Approach the Bench

Are Protestants Going to Heaven? | 2 Protestants Debate a Catholic (ATB #32)

WEEK 32: Are Protestants Going to Heaven? Welcome to Harvard Divinity School. This week, we sit down with Edward Doan to take on one of the oldest and most consequential questions in Western Christianity: can Protestants be saved? We start by refusing to treat this as one question when it's really three. Soteriology — can non-Catholics be saved? Ecclesiology — what actually constitutes the Church? And eschatological judgment — can any human being even know who's saved? Keeping those distinct turns out to matter a lot. From there, we walk through the Catholic position in full. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus — "outside the Church, no salvation" — is 1,800 years old and has never been formally repealed. The Council of Trent explicitly condemned sola fide and sola scriptura. Vatican II's Lumen Gentium opened the door to Protestant salvation without walking any of that back. We press into that internal tension directly. Then we take up the Protestant case: Romans 3, Ephesians 2, Galatians 2, Abraham justified before circumcision. We work through the sola scriptura debate — including the Catholic counter that the Church gave you the canon in the first place — and we spend real time on justification, the theological heart of the whole dispute. Infused vs. imputed righteousness. Whether the 1999 Joint Declaration on Justification actually resolved anything. And the doctrine of invincible ignorance — Catholicism's escape hatch, and why it creates some uncomfortable implications for evangelism. We also get into purgatory, indulgences, the Eucharist, and Mary — covering what actually started the Reformation and where the live disagreements still sit today. We're in Boston for this one, which feels appropriate. The interludes: a Catholic-or-Protestant trivia game, and a deep dive into the Penitential of Finnian — 6th-century Irish Christianity's answer to the question of how much bread and water a sinning cleric deserves. We close with Girl Problems: how do you know what flowers to get her, and how do you actually decide how many kids to have? Email approachthebenchquestions@gmail.com [approachthebenchquestions@gmail.com] or submit a voice memo at https://www.speakpipe.com/approachthebench [https://www.speakpipe.com/approachthebench] to be featured on the show. Anonymous submissions: https://forms.gle/9Zjxzkpwajivx19z8 [https://forms.gle/9Zjxzkpwajivx19z8] 00:00 Introduction 2:02 Getting to Know Ed 04:50 Are Protestants Going to Heaven? 34:49 Catholic or Protestant? 37:59 The Penance Game 41:08 Girl Problems

Everybody is Wrong About Men | ATB #31

WEEK 31: Are Men Useless? (REUPLOAD) Welcome to Harvard Stadium. This week, we bring in Daniel Nivens and take on one of the most charged questions in modern culture: are men actually useless? We walk through Olivia Barbulescu's viral Substack piece/IG post arguing that men are no longer needed — only wanted — and that they're struggling to adapt to the difference. We engage the comment section, which is exactly what you'd expect. We briefly address AnaMarte's viral claim that marriage is statistically the worst thing a woman can do. Then we turn to the right — Tate's thesis that male self-optimization is the answer, and Fuentes's argument that the whole problem is women were never supposed to be deciding what they want in the first place. We flag the internal contradictions in both. Then we ask the question nobody in this conversation is asking: not what men do — but who men are. We wrap that in the Gospel, and it gets deep. In the interludes: the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is now blue. We have thoughts. Also — Trump's 250-foot triumphal arch modeled on the Arc de Triomphe. We have more thoughts. We close with Girl Problems. - Should relationships ever have breaks? - How liberal is too liberal? And we're officially on a mission to find Dan a girlfriend. Email approachthebenchquestions@gmail.com or submit a voice memo at https://www.speakpipe.com/approachthebench to be featured on the show. Anonymous submissions: https://forms.gle/9Zjxzkpwajivx19z8 00:00 Introduction 07:09 Are Men Useless? 53:03 DC is Getting a Makeover - good or bad? 1:06:23 Influencer vs. Influencer 1:14:54 Girl Problems

A Rare Inside Look at the Life of a Harvard Law Professor (w/ Professor Jesse Fried) | ATB #31

WEEK 31: Inside the Life of a Harvard Law Professor. Welcome to Newton, MA. This week, we sit down with Professor Jesse Fried — William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, author of Pay Without Performance, expert witness in major corporate litigation, and a man who has been associated with this institution in some form for nearly four decades. Then we get into the main event: what does a Harvard Law professor actually do all day? We walk through Professor Fried's path step by step — Harvard undergrad, economics master's, HLS, a brief stop at a law firm, an Olin Fellowship, Berkeley, and finally back to Cambridge. Was academia always the plan? What made him leave practice? What did the Harvard hiring process actually look like — and did they take him out to dinner? From there, we press into some more fine-tuned questions. Most law professors have barely practiced law — is that a problem? What does a scholar bring to the classroom that a practitioner can't? We dig into what the job actually looks like: how much time goes into prepping a four-credit class with 100 students, how long grading takes, how he divides his time between teaching and research, and what it feels like to take academic work into a real courtroom as an expert witness. We also get into faculty governance — which we've heard can be quite the mess. Then we pull back for the big picture. Harvard is always in the news. Does it affect the day-to-day? What actually makes this place work — and would Professor Fried encourage students to come here? We close with the classics. An AI interlude — corporate law is one of the fields people think AI will hit hardest. Does Professor Fried buy that? Also, what class should be cut from the 1L courses, and which class should be added? And then Girl Problems: should you start a business with your significant other? Do HBS students really need prenups? And what has studying corporate law taught him about romance? Email approachthebenchquestions@gmail.com with your questions/comments or submit a voice memo at https://www.speakpipe.com/approachthebench for a chance to be featured on the show! You can also submit anonymous comments through this Google Form: https://forms.gle/9Zjxzkpwajivx19z8 00:00 Introduction 04:57 The Professor’s Backstory 11:58 Starting at Harvard Law 18:35 The day-to-day at Harvard Law (and some advice) 48:55 Should the Podcast be a Partnership or LLC? 50:46 AI in Corporate Law 1:03:18 1L Classes 1:05:52 Girl Problems

Are Mormons Christians? | 2 Protestants Debate a Mormon (ATB #30)

WEEK 30: Are Mormons Christians? (Outside an LDS Church) This week, we take the conversation outside—literally. Filmed in front of an LDS church in Cambridge, we sit down with John Warnock for one of the most important questions in modern Christianity: are Mormons Christians? We start with a simple goal: clarity, not cheap shots. This isn’t just a “debate”—it’s a serious attempt to understand where Christians and Latter-day Saints actually agree, where they fundamentally disagree, and whether those differences are big enough to matter. We begin with common ground. Both traditions affirm Jesus, the Bible, sin, salvation, and a moral vision that looks strikingly similar in everyday life. At a surface level, the overlap is real—and it’s why this question is so confusing for so many people. But then we press deeper. We walk through the core theological divides: * The nature of God (Trinity vs. a fundamentally different view of the Godhead) * Who Jesus is—and whether He is eternally God or something else * What counts as Scripture—and whether revelation is closed or still ongoing * Salvation—grace alone or grace plus covenantal obedience * The Church—continuous from the apostles or lost and restored in 1830 We also unpack the broader LDS story—pre-mortal existence, the Book of Mormon, the Great Apostasy, and the Restoration through Joseph Smith—and why those claims put LDS theology in direct tension with historic Christianity. From there, we tackle the real question: what does “Christian” even mean? Is it self-identification? Agreement with the historic creeds? Belief in a particular gospel? Or something broader and more cultural? Depending on the definition, the answer changes—and we try to be honest about that. We also engage the strongest arguments on both sides. The case that the differences are material—and the case that they might not be. No dodging, no strawmen. Just a serious attempt to think it through. Midway through, we lighten things up with a rapid-fire “best age” game—when should you get married, start dating, have kids, retire, and everything in between. We close with Girl Problems: * What’s the most effective way for a girl to get a guy to like her? * Would you date a Mormon? This is one of those conversations where precision matters. Whether you come in with a strong view or just curiosity, the goal is the same: understand the differences clearly enough to decide whether they’re decisive. Email approachthebenchquestions@gmail.com with your questions/comments or submit a voice memo at https://www.speakpipe.com/approachthebench [https://www.speakpipe.com/approachthebench] for a chance to be featured on the show! You can also submit anonymous comments through this Google Form: https://forms.gle/9Zjxzkpwajivx19z8 [https://forms.gle/9Zjxzkpwajivx19z8] 00:00 Introduction 02:35 Getting to Know John Warnock 04:53 What Mormons and Protestants Agree On 08:21 What Mormons and Protestants Disagree On 27:51 Are Mormons Christians? 1:38:23 Best Age Rankings 1:44:39 Girl Problems!

The War Fracturing the Legal Right (ft. Sarah Isgur) | ATB #29

WEEK 29: Sarah Isgur on the War Fracturing the Legal Right Welcome back to Approach the Bench. This week we sit down with Sarah Isgur — SCOTUSblog editor, Advisory Opinions co-host, ABC News legal analyst, and author of Last Branch Standing. Before all of that: Harvard Law '08, Federalist Society president, veteran of three presidential campaigns, DOJ spokesperson during the Mueller investigation, and the subject of one of the more memorable hiring sagas in recent media history. We open near Harvard Law, where Sarah led the Federalist Society under then-Dean Elena Kagan. What is it actually like holding conservative convictions in an environment that mostly doesn't share them? Sarah walks us through Kagan's reputation for genuine even-handedness, shares a memorable story about Kagan as Attorney General and later as Justice, and reflects on what it means to be openly on the right in the most elite corners of the legal academy. From there, we get into the core of Sarah's new book and the central fight now consuming the legal right: process vs. outcome. Why does Sarah call the Court the "last branch standing"? We use the recent Alien Enemies Act rulings as a live case study — including Matt Walsh's call for Trump to ignore the Court and the remarkable moment when deportation flights to El Salvador continued after Judge Boasberg's order, met only by the Salvadoran president's "Oopsie — too late." We press Sarah on the strongest version of the outcome-first argument, what process is actually for, and whether a coherent defense of the Court requires accepting results you hate. We also ask her to help two originalists effectively counter Common Good Constitutionalism on campus — Adrian Vermeule's rising alternative to originalism that asks judges to incorporate a Catholic vision of the common good into their reasoning. Then we shift to our politics. Does it matter if a political leader is decent? Has the discounting of character produced a grifter class on the right, and fueled the rise of figures like Nick Fuentes and the culture of "vice signaling"? We wrestle with whether a kind "heretic" is more dangerous than an indecent ally, what a decency framework offers young people who've only ever known an indecent style of politics, and whether Sarah fears for the future of the GOP. We close, of course, with Girl Problems. We ask about that date with Ben Shapiro. And we settle a longstanding debate from a Dispatch "Not Worth Your Time" segment: manual transmission — green flag, deal breaker, or doesn't matter? Email approachthebenchquestions@gmail.com with your questions/comments or submit a voice memo at https://www.speakpipe.com/approachthebench [https://www.speakpipe.com/approachthebench] for a chance to be featured on the show! You can also submit anonymous comments through this Google Form: https://forms.gle/9Zjxzkpwajivx19z8 [https://forms.gle/9Zjxzkpwajivx19z8]  00:00 Introduction 04:35 Two Harvard Laws 14:54 Attorney General Prediction? 16:24 Sarah’s New Book!24:09 Process v. Outcome (A Split in the Legal Right) 51:54 Decency in Politics 01:02:40 Girl Problems