Trent finishes the questions in his mailbag episode including ones on marriage in heaven, discrepancies in the Resurrection accounts, and favorite Bible translations.
Welcome to the Council of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic answers.
And, welcome back to part two of our open mailbag Bible episode here on the Council of Trent podcast. I’m your host Catholic answers apologist and speaker Trent Horn, and if you want to have an opportunity to have your questions answered here on the podcast, consider becoming a patron, a supporter at trenthornpodcast.com. For as little as $5 a month you get access to bonus content, sneak peaks of my books, a special video thank you from me, the ability to submit questions for these open mailbags, sneak peaks of other episodes, like my interview at Gary Sinise that will be going live March 10th, but is on the podcast patron page for all of you who like to hear it a little bit early. And now, we handled our gold members last time. So, here’s a few questions I picked up from round two buy in, for the open mailbag episode.
So, let’s jump into those right now, you’ve waited two days to hear part two. I’ve waited two minutes to record it. It’s still late night, Saturday night here at the Horn household, but I will not let that stop me. We will burn the candle at all the ends. I’ll be burning the midnight oil here to bring you the truth of our faith, to bring you biblical evidence and foundations for it and to answer all the burning questions that you have.
Here’s the first one. Does God punish people? Why did David have to choose one of three different punishments. If this is even true that he has to choose a punishment, why would God punish people? Why would God punish us, we think of God being loving, right? God is love. It’s not fair. Why would God punish somebody, isn’t that unloving? Well, I tell you this, I have two little children. I have, I mean I have a five-year-old and a soon to be three-year-old and it would actually be unloving for me not to punish them. And, I get tempted to it, I am a softy at heart. So, there’s, in my book made this way with Layla Miller, we talk about how to explain moral issues to kids and we talk about there’s three different kinds of parenting styles. One that’s really hard to get, but is the healthy way to raise kids, and the other two that are common but are actually really unhealthy. So, one of those would be the authoritarian parent. This is a parent that is all rules, no love. Okay, that’s the authoritarian. Then there’s the permissive parent, the parent who is all love, no rules. I shouldn’t say love, all rules, no heart. And then, there’s the permissive parent who is all heart but no rules. So, the parent lets kids get away with whatever.
And whenever, when I have a temptation as a parent, it’s being permissive. I mean, I guess that’s just my temperament with my kids. I feel like, and I fall into that trap of thinking may if I’m going to be, if I’m, if I model kindness and niceness to them, maybe I think that they will pick up niceness for me. I think that’s what motivates a lot of permissive parents. And, they think, I don’t want to be harsh on my kids because that’s going to make them harsh. If I act nice to them, then maybe they will be nice as well but all that ends up doing, and I’ve learned this lesson the hard way, is it teaches kids there’s no consequences for their actions. And so, they think they can get away with whatever they want and even worse, I harm them. I’m being unloving because I don’t set proper boundaries for them and they don’t realize what those consequences are in little matters. And so, they’re liable then to have bigger consequences and bigger matters down the road. So, if I was a really loving parent, I would set reasonable consequences to them.
Now, of course, for breaking my rules as their earthly father, the consequences are not going to be as severe as if one breaks the rules laid down by our heavenly father. Especially if you’re given an extremely important charge, such as being the King of God’s entire chosen kingdom on earth, which is the sense with David. So, does God punish people? Yes, he does. And, we know that because the Bible even tells us that. You go to Hebrews chapter 12, Hebrews 12, seven through 11. It says, “It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons, for what son is there whom his father does not discipline. If you are left without discipline in which all had participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had…” Let me move my microphone here so it’s not too loud. There we go. “Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the father of spirits and live. For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant. Later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.”
All this passage is saying is that God does allow us to be punished. God punishes us. Now, this passage is not saying when God punishes us or what that means, it’s not saying that every single bad thing that happens to us as a punishment sent by God. That would be, I always wanted say, it’s not a punishment sent by Go- God. God is punishing us for this. You know that that’s stretching it. Sometimes bad things happen. Even Jesus said that in the gospels, he, people said, “Why was this man born blind? Was it a his parents sin or did he sin?” Jesus said, “No, it’s not their sins. Man was blind so that God can be glorified through him.”
And, other times Jesus said to people, he said, “The rain falls. My father in heaven makes the rain fall on the just and unjust.” He said, “What about the people in Siloam when that tower fell on them? The news of the day hear about that tower fell down, killed about a dozen people. He said, “Were those people any more wicked than any other people?” No. Sometimes God just allows these things to happen, but another times, God punishes people.
We talk about this with sin, that when we have sin, there are two effects. There’s an eternal consequence or punishment and a temporal consequence or punishment for our sins. Jesus takes away the eternal effect of our sins, that he’s the only one who can atone for that. But, we’re still left with that punishment or attachment to sin, those temporal consequences that if we do not remove them from ourselves in this life then we have to be purified from them in purgatory. So, the story of David, Dave, David sinned by calling a census of the people. How was that a sin? Well, a census means you not just numbers, it means you have ownership over people, over a nation. And God, David is King, but the real King is God, of Israel. And that, was the thing David failed to see and through his actions, he was alienating the kingdom of Israel from its rightful King, who is God. And so, God punished David for that and gave him a choice of what was it? It was plague, it was pursued by enemies, pursued by plague.
And then, ultimately David was punished for also for his sin with Bathsheba and Araya the Hittite. He was punished for adultery and murder, costing him the life of, for through all that, David also experienced punishments from God losing the life of his son. There’s that wonderful passage where David says that I will go to him but he will not come to me. That’s in second Samuel 1223 I believe. So, yeah. God does punish us, but not in a cruel or vindictive way, it is medicinal. It is something to discipline us like how a father disciplines children in order for them to see the consequences of their actions, so it does not become something that is irrevocable.
So, I think it’s important, you’ll talk about in the Catholic church, you’re talking about something like excommunication. Excommunication is not a ticket to hell, an irrevocable ticket to hell the church gives people, that’s not what it is. It is something to show that you are now out of communion with Christ and his church through your public and manifest sin and you had to be reconciled to Christ and to his church. That it is a medicinal punishment, is something for a person to know how severe the consequence of their actions are so they will put their head on straight and come back to God and have a, what other people will call a come to Jesus moment essentially. To have that particular moment of clarity. And, we see this in first Corinthians chapter five when Saint Paul essentially says that the man who had an, who slept with his own stepmother, while the community turned a blind eye to it, that man was to be excommunicated. He was poisoning the rest of the community with his deprived sexual immorality and he had to be handed over to Satan for the good of his own soul, to see where he had to be reconciled with the church.
And so it’s, it’s so funny actually, it’s not funny actually. I’m beginning to run out of examples of sexual disorders and depravity that I’ll tell people, “Well, if you think that consent is the only thing that matters to sexuality…” I used to say, “Well, do you think polyamory or polygamy is okay?” 10 years ago nearly everybody was going to say, “No, that’s not okay or that’s not marriage.” I post on social media though about how now home and garden tell, HDTV home and gardens television does a show which, with a throuple, a man who is in a romantic relationship with two women who are there, the man is in a relationship with the women. The women are relationship with each other and with him and there was a few people on Twitter saying, “Oh my gosh, how could you, you’re so scared of people with their consensual relationships.”
The point I made on social media, by the way, was that in 2010 when I was telling people, if you think same sex marriage should be legal, you have no principal reason to be against polyamory or polygamy, marrying more than two people. And, people told me back then “Oh, you’re… That is a slippery slope fallacy. You’re, that’s a hateful thing to compare.” And now, I’m hearing in 2020, “Well, what’s wrong about polyamory? You are the hateful one for saying people can’t love each other. Love is love.” So, what we say comes to pass, will certainly come to pass.
And, sometime God, I think he can punish not just individuals but he brings punishment upon groups, upon entire nations. He brought punishment upon the nation, the people of Israel for their faithlessness. Now does that mean that if a hurricane hits the United States is because of abortion or same sex marriage? Not necessarily. I think that if God punishes a nation for something, we would have to see, if we were to draw a definitive conclusion on that, we’d have to see a bit more work of divine providence in that. We, once again, just because God does allow bad things or inflict bad things upon people, if we see it directly in salvation history, on either people or groups, it’s possible for that to happen today, it does happen today, but that doesn’t mean that we can definitively say God has punished this person or he has punished this group of people because the period of public revelation has ceased, he hasn’t revealed that to us. But, we take care because in our own lives to focus on, as in Hebrews 12, God is our heavenly father. Just as we have earthly fathers who discipline us, God will discipline us as well. Sometimes he allows trials in our lives for us to be drawn closer to him. So, I hope that’s a helpful answer.
Let’s move on to the next question. Will procreation continue in the kingdom of God? I guess this is a reference to heaven? Will we still have children in heaven? No we won’t. And, the clear verse on this is Mark 12 25, for Jesus is in a debate with the Sadducees. And, the Sadducees deny that there is a resurrection from the dead. And so, they only hold to the authority of the first five books of the old Testament. And, Jesus points how even in the first five books, God says, “I am the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.” Not I was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So, he argues with the Sadducees on their own playing field.
But, then he goes on to say that you misunderstand, because they were telling him fine, if there’s a resurrection, what if some woman is married to seven guys? Who is she going to be, in her life, if they each die one after another. Who she going to marry? Who will she be married to in the resurrection? And, in Mark 12 25, it’s very clear. It says, “For when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage but are like angels in heaven.” Jesus says, “No. When we are in heaven, the sacraments will not exist anymore.” We won’t have sacraments because we will have… Sacraments are signs, signs point to something. Once you get to the thing they point to, you don’t need the sign anymore, we won’t need to be baptized, we won’t need to be confirmed. We will have the beatific vision of God, we will have complete communion with God. We won’t need any of the sacraments including the sacrament of marriage.
Now the indelible mark, so the sacraments leave on our souls. Those will still be there. If you were a priest in this life, you will still be a priest in the next life. We’re baptized in this life, we will still have the effects of baptism in the next life. The marks of the sacraments will remain, but the sacraments themselves, those will not remain anymore. Those will not, they will not be present and that includes… So, marriage we will not, we won’t be married because think about this. Every single marriage. What do we say, “Till death do us part.” That, it says that do not tear apart what God has joined, that what Paul says in his letter to the Romans, he says that a woman is no longer bound to her husband upon death. So, we all die right? At the moment of death, the marriage bond is broken. Marriage existed to join us together in this life, not in any other life, so upon, so we all die. Then that means the bond’s going to be broken.
Even if we were married, though, and you were caught up to heaven at the end of the world and did not die, you would not be in a state of marriage anymore because Jesus says they are like angels in that regard. So, sometimes some Mormons, Mormons believe you can be married in heaven. If you’re sealed in the temple here on earth, you can have a celestial marriage. But, I would say Mark 12 25 very clearly goes against that.
Some Mormons will argue and say, “No, Jesus is only saying they neither marry nor are given in marriage.” And, what he means is nobody gets married in heaven but people who are married on earth, they will still be married in heaven. But, that is not a convincing reply because the point here is that it doesn’t, so why would Jesus bring that up? That still doesn’t answer the Sadducees question. Because, if you’re going to say, “Okay, fine, this woman was married to seven men on earth.” Which one is she still married to now? And, they’ll try to say, “Well, she was only sealed to maybe one of them, whoever she was actually sealed to for eternal marriage.” So, Mormon’s say family is forever and they mean that not metaphorically. If you get sealed in the temple in this life, you will be married in the next life. And, if a man is sealed in the temple to more than one woman in this life, in heaven he will have multiple wives. So, Mormons used to practice polygamy, they don’t anymore. But, polygamy is still something they believe is possible in the next life if someone is exalted and becomes a God of their own world, they will have, if they are man, they will have divine wives through whom they can procreate new spirit children. Become gods of their own worlds. We should do a whole podcast on Mormonism.
If you want more on that, check out my booklet, 20 answers, Mormonism, you can get more on that. But, it seems very clear to me from Mark 12 25 Jesus’s answer. And, he also says, “They’re neither marrying or given in marriage. They are like angels in heaven.” What is an angel? What makes an angel different from a human being? They don’t have bodies. Angels don’t have bodies. Angels don’t procreate. That, and so we will be the same in heaven, that’s why there won’t be marriage in heaven and there definitely will not be procreation in heaven. We will just, we will be enthralled with the beatified vision of God who is infinite goodness itself. Something we’ll never tire of, never bore of and it’s something to always keep our eyes on.
Next question. The gospels all seem to have different accounts of the resurrection, including which women went to the tomb, what they saw there, and when and where Jesus appeared to the women. How do we reconcile these differences and how do we defend against this argument from skeptics who say this proves the Bible is contradictory. I like a quote here from William Lane Craig, one of my favorite Christian apologists, someone who defends at the very least the existence of God, the resurrection of Christ. I’ll, well, I’ll read the quote and then just give a quick summary to it.
So, William Lane Craig says to us, “The problem with focusing on discrepancies is that we tend to lose the forest for the trees. The overriding factors of the gospels are remarkably harmonious in what they relate. The discrepancies between them are in the secondary details. All four gospels agree, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified in Jerusalem by Roman authority during the Passover feast, having been arrested and convicted on charges of blasphemy by the Jewish Sanhedrin and then slandered before the governor Pilot on charges of treason. He died within several hours and was buried Friday afternoon by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb which was sealed with a stone. Certain women followers of Jesus, including Mary Magdalen, having observed his internment, visited his tomb early on Sunday morning only to find it empty. Thereafter, Jesus appeared alive from the dead to the disciples, including Peter, who then became proclaimers of the message of his resurrection.” So, right there in that little summary, Dr. Craig pulls together all the major elements that all four gospels agree on and so all four gospels agree on this and we should not lose sight of that. It’s a remarkable amount of agreement.
So, I might say to an atheist, “Okay, you’re showing that there are con- maybe there’s certain details that differ or let’s say there are contradictions in the biblical accounts. Let’s say there are, what would that prove? What would that prove? Would that prove that Jesus never rose from the dead at all? If it does, if you’re saying that any difference in eyewitness accounts, any difference in accounts disproves that historical event itself, you’ll have to throw out 95% 98% of historical events that have multiple accounts.” One example that I like to use is the great fire in Rome, that when you look at the three sources we have Tacitus, Suetonius, and Cassius Dio, they all describe where emperor Nero was during the fire, they place him in three different cities. So, it was not like the gospel authors say Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem or Nazareth or Ephasus, that he died in one of three different cities. They get it all right in the main important primary details. So, Cassius Dio, Seutonius and Tacitus get these aspects about Nero during the fire at Rome, way different, but nobody still doubts there was a great fire at Rome and that Nero was probably involved somehow.
So, just because they differ doesn’t disprove the main historical event, it would just prove there’s differences in the secondary details. At the very least, you could be an atheist who says, “I believe Jesus was crucified. He rose from the dead.” Maybe the Bible has errors in it’s descriptions of events, but that wouldn’t take away belief in the resurrection. But, I still don’t think that means you have to believe there are errors in the biblical text. There are these differences, but that doesn’t mean that they are contradictions in what is being asserted. For example, one of the gospels, I think it’s John just describes Mary Magdalen going to the tomb, but just because the gospel only mentions one person, it doesn’t mean that the other person, people that are not mentioned weren’t there, which would be the other women who went with Mary Magdalen, she’s named in every account.
Or there’ll be different ways of describing things, like it was dark or it was First light. Have you ever got up at Dawn, right at the crack of Dawn? I mean, you could describe it either as it’s really dark or you see the first light breaking through. And, if someone’s walking there, I actually walked, it was the most beautiful thing when I went on my pilgrimage to Jerusalem over Easter few years ago and took a group there. I’d love to do it again in the future so we’ll have to see if that can come about. The only thing that, honestly, the only thing that keeps me away from doing these pilgrimages is I miss my family too much. I miss them too much, I hate being gone. I might actually, I don’t know if I’ll do any pilgrimages in the near future, maybe. I don’t know, we’ll see. I’ll pray about it. I definitely might do them more once my kids are older. Maybe when Matt’s 13 years old, he can come with me and we’ll go to the Holy land and I’ll show him these places, and Anna won’t mind because some of them can come with me.
But, when I was there on Easter, on Easter Sunday, I was the only person in the group who was willing to brave getting up at 5:00 AM to go to the old city and go to Jesus’s tomb with the Holy Sepulchre. And, I was the first person there, I was there at 05:15 in the morning, Easter Sunday mass was at 8:00 AM. I was probably, well there were people there all night for the tomb, but I sat in the little wooden benches they had. And then, hour and a half later it was standing room only, an hour before the Easter sunrise mass with the Latin patriarch. But, I remember walking there in the morning, I got up before Dawn and I felt like the women, up early heading towards the tomb and it’s dark out and I mean it was, it was a beautiful experience. If you ever get the chance to go to… My favorite place to go in the world, easily Israel. Easily my favorite place, Bible comes alive there and there’s just nothing else like, it to walk where Jesus and the apostles walked. And, by the way, the food. Oh, food is amazing. I could just have the falafel and shawarma and all that stuff for forever, I think it’s great. Whenever we go there, we always go on a tour bus and then we always stop and it’s the same meal they offer you, it’s falafel or shawarma basically.
So, I always imagined when we were doing that on the tour bus that there was another tour bus in America of people from Israel and they’re stopping like, “Okay, you can get a burger or a chicken sandwich, we get off here.” That’s basically their equivalent there, the shwarma and the falafel is the burger and the chicken sandwich. Also, at the end of the month, I’m going to have Mike Licona, who is a wonderful author, probably one of the best apologists on the resurrection, I’ve had him on the show before. Mike has written a new book, published with Oxford university press on contradictions in the Bible, alleged contradictions, and he talks about how we can resolve them if we understand that the biblical authors used a style of historical writing that was not as rigid as historical writing is today or newspaper writing is today. If we understand the ancient historical genre, we can see that these differences in the gospel accounts are not contradictions, and that will be at the end of the month, we’ll have that interview, so…Or end of the month, oh, it might be, I think I’m scheduling it for Australia, beginning of March when I will be away but I think you’re going to really like that.
Which translation of the Bible should we be reading in English? So, what translation do you recommend? I might do and I think I’ll probably do an entire episode on translations. I could get into the weeds here very soon, but honestly I’ll just give you the one that I prefer. The tran- Bible translation that I like is the RSV Catholic edition, the revised standard version. So, you have to remember, so certain Bibles can either play really fast and loose with the text in, almost to the point of being a paraphrase. Don’t read a paraphrase, it’s not a translation. So, some translations try to get the idea across to us but otherwise other translations try to just do the words themselves and just what the words mean.
Now you might think, isn’t the words always better? Well no, because sometimes we wouldn’t know what the people are about. For example, in the old Testament when it says that God is slow to anger, the Hebrew words actually say God is long of nose. So, if the Bible just said God is long of nose, you wouldn’t know what in the world they’re talking about because it’s a Hebrew expression that was used 3000 years ago. We now today think long of nose means you’re lying because of the story Pinocchio. But, back then long of nose meant you were slow to anger. Why? Probably because elders in a community are more mature and they are slow to anger like the wise elder, like Mr Miyagi.
Well, why would long of nose mean that you’re older? Well, you might’ve heard that your nose keeps growing, but your eyes stay the same size. Your nose and ears get bigger as you get older, that’s not entirely true. Your no- they get bigger but they’re not growing, your nose and ears do not grow as you get older, but they look like they get bigger because the cartilage in them starts to droop over time and so your nose takes on, it looks a little bit longer, your ears droop a little bit more, so they look a little bit bigger. So, there that’s an example of, even there, you can’t use a rigid just word for word you got to get the idea across in the translation.
So, some translations are more trying to give the ideas to us in modern words, whereas others try to stick more with the original language as much as it can. And, the RSV leans more towards the original language as much as it can. Some people like the Douay-Rheims, similar to the King James version, but the Douay would be more, obviously it’s Catholic, not a Protestant Bible. And, that’s fine if you like that, I find the language to be a little bit anachronistic so it can be hard because it was written a while, a long time ago. And so, when you see things, especially like in the King James and it says things like, “Jesus says, suffer the little children not to not come to me.” What does that mean? So… And, I’ll do, I think I might do a full episode here in the future just on different Bible translations and my views of them. But, I think just something more modern is just helpful. Modern translations also have access to better manuscripts, to lexicons, to teams of scholars working on the text in order to bring the best translations to us.
So, from that, I don’t mind the new American Bible. I think some of the ways it reads the, it renders the text can be helpful for public reading though I don’t always like some of the ways it does. But, for me, if you’re going to do study and personal reading of scripture, RSV CE is great, especially the Ignatius Catholic study Bible is RSV and has a lot of good footnotes in it. That I would recommend to people, so I hope that is helpful.
Let’s see, what else do we, what else do we have here? Are the creation accounts in Genesis either sufficient or necessary to establish God as omnipotent or all powerful or they just show that he is very powerful. How do we show our fundamentalist friends we’re not denying the inspired scriptures when we say a certain passage doesn’t prove their point.
This is an interesting question. So, I think maybe the questioner is wondering, “Look, I have Protestant friends who say, we know God is omnipotent because Genesis one, one through two says God created the heavens and the earth. Doesn’t that prove that he’s all powerful?” Yes and no. I would say the primary reason that we know God is all powerful is one, we can know that from reason. We know from reason that God is all powerful because a God is the ultimate cause of all things. If there was something he could not cause, he would not be ultimate or infinite in the way that the arguments for God show. What God is, is the necessary creator of all things.
I would say it also comes through revelation that you can see this in the Bible when it talks about God’s power, not just in the creation narrative talking about how for God nothing is impossible. That also what we have, what’s handed down to us and sacred tradition like in the creeds for example, the catechism says that the only attribute of God, the only attribute of God mentioned in the creed is his omnipotence. So, in Hebrew, one of the names of God, God has called El Shaddai. El Shaddai literally means the power or the mighty one. And so, I love that, he is the power. And, he is. And, one way I think we can know that from the creation accounts, you can at least infer this, maybe it’s not automatic, but I think it can be inferred. Maybe not in an automatic way your Protestant friends are saying, but if Genesis one, one through two is saying that God created the world from nothing and there’s a dispute among biblical scholars among whether Genesis one is talking about God making the world out of preexisting stuff or from nothing.
We would say, Catholics, the church teaches and [inaudible 00:28:30] teaches the God made the universe, made the world from nothing. He made everything from nothing. We know that by faith, but I would say Genesis one, one through two looking at the Hebrew words there, it’s not describing a preexisting chaos that God fashioned into our universe. But, it’s God, he made the heavens and the earth, the heavens and the earth is a Semitism or I think it’s called a Merism, is a Hebrew expression. The heavens and the earth are not two separate places. The heavens and the earth just mean everything, it’s a way of saying all things. Like how we say visible and invisible, stuff is either visible or invisible. Not seen an unseen, but I like visible and invisible, that covers anything that could exist. Whether it’s physical, whether it’s small like an atom or whether it can’t be seen in principle like an angel. So, they have, if God made the heavens and the earth, that means that he made everything. And so, if he made everything from nothing, if you can make something from nothing, then there’s really nothing you couldn’t do, that would be a sign that you are all powerful.
If you could make, if you could do, it’s like how a weightlifter, if a weightlifter can lift a thousand pounds, dead lift, then we know he can lift 300 pounds, if he can do the more difficult thing. So, if some- if you can make something from nothing and every other task is less difficult than that, then you could do anything. So, I think that that’s one sign post that posts to that God is omnipotent. I wouldn’t say the gen- the op- the creation account in Genesis, we automatically infer that, some Protestants, maybe this questioner speaking would say, but I would say overall what is revealed to us in reason, scripture and tradition point towards the fact that God is not hampered for power, he’s not trying to figure out how the world works, he’s not the God of process theology of Alfred North Whitehead who, “Look, sorry guys. My first day on the job, I’m doing the best I can.” That is not our God, we can put our faith, hope, trust and confidence in him as the gospel, Jesus says, “For nothing is impossible with God.”
So, I hope that is helpful for you all. I really enjoyed doing this open mailbag and hopefully next month we’ll have another fun open mail bag for everybody. So, thank you guys so much. Go to trenthornpodcast.com and subscribe so you can be in, maybe get your question featured in a future episode, support us to bring on new guests, have a, hopefully get some more dialogues or maybe a few debates coming soon. I’m, I’ve got the feelers out, we’ve got some requests maybe for debates. That would be fun. I haven’t done a debate in a while. Those are super fun. So, pray that all goes well and can’t wait to touch base with you all again tomorrow, free for all Friday. Thank you so much and I hope you all have blessed day.
If you like today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patrion page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.