Many political conservatives and conservative Christians appreciate Candace Owens and Allie Beth Stuckey. Until one recent show, the subject of this post, I had never seen a whole Candace Owens program, just clips here and there. I had seen whole interviews by Allie Beth Stuckey on her podcast. She deals with some unique subject matter. Both are very popular, the former on Daily Wire and the latter with Blaze.
For a show episode included on youtube, Candace Owens invited her husband, George Farmer, a Roman Catholic, to debate Allie Beth Stuckey, a Protestant. I watched all of part one and thought it would be helpful and informative to provide an analysis of their interaction. Farmer grew up in England and attended Oxford. He tells this story in the episode. His dad converted to Christ from atheism, became an evangelical, and raised George this way.
Under the influence of a Roman Catholic scholar, George doubted the veracity of evangelicalism for Roman Catholicism. Before he married Owens, he became a Roman Catholic. Owens claims still to be a Protestant evangelical, leaning now Roman Catholic, attending Catholic church with her husband and children.
Allie Beth Stuckey grew up Southern Baptist, told the story that her family traces back Baptist in America for 300 years. She remains Southern Baptist, but now claims to be a Reformed Baptist. She considers herself a Protestant, Reformed, Baptist evangelical.
Perpetuity of Christ’s True Church
The Question
Farmer communicates his greatest conflict for staying Protestant and evangelical, a historical matter. To remain Protestant, he would say that Christianity was lost before 1500, essentially no one was converted or a true Christian when the Reformation began. In part one, Stuckey never addresses this seminal concern of Farmer. Farmer never explains this conflict. To start the debate, Candace Owens directed the debate by asking Stuckey what bothered her the most about Roman Catholicism, so they never doubled back to deal with the perpetuity of the church.
Before I move to what bothered Stuckey the most and Farmer’s answer to that concern, let me address perpetuity. I would like to know how Stuckey would answer Farmer’s perpetuity conundrum. I would join him in finding a problem with Protestantism or for Baptists, an English Separatist view. Is Protestantism a restorationist movement, like the Church of Christ, Latter Day Saints, Apostolics, and Charismatics assert?
The perpetuity question also becomes one of authority. How does the authority of God get passed to state church Protestants with their rejection of Roman Catholicism? If Roman Catholicism represents an apostate body, how do they call themselves Reformed or Protestant? Shouldn’t they make a clean break and repudiate Roman Catholicism as a true church?
The Answer
Protestants receive their authority from Roman Catholicism. They must see Roman Catholicism as a true church through which God passed His truth. By doing so, Protestants, including professing Baptist ones, also affirm a state church. I couldn’t be a Roman Catholic or a Protestant. Farmer exposes a major flaw in Protestantism. There is a better way, really a biblical, right way — the only way. Stuckey either doesn’t know it or doesn’t believe it.
The biblical, right way says true churches always existed since Christ, separate from the state church and known by different names. The true church is not a catholic church. It is a local, autonomous one. Those churches did exist and passed down the truth. They became known as Baptist churches. By not taking that position, professing Baptists and Protestants play right into Roman Catholic hands.
Baptist perpetuity is mainly a presuppositional position. Scripture teaches it. The gates of hell would not prevail against Christ’s ekklesia, His assemblies (Matthew 16:18). No one should expect a total apostasy until the saints of this age are off the scene, snatched up into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air (1 & 2 Thessalonians). Until then, only some depart from the faith (1 Timothy 4:1). True believers should just believe this happened. They did until modernism crept into the Southern Baptist Convention and invented a different view of history for Baptists.
Sola Scriptura
What Verse?
Stuckey says her biggest bother with Roman Catholicism is the pope and the authority issue. She asserts sola scriptura, the Bible as the only or final authority. How does Farmer answer her? He asks her for a verse or passage to prove sola scriptura. She can’t do it. She gives Farmer zero scriptural evidence.
I sat chagrined watching Stuckey’s non-scriptural support for her biggest bother. Ironic. Roman Catholicism doesn’t rely on scripture for its only authority and Stuckey has no scripture saying that’s wrong. She said she recognized the circular reasoning with providing scripture for sola scriptura. No way.
Farmer put Stuckey on the defensive and she tried to weave together some poor argument for sola scriptura from history. Was Stuckey right? Was there no answer to Farmer’s challenge?
Biblical Arguments for Sola Scriptura
What verse would you use? I thought of four arguments instantly. First, I thought 2 Timothy 3:16-17:
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
Scripture (1) throughly furnished unto all good works and (2) is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. Every good work comes from scripture, no more or no less. It is sufficient, that is, profitable for all of what verses 16-17 mention. Doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness should come only from the Bible.
Second, nothing should be added to scripture. It is the faith once and for all delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). Revelation 22:18-19 commands to add nothing to God’s Word. Adding to scripture brings severe warnings of terrible judgment from God.
Three, only faith pleases God and faith comes only by the Word of God (Hebrews 11:6, Romans 10:17).
Four, man lives by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God (Matthew 4:4). The converse is true. Man will not live from something not the Word of God. That includes the pope, tradition, what someone might call the wisdom of men.
I don’t know why Stuckey could not give this as evidence to Farmer. She says she grew up in church and that the Bible is her authority, yet she couldn’t produce one scriptural argument about what bothered her the most about Roman Catholicism.
The Canon
As part of his argument against sola scriptura, Farmer used canonicity. He said the canon came from Roman Catholic Church authority in a late fourth century council. Stuckey sat there nodding, like she agreed. Conservative evangelicals are not today agreeing with that assessment of canonicity. I can say, however, that it was a typical Bible college and seminary presentation of canonicity thirty or forty years ago, maybe still today.
Farmer includes a separate church authority, making room to add the Pope and tradition as authorities with the Bible. He uses this view of canonicity, an unscriptural presentation of canonicity. Stuckey though sits and accepts this, by doing so encouraging viewers to turn Roman Catholic. Owens should have recruited a better representative for evangelicalism than Stuckey. She fails at her task, leaving viewers in greater confusion than when they started.
God used true churches, biblical assemblies after the model of His first church in Jerusalem and the early churches that one spawned, for recognition of the canon. They immediately recognized the true, authoritative New Testament books, even as seen in Peter’s endorsement of Paul’s epistles in 2 Peter 3:15-17. They hand copied those manuscripts and only those as a plain indication of their faith in them. Councils were not necessary. Today evangelicals often give too much credence to the Catholic councils as a perversion of biblical ecclesiology.
The Roman Catholic canon includes the apocrypha. When someone sits silent to these additional books, that helps undermine true scriptural sufficiency and authority. Accepting that Roman Catholic position of canonicity hurts sola scriptura.
I wanted to add a comment immediately because I anticipate some criticism of this post on the subject of sola scriptura, understanding that it doesn’t mean in its historic context, only authority, but only infallible authority. Fine. It’s still the ultimate or final authority, because it is infallible. Use scripture to defend the authority of scripture.
Kent,
I saw this on Friday and had almost the exact same reaction. It’s was painful to listen to Stuckey either cede so much of what Catholics claim as their foundation or fail to address specific issues such as Sola Scriptura. Pretty much the whole thing was bad, but that was the worst. If I thought what Stuckey gave was the best argument against Catholicism, I would become a Catholic.
How much worse can it be, then for someone to claim the sufficiency of scriptures as the #1 concern, and then not be able to name one SCRIPTURE to support the doctrine. Farmer, having her completely outmatched, quickly pounced on that to say that she was as much guilty as deriving her doctrine from tradition as the Catholic church is only, she claims to not do so. Terrible.
The only part she did the least bit okay on was her reasons for why the Apocrypha didn’t belong. But even then, she didn’t push back much on the idea that the reformers subtracted the books, rather than the other way around.
To the list of scriptures that support sola scriptura, I would add II Peter 1:3-4.
Thanks,
Mat Dvorachek
Thanks Mat! Very good comment!
Grant,
I would have approved your comment. I’m fine with your giving your opinion, even your insulting me, the great man that makes you behind the keyboard, but I couldn’t post it with the profanity. I’m guessing you don’t think it was profanity, hopefully not though.
I can’t really believe that you have this any attention. These two women are not serious people. Owens is a conspiracy theory nut Trump [profanity by Grant]. The other is just a typical political hack who is cute but throws out tweets to “own” libs. She knows nothing about anything as far as I can tell. Of course she is going to get destroyed by a theologian from Oxford.
I forgot I could edit your comment, so I did. If you want it taken down because you prefer profanity, let me know.
One more thing though, the Oxford graduate wasn’t that great. His answers were low hanging fruit too. How anyone is persuaded by Roman Catholicism doesn’t seem like scholarship to me.
* I didn’t insult you. I insulted the two empty-headed women.
* Again, this was not a fair fight. Stuckey is not qualified to talk about anything really, but especially theology. She is popular only because she is a pretty woman who knows how to insult the left.
While watching this debate, I thought, this would be great to see Pastor Brandenburg represent the “evangelical” side. I too was horrified she couldn’t give one verse for the authority of Scripture. Perhaps in part 2 she will do better.
Honestly, I would encourage you to send an email to Candace with answer to these questions with the hopes she will get the email and read and be persuaded. Sometimes the emails to people like this work.
Then maybe you could convince her to have you on and try to convince her.
Thanks for this and I look forward to part 2 of the debate.
Chris
As a Catholic, I think George was not nearly as effective as he might have been. While he is obviously intelligent and educated, it seems as if he does not have much experience in apologetics. Offhand, I can think of two dozen people who would have left Ms. Stuckie at a loss for response.
All I could think of concerning sola scriptura was all of the verses that instruct us to not add or take anything away from scripture…Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matt. 22:29, Mark 7:13, Rev. 22:18-19. On a side note, there is a fabulous book delving into the history of the Catholic Church and tying it to Rev. 17-18 called “A Woman Rides the Beast” by Dave Hunt. It has hundreds of references, is pretty much indisputable and can be found in its entirety online if you search its title along with “pdf”. No truth seeker will regret reading it I promise. God bless
Hello Lisa! Please check out “Bible Truths for Roman Catholics” here:
https://faithsaves.net/catholic/
Thank you.
Hi, Kent. I did not see this debate, just have read what you wrote about it here. I am familiar with Candace Owens, and a bit with Allie Beth Stuckey. If I remember correctly, she did a covid show with a guest talking about how certain evangelical leaders became mouthpieces for the government line on masks and vaccines. I’ve never heard of George Farmer.
From the little bit I know, Miss Stuckey seems to be an intelligent young lady. She also seems to be a long-time church-going one. This is an example (no doubt one of many) that churches need a wake-up call to see when we are not teaching our members something as basic as defending Sola Scriptura. It should not matter that the other debater went to Oxford. One thing we need to know, to have drilled into us, is what the Bible teaches about itself. The doctrines of God and the Bible are the foundational principles on which all others rest. If we do not know and understand those, we, as Christians and churches, will soon be adrift on a sea of indecision.