Trent was recently invited on Protestant YouTuber Sam Shamoun’s channel to explain the Catholic position on sola scriptura. In the previous episode, Trent made his case against sola scriptura and now he takes questions from Sam’s Protestant audience.
Welcome to The Counsel of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Alright, two things. First, this episode is pre-recorded because I don’t know where I’m going to be when it airs. Laura and I might be driving to the hospital for the birth of our third child, Mr. John Paul Horn. Yay! We might be at the hospital when it airs or we might be at home introducing John Paul to his big brothers. So I don’t know whatever’s happening this week, we’re trusting in the Lord for that and your prayers are always greatly appreciated. Number two, this is a part two episode, part one aired earlier this week. I was invited recently to Sam Shamoun’s Protestant YouTube channel. So, Sam is a Protestant Apologist, though he focuses on defending the fundamental elements of the Christian faith like the Trinity. So, in part one I gave a talk, about a 35-minute talk, on sola scriptura and my doubts about sola scriptura. Why I think sola scriptura is not biblical and why it’s ultimately problematic as a foundational element of the Protestant worldview.
So after I gave that talk, Sam opened it up for Q and A with his mostly Protestant audience giving special emphasis to those questioners who believe in sola scriptura. So if you want to hear part one, go to the previous episode here on the channel. And by the way, while you’re looking at the episodes on your iTunes app or your Google Play app, if you could take a minute just to leave a review. Just hit whatever stars you think the show is worth deserving, maybe a little comment I would greatly appreciate it. It helps people to see that the show is worth their time and worth sharing with other people. Be sure to go and check that out. So if you want part one, go to the episode before this, to hear the talk that I gave. And now here is part two where I answer questions from Sam’s audience on the topic of sola scriptura.
Sam Shamoun:
Okay folks, let me first explain upfront. I bring in people to articulate their position Roman Catholics, Orthodox, I even bring in Protestants. And one thing I’ve noticed if I bring in someone you disagree with, then instead of listening to the person already the criticisms and objections. This is not fair not only for the person that I invite, but for yourself. What you need to do is first listen and hear the case and presentation, take the information, go back, prayerfully seek the face of the Holy Spirit and see where he’s right, where he’s wrong. Instead of assuming automatically, he’s wrong, that’s it I got to refute him, so that’s the first thing.
Secondly, the questions have to be related to the topic sola scriptura. Already what I saw in the comment section is attacks on tradition and papal infallibility, papacy. Now, if he was invited to talk about the papacy, those questions are relevant and I take those questions. But remember what the discussion is not about, it’s not about the papacy, papal infallibility or tradition. It’s about sola scriptura and his reasons why he doesn’t accept it because it’s not biblical and it’s not historical. So if you have questions related to the topic, I will entertain those questions because Trent Horn is a busy man.
It is an honor that he would take time out of his busy schedule to be here, so it’s a treat and a blessing, even for those of you who may not accept his position. At least let’s honor this brother in Christ and ask questions relevant to the topic and not go on tangent. So with that said, we’ll take few minutes of Q and A related to the topic, the points he brought up about sola scriptura and his reasons for rejecting it. Now mods, any relevant questions that you saw? If not then, that’s it. If there’s no questions then we can let him go back to his lovely family.
Trent Horn:
Well, I certainly hope that there are questions and I’d like to bring up this point. It’s very interesting Sam, that those who are in the chat when they want to ask a question, I’m here presenting on a Protestant doctrine. I’m evaluating that the doctrine of sola scriptura and thinking, okay, but if we can disprove Catholicism, sola scriptura wins by default. First, that’s not the case. Even if you were not convinced of Catholic doctrines such as the papacy or other distinctly Catholic doctrines, you’d still have to contend with the criticisms of sola scriptura that are offered by the Eastern Orthodox. Or offered by the churches of the East, for example, or also that are offered by, what’s the word I’m looking for here?
Heterodox Christians, so to speak or ones who are quasi Christian is a term that I use like Mormons who are also criticized as doctrines. So for me, even if I was an atheist or an agnostic, I could ask valid questions. If you’re a Protestant and believe in sola scriptura, what is your foundation for believing in this doctrine? And I’m happy to come back on to talk about a Catholic doctrine, but right now it’s not about so much what I believe as a Catholic it’s, is there sufficient warrant for a Christian to believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura?
Sam Shamoun:
Well said. Well, here’s the question I think it’s relevant. Because you’re talking about we need an infallible interpreter, an infallible guide. How does one deal with if I need an infallible interpreter of scripture and tradition? Then don’t I need an infallible interpreter of the interpreter and so on? Disputes on V2, for example. I don’t know what V2… Oh, Vatican II.
Trent Horn:
Vatican II.
Sam Shamoun:
Yes.
Trent Horn:
Yes. And I’ve heard this is attempting to make a reductio ad absurdum, though it’s not the precise argument that I was making. More what I was criticizing, I wasn’t making the argument explicitly that, oh, we need an infallible interpreter so therefore we always need this chain of infallible interpreters. It has an infinite regress. Rather what I was pointing out is that scripture cannot even meet the bar of being perspicuous. That I would say that when we look at these important key doctrines, when we look at the question of, do we need to be baptized to be saved? How is Christ present in the Eucharist? Can we lose our salvation? Does man have free will? When you read in scripture, the answers are not clear as it’s articulated there, so sola scriptura relies on scripture being perspicuous.
And the massive amounts of division among Christians when it comes to these main teachings, these essential teachings, counts against this important element of the doctrine of sola scriptura. But if you contrast scripture, for example, with the catechism, those very same questions that I asked, take the catechism of the Catholic Church for example. When you read the catechism, you get clear answers on, do we need to be baptized in order to be saved? Do we have free will? Going to the nature of these questions. Now it’s true, there are going to be people who disagree reading church documents. Well, what does this document mean? What does that document mean? But that’s the benefit of having a living magisterium.
That just as Christ did not simply give a written word, Christ could have written the testimony of scripture before He ascended into heaven and given it to the apostles to give to others. But He gave a living authority to the apostles to be able to answer questions that were not raised during His earthly ministry. For example, one piece of evidence in favor of the authenticity of the Gospels is that the Gospel writers don’t use Jesus to resolve disputes of their own time. So for example, in Paul’s letters we see a big dispute about whether you can eat meat sacrificed to idols. Jesus, doesn’t mention that in the Gospels. So, that shows He’s not a product of forgers or things like that, but also Jesus chose not to answer the question during His earthly ministry.
He entrusted that to the living authority of the apostles, but of course He knew these same questions would arise throughout the church as it existed throughout the ages. And so, having this living authority can help us dispel not just questions we have about scripture, but even questions people have about church teaching that can be clarified. The magisterium can come forward and clarify the questions people have about the teachings that it issues. That is something that an authority like a church with bishops, with people who are successors to the apostles, that’s what an authority can do. Can give us that clarification, a book simply can’t do that. So, we ultimately have to ask the question who has the better historical claim to having Christ’s authority? Bishops who have a chain of succession to the apostles? Or the individual who picks up scripture today 2000 years later?
Sam Shamoun:
I know this question part of it is relevant, I don’t know about the second part, but you decide. It’s, lots of Church Fathers talked about sola scriptura, what is your comment on that? Also, what is your opinion on Eighth Ecumenical Counselor Filioque and Pope [inaudible 00:09:01]. Now, the second part I don’t know if it’s relevant, but the first part, lots of Church Fathers talked about sola scriptura, what is your comment on that?
Trent Horn:
Yeah. I’m not sure exactly what is being referred to here. I’ll take the latter part first by the Eighth Ecumenical Council, I think they mean the Fourth Council of Constantinople, which is only accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, I believe. But I’d have to go back on my notes just to check what they mean by the Eighth Ecumenical Council, because it depends how you count them. Because there are other councils throughout church history they considered Robbers Councils, things like that. Which also goes back to the question, how do we know an ecumenical council is legitimate without having a ultimate individual who serves as the pastor of the church to give the final approval to convene or accept the findings of these councils? Which we see in the role of the papacy throughout the ecumenical councils.
So now, when it comes to Filioque that would take us too far a field when it comes that’s… For those who don’t know, Filioque is about the controversy of a clause that was added to the Nicene Constantinople Creed saying, “We believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son,” or Filioque in Latin. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, this is a principle of a big division between Western and Eastern Christians claiming that it has implications for getting the right Christology, the right understanding of the Trinity. Whereas in the East, they reject the Filioque for theological reasons and for saying that it was added later in the Creed by Spanish bishops who were trying to underscore the full divinity of Christ. He’s of the same essence of the Father, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son just as the Father.
But not in a way that some Eastern theologians have said, it doesn’t mean that what proceeds from the Son only comes from Him because everything the Son has comes from the Father. He is begotten by the Father, the Father generates the Son, the Son and the Father spirate the Holy Spirit. So, I find that there are formulas to overcome the Filioque controversy. Look, I said it’s too far a field, I’m doing it anyways so whatever. For example, I attend an Eastern Catholic Church, a Byzantine Rite Church, and so actually we don’t say the Filioque when we recite the Creed, it’s not required. And the Pope, when he concelebrates with Eastern patriarchs, he leaves it out of the Creed. So, it’s not a sine qua non in that respect.
But we could have things like from the Father through the Son, which is the I think the older variant of it, that perfectly encapsulates the Western and Eastern understanding of Filioque. But when it comes to the Church Fathers they don’t use the term sola scriptura, that’s a later Latin in reformation history. They talk about the sufficiency of scripture, but as I show and I go at length in my book, they talk about scripture being sufficient to contain divine revelation but not that it is sufficient in and of itself. Because these same Fathers hold to… They say explicitly things they believe come from sacred tradition or the teaching of the church.
In fact I would say, “Well, there’s a problem here. If you say people like Cyril of Jerusalem or Athanasius believed in sola scriptura, if you say that, then what do you do with these Fathers who also believed in distinctly Catholic doctrines?” Like the propitiatory nature of the mass, the primacy of the Pope, for example, or the role of the episcopacy Apostolic succession. So, you can’t have your cake and eat it too. You can’t say, “Well, the Fathers believe in sola scriptura.” Even if they did then scripture is not perspicuous because they read scripture and they came to believe all this Catholic stuff anyway. So, either the Fathers did not believe in sola scriptura or if they did, which they didn’t, but if they did then scripture’s not perspicuous. Because they totally misinterpreted it to arrive at Catholic doctrine.
Sam Shamoun:
This one here, Irenaeus said in one of his writings that the scriptures are the foundation and pillar of truth. Don’t you think that proves sola scriptura?
Trent Horn:
No, I wouldn’t say so. First what’s interesting here from the questioner I would say, I would ask them what is necessary to prove sola scriptura? So even if it were the case that some of the Fathers held to a formal sufficiency of scripture, there are elements of doctrine that the Fathers disagreed upon. On some questions you don’t have theological unanimity among them. So I would say from this questioner, if someone says, “Well, this proves sola scriptura.” I would say, “First, if you care about the authority of the Fathers at all, of the Church Fathers, how much of their testimony is necessary to establish a doctrine for you to believe?” If you say, “Well, I only believe in sola scriptura. The Fathers are helpful, but I don’t factor them into the equation.”
Well, then why did you bother bringing it up in the first place? Why does it even matter? Let’s say, for example hypothetically, Irenaeus did believe in sola scriptura. Which I would say that one verse recognizing that scripture is an authority, doesn’t follow as I said before, that it’s only, that’s the key word here that’s missing. But even let’s say he was arguing for sola scriptura, if all the other Fathers are in disagreement with him, shouldn’t you go with all of the other Fathers in that regard? Or are you just picking people that agree with you? So, I think that when people ask that question of the Fathers and try to turn them into defenders of Protestant theology, they run across the sort of double standard in that regard.
Sam Shamoun:
Would you say Acts 15, when the Council of Jerusalem made a decision against Old Testament law, that this is an example of the apostolic tradition taking credence over scripture.
Trent Horn:
Okay. So, this is talking about in Acts 15 about the question of sacrifices, drinking blood and these other decisions that were made and also about circumcision, incorporating the Gentiles. I wouldn’t say that this is taking precedence over scripture, but Acts 15 does reveal the existence of a magisterium, a teaching authority, that is able to guide us in the understanding of how God’s word has been revealed. How it’s revealed in the written word and then how it’s revealed in the unwritten word or sacred tradition. Because like I said before, there are many Jews at that time who would have said, “Look, go back to the Pentateuch, go back to the Torah. It says here, ‘Circumcision, this is an enduring covenant. The Sabbath is something that is enduring forever.'” Uses a Hebrew word that means forever lasting. And forever, how can you go against that?
And yet we have the apostles issuing a teaching saying that the understanding of that revelation of the Word of God in written form, we have to understand its interpretation and meaning ultimately in the light of the fullness of divine revelation. Which at the time the Council of Jerusalem was convened included what may have been some written revelation of the New Testament. But for the vast majority, the unwritten tradition that was preached by the apostles and mediated through them through their apostolic office. Which was instituted by Jesus when he said in Luke 10:16 of the apostles, He didn’t say, “He who hears the word that is written hears me.”
He says, “He who hears you hears me.” All throughout the Gospels we see that Jesus does not say, does not require or mandate or seek out to have a written instruction as an authority. Instead he says, “He who hears you hears me. I give you the keys to the Kingdom, what you bind on earth you bind in heaven.” He breathed on them in John 20:23 to be able to forgive sins. We see the authority invested in persons, and not even in persons what they would just write later, but in the persons themselves and the offices that they hold to endure for as long as the church would exist.
Sam Shamoun:
All right. Few more questions folks, because we do need to let Trent Horn get back to his family and other activities. This one actually is Ariel, he’s asking a question I know where it comes from. So, Ariel the up and coming Roman Catholic Apologist.
Trent Horn:
Yes.
Sam Shamoun:
How did the believing Jew, 50 years before Christ, know that Isaiah was scripture? Was there an infallible magisterium back then to adjudicate this?
Trent Horn:
Yes. I’ve heard this one referred to as the White question, I believe. I’ve heard James White argue this. I think it goes back to his book, Roman Catholic Controversy, and I’ve heard other people mention it. So the argument goes like this, if the Jews 50 years from the time of Christ were able to, how did they know that Isaiah was scripture? So this is usually a retort to the canon problem I mentioned earlier that Protestants have to confront. How do we have knowledge of the canon of scripture is infallible? How do we have that? And so the retort is, do we need that really? I mean, go back to the Jews before the time of Christ, a hundred years before Jesus, how did the Jews of that time know Isaiah or 1 Chronicles was scripture?
There was no magisterium back then with the same charisms as the Catholic church has today. So, if they were able to know scripture without the magisterium before Christ, why can’t Protestants know scripture without any kind of magisterium today? And I would say the problem with this argument is that, and this is put forward well in books by my friend Gary Michuta, he’s written a lot of books on this called, The Case for the Deuterocanon. But he also writes on the canon in general, that for Jews the matter of canon was a matter of dispute, not all Jews agreed on the canon. So for the White question, if you want to say, “Well, let’s just be like the Jews before Christ.”
The problem is there was no Jewish canon at that time, you would say there were Jewish canons. You had the Sadducees who held a very restricted canon that only included the Torah, you’re the Pharisees that had a larger canon than that. But then you also had the Essenes that had an even larger cannon than the Pharisees. But even among the Pharisees between the schools of Hillel and Shammai you had disagreements about is Esther canonical? The protocanonical books of Esther that you find in Protestant Bibles they… So, there’s a longer recension that you find in the Catholic Bible, but Protestant Esther does not even mention God. Doesn’t talk about God. And so a lot of Jews at that time said, “Well, how can this be scripture?” Is the Song of Songs scripture? And it’s not included in many different lists, for example, at that time.
So, the problem with the White question is that, if you want to have canon without magisterium you won’t get canon you’ll get cannons. And so, what Jews understood at that time was that the importance was following ethical monotheism and adhering to the Shema. What they all held in common was the Torah. We held to the Torah, you have the Torah after that the rabbis would disagree with one another, but they kept the Torah. That was what was important the Shema, Hear O Israel, Lord your God is one. But then there were canons after that. So if you want to have that absence, then you should be prepared to have a similar… If you want that absence of a magisterium to provide guidance on the subject, I wonder if Protestant Apologists are willing to allow Protestant canons or a plurality of canons in the same way? They would have to, if they want to make that parallel to Jews believing before the time of Christ.
Sam Shamoun:
The two final questions. Here’s one, isn’t it true that Catholicism uses circular reasoning too? For example, I trust the Bible because the Catholic Church says so but I trust the Catholic Church because it is the most biblical.
Trent Horn:
Sure. I would say that if that were the argument it would be circular, but it’s not a circular argument. To borrow a term from the founder of Catholic Answers, Karl Keating, he put forward something called a spiral argument. So, it’s not a circle it’s a tight circle, but it’s not a circle it’s a spiral. And here’s how it would work, and this is how it worked for me actually in my conversion, I was in high school and I believed in God and I wondered about this person, Jesus. And I thought, you know what? I think the Bible is just a bunch of human books, most of it’s fairy tales, fables, pre-scientific superstition that’s what I thought of the Bible when I was in high school.
But I wasn’t an atheistic fundamentalist. I didn’t think, oh, everything in here is wrong. I thought, well, there’s got to be some stuff in here that’s historical, there was a Jerusalem, there was a Pontus Pilate, there was a guy named Jesus. So I thought, all right, I’m going to look at the Bible not as the Word of God but it’s just, these are historical documents. So, there’s other historical documents at this time, later on you have 1 Clement, you have the Didache, you have all these historical documents, Josephus, and they talk about a man named Jesus. When we look at these historical documents, what do they say about Jesus?
Well, it seems clear when I read them that Jesus was alive, He preached the Kingdom of God, He made radical claims to a divine self identity, He was crucified and He rose from the dead. And that His resurrection is the best explanation of the origin of the Christian faith, the radical transformation of people like Paul and James and the other disaffected disciples that He had. So the resurrection made historical sense to me, so I believed that God not only existed, but He revealed himself in the person of Christ. So now I believe in Jesus, but where do I go from here? I have documents that talk about Jesus but I don’t know which of these documents I can trust to which ones I don’t.
What I do know is reading these documents, both the biblical and the non-biblical ones, I see that Christ established a church. He’s very clear about a church founded on the apostles, founded on Peter. The apostles say in their letters, “People don’t just sign up to be pastors, you don’t just go to seminary and say, ‘I’m going to be a pastor.’ You have to have hands laid on you by other people.” Other people pick you. And then as you go forward in Christian history, you see in 1 Clement 44, the Letter of Clement, saying that our Lord Jesus Christ knew there’ll be strive for the office of Bishop and made a plan, so to speak, for succession for these offices to entrust other men.
We see this in Paul, 2 Timothy 2:2 he tells Timothy, “What you have heard from me before many faithful witnesses entrust to faithful people, capable men who are capable of teaching others as well.” And then as I cited Ignatius of Antioch earlier in the 2nd century, you don’t see a canon of scripture that is the authority for Christians, instead Ignatius tells people, “Follow the Bishop. Follow the Bishop like Jesus follows the Father and you will be fine.” So for me, it’s a spiral argument. I am not saying the church proves the Bible so the Bible proves the church, that would be circular. It’s also circular to say, “I believe in the Bible because it’s the Word of God, the Word of God cannot be deceptive or wrong and so it says, “This is the Bible.'” That will be circular as well.
Rather I’m saying, the Bible, if you look at them as historical fallible documents like I did in my conversion, you arrive at the divinity and resurrection of Christ. And from those historical documents you see Christ establish a church that would have apostolic succession, historical continuity. This church would continue on the authority of the apostles and with that apostolic authority invested in the church, I can trust the guidance it gives on what I ought to believe both in unwritten Word of God and sacred tradition and the written Word of God given to me in teachings promulgated in ecumenical councils and in cyclicals and other elements like that. So, historical documents go to the divinity of Christ, go to a church that He established, goes through the churches pronouncements on what is and is not scripture. So, that’s how I would arrive at that without being circular in that regard.
Sam Shamoun:
Here’s the final question folks, this is the one. On the topic of canon, Protestants take Roman R.C, I’m sorry, R.C. Sproul’s position. Then when we go “shopping for apostolic churches” EO, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and use our fallible reasoning for this, is that not an issue? I think he meant to say. Is that an issue?
Trent Horn:
Right. So this is the problem here, how do we have certainty? And ultimately in the chain of judgment, our judgment has to go back to ourselves. I can’t promise apart from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that someone is given a kind of infallible certainty of something, apart from a divine revelation given to them. So, ultimately when it comes to making judgments about what we believe as Christians or what church we belong to, the buck stops here. Ultimately it’s going to come back to us as individuals to weigh the evidence that is in front of us.
The point that I am making tonight is that even when looking just at standards of evidence in general, that I’m not saying that oh, sola scriptura can’t meet this super high bar of infallible standards so we ought not accept it. Because someone could come back at me and say, “Yes, but the historical claims of the Catholic Church can’t meet that super high bar either.” I’m not saying that, I’m just saying for just standards of moral certainty, standards of historical certainty, of theological certainty saying, “Well, when I look at scripture, does it teach this doctrine? Is it perspicuous as a Protestant apologists claim? Is there a reliable, consistent means to arrive at the 27 book canon of the New Testament?”
The fact of the problem for Protestants is this, there’s no way you can reverse engineer a little, say with the New Testament, there’s no way you can reverse engineer the 27 book canon to the New Testament with a set of criteria apart from the judgment of the Catholic Church. So that’s objective. If you go with something totally subjective then you have no foundation for it. Just, “Well, God spoke to me, this is the canon.” If you pick anything that’s objectively like it speaks of Christ, which is what Luther said, or it promotes Christian doctrine, or it’s connected to an apostle or someone who knew an apostle you can’t get the whole canon. Hebrews is anonymous, for example strictly speaking, so it wouldn’t fall under the canon even under that authorship question.
And if apostolic authorship or connected to an apostle, makes something canonical, then Clement and Ignatius are connected to the apostles just as much as Mark and Luke were. We would put them in as well. So, my point is just that you can’t get, even by just the standards of good evidence, to the conclusion sola scriptura is true, or that we should believe in this 27 book canon of the New Testament. You can’t get there. But I do believe that if you look at the much stronger historical evidence for an enduring church, with apostolic succession based on the promises of Jesus in the New Testament and how they have been lived out in the early church, then you are on firmer ground. I believe you’re on way firmer ground with either Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, or the Churches of the East as opposed to Protestantism.
In fact as a Catholic, we resign the title church to the Eastern churches because they’ve maintained apostolic succession. We refer to our Protestant brothers and sisters as belonging to ecclesial communities from the reformation. The word church, we restrict to those who have apostolic succession, so it’s much closer to what the church of Christ is in that regard. So, then determining the precise historical claims that’s a bit of a narrower element, but one, I believe the evidence does support that maybe I’ll have to come back and speak on at another time. But I hope that’s helpful, and I would just recommend to your listeners, we barely scratched the surface on a lot of this. And if you have more questions about Catholicism, I’d recommend our website, catholic.com, my podcast, The Counsel of Trent available at iTunes, Google Play. And then my full book on this subject is, The Case for Catholicism, which is available from Ignatius Press. And once again Sam, thank you so much for doing all your good work. And I’m really grateful you had me on today.
Sam Shamoun:
Well, praise God for that. And we’re going to put all the links in the description box, but you said one thing, and it’s not going to take long for an answer, you said Mark, the [inaudible 00:29:04] Mark and the woman caught in adultery. And it’s interesting, because I brought a textual critic to demonstrate its historical veracity. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church [inaudible 00:29:13] Mark and woman adultery. Scripture?
Trent Horn:
Is this scripture? Yes.
Sam Shamoun:
[inaudible 00:29:17]
Trent Horn:
But theologians are allowed to have lively debates about who is the author of this scripture.
Sam Shamoun:
Okay. The only thing I’m angry is that you’re a better looking apologist than me.
Trent Horn:
At least you can get the beard. I tried to grow a beard it looks terrible, so.
Sam Shamoun:
[inaudible 00:29:35].
Trent Horn:
No worries.
Sam Shamoun:
We will have you back, I promise, when your schedule allows, because there’s other topics I want you to address. Because you’re one of the best, you came highly recommended, especially from Ariel. Who’s also my estimation upcoming top-notch Roman Catholic Apologist who I love dearly. B2 is better looking than me, so I’m going to start hating on you guys. It’s something about you Catholics make you look good looking, maybe that’s a reason to convert.
Trent Horn:
We got the food of eternal life, my friend. Maybe it’s the Eucharist- who knows what it might be, so it’s something to chew on.
Sam Shamoun:
God bless you and hopefully we’ll have you back. And God bless you all.
If you liked today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.