-Proto-Protestant argument, because they had the Eucharist, they had confession, they had extreme asceticism. It’s like this stuff that they don’t believe and you’re really… It just, it seemed to me pretty bizarre honestly. And especially that he’s published and like, medieval, like with Anselm and stuff, it was a surprising argument which is pretty easily falsifiable. We have a question for both of us, but you can answer first, Trent. In your experience, what makes a Protestant that is aware of Church history, remain Protestant?

Trent Horn:

Well, I mean you have to… You have to ask them. I think for many of them, it’s results in a redefinition of many of the terms that they’ll find in the Fathers, and a very elastic sense of what counts as history, that they have a very high tolerance for Catholic and Orthodox practices going back, not thinking that they should extend today, and a very high tolerance. They’re willing to overlook more paucity or scarcity of evidence for the antiquity of Protestant doctrines. But I think it’ll ultimately come up to a person’s own predispositions and interpretive framework that they use and how that’s kind of dialed in.

Craig Trulia:

I’ve seen two things, and I’m speaking of real people, by the way.

Trent Horn:

Mm-hmm.

Craig Trulia:

They either are very alerted and they just come to the conclusion nothing squares perfectly. Take a real myopic topic, like the original practice was maintaining relics whole and not moving them from where they were. Right? This might blow some people’s minds, but now in orthodoxy, this is… Maybe Roman Catholics do this, but much less. You could still see tons of full bodies in the Vatican and stuff like that. The Orthodox is willy-nilly just… They’ll pretty much break into pieces the Saints, and give a little relic to all different churches and put them in icons, put them on altars. And not only… So now you’re not only you’re breaking the relic up and you’re moving it from what originally was. And so when people get to these kind of like really myopic topics, so well, then no one’s totally right. So I guess I’ll just stare where I am.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. Well, it’s kind of a relativism. It’s sort of like, and I’ve heard James White say this. He’ll say, “Look, when it comes to the Church Fathers, the Church Fathers are not Catholic. They’re not Orthodox. They’re not Protestant. They are the Church Fathers.” And so it’s a kind of relativism where you can say, “Yeah. My theology doesn’t connect with the Fathers and the Saints, but nobody else does either.” And then, and I would say, “Well sure. No one exactly does, but it seems like the trajectory is thicker and better accounted for in some ecclesial traditions than others.” Just because no one is 100% like the… Just like among the Fathers, you’re not going to find 100% identical orthodoxy and orthopraxy between Ignatius of Antioch and St. John of Damascus or something like that. But the question is which traditions are at least closer or far closer, that if you try to relativize it, well, nobody exactly matches, so everything is fine. That’s relativism. Some are closer than others and should be striven after, stroved after.

Craig Trulia:

And the other also is people will… I know Protestants that could read themselves in the Church. They’re convinced all the arguments, but they attend and it just feels like an alien experience. It’s hard to love Saints that you have no relationship with. Right? It’s hard to do practices that feel foreign to you. Like, let’s say you never used to kneeling. You went to the rockstar church, or you’re not used to kissing icons. I’m just going to… Even though my wife doesn’t have this issue. She’s Cambodian. They don’t even kiss in that country. Right? So now you’re asked to kiss this picture and you’re not even used to kissing.

Craig Trulia:

So that could take people that are otherwise intellectually convinced, but they just feel they can’t stick with it. They feel like they start spiritually dying. And that’s, I guess, a personal issue which I can’t so much address. All right. By I’m just going to click on the last question. So here we go. Trent, this for you. Why use sacraments to determine whether all the other doctrines are true? If Baptists are right about immersion or plunging, would that mean they are right about others?

Trent Horn:

Well, okay. So, yeah. I guess the question here is, if you are right about something that everybody else is wrong about, then that would mean your theology is correct. I mean, on the one hand, that kind of argument makes sense. Like, if a religion says Christ did not rise from the dead, I know that religion is false even if I don’t even have to look at the other doctrine. So I know Islam is false. I know Hinduism is false, because they deny something I know is true, that Christ rose from the dead.

Trent Horn:

The argument here seems to be well, what about Baptists? If they are right about the necessity of immersion for salvation, then doesn’t that mean that they are right? Well, that would only prove that if that is true, that immersion is necessary for valid baptism, that would only prove that traditions that teach this are correct. And I don’t know the exact, how much… I know the Orthodox traditionally do immersion. I don’t know if they allow tolerance for any other methods right off the top of my head.

Trent Horn:

So I see the arguments going. I would just deny its minor premise. So like, yeah. I know that people who deny that Christ is present in the Eucharist, their theology is going to be incorrect because I know that’s true. But I would deny the minor premise that I would say that while immersion is the most purest… Is the… What’s the word we’re looking for here? Is the fullest… It is, I think the preferred form of baptism that it is not the only valid form. And then we see in the Didache that that is the case. So…

Craig Trulia:

And so, Trent, I’m very grateful for your time with us this evening. So before you go, let people know what you’re up to, about your channel, about any book projects.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. Yeah.

Craig Trulia:

So you kind of refer to it, but here’s an opportunity to do it all at once.

Trent Horn:

Yeah. I’ll just say people can check out my channel, Counsel of Trent on YouTube, iTunes and Google Play, C-O-U-N-S-E-L. They can go and check that out. Do rebuttals, apologetics, free-for-all-Fridays, all kinds of great stuff. I’m working on a few books right now I’m hoping to have done by the end of the month. Lots of good things happening for us there.

Trent Horn:

Right now I’m really slammed just with everything happening with Roe versus Wade being overturned. I’m very grateful. And that’s one thing at the very least I’m glad that for many Christians that I disagree with, I’m very grateful even, let’s say, even with you and I, or with James White or Dr. Ortlund, that we’re all fundamentally opposed to what’s happening to the unborn. So I do appreciate the common ground that exists, especially among more conservative Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox. I’m always happy to work together on these really big, important issues, but also being able to sit down and talk about our theological agreements and disagreements as well.

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.