Welcome to the Counsel of Trent Podcast. I'm your host Catholic Answers Apologist, Trent Horn. Today, joining me is Fellow Catholic Answers Apologist, Mr Joe Heschmeyer of Shameless Potpourri.
Joe, welcome to the program. Thanks. It's good to be here.
So I saw that you did an episode recently on your podcast and I definitely encourage our listeners go and check out Joe's podcast. I'm really excited to see more Catholic podcasts that are really edifying people that aren't just complaining about what's going on in the church or just useless banter. Joe, your podcast is a wonderful thick cheesecake of knowledge tastily delivered is the best analogy I can give for it.
As a person who hates cheesecake, I'm still very grateful for that compliment. You hate cheesecake? I do.
It's a personality flaw, one of many, but I've never. . .
Something about the texture just really weirds me out. [inaudible 00:01:00]. Are you okay with a pie then?
Just regular pies? Yeah, yeah. There we go.
Pie. I love pie. I think I understand why you feel that way because cheesecake is not technically a cake.
I believe it belongs to the tart family because it has- Actually makes more sense. It has a crust, but it does not have a flaky crust on the top. So perhaps it's just an anti-tart bias that you have.
I don't know what the problem is with me. It's a tort I guess. I feel like I've got your own podcast really to thank for kind of pioneering this path of substantive, meaningful conversations on the topics that matter.
Well, I'm really excited about that. So today what I want to talk about is you did an episode recently on scripture and the self-authenticating canon, and I wanted just to talk a little bit and introduce my audiences, some of your arguments related to this because it's something that Protestants are leaning more into now, though this is something that has been argued for going all the way back to Martin Luther and John Calvin because a lot of Catholics think, "Oh, well, debating Protestants is easy. " You say you believe in Sola scriptura.
You can't even justify the canon of scripture without some kind of infallible tradition to which a Protestant apologist might say, I don't need an outside tradition or authority. Scripture authenticates itself. So I want to read a passage from Calvin actually, and I'll let you take it away a bit and we can kind of go back and forth here.
So this is what Calvin wrote. He said, "How shall we be persuaded that it, scripture, came from God without recurring to a decree of the church? It is just the same as if it were asked.
How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste. " So the idea here is you don't need an outside authority.
A person can just see that scripture is God's word, that it has divine authority and that's good enough. So feel free to add any more, but let's jump into this. What is the self-authenticating nature of scripture and what's wrong with it?
Yeah. So I think that's a really good way of capturing it. When you read Calvin on this, and I think he's particularly notable because Calvin's not, I'd say a big feelings guy, but then when he gets into how we know that we have the right books of the Bible, it's this incredible repeated witness to just, you just feel it in your bones, that kind of reasoning.
He would say, if you find aspects of his theology about God, that gives me a bad feeling to think that God essentially determines who is going to heaven and who is going to hell through Calvinist double predestination. That feels like God is unjust. Calvin would say, your feelings can't tell you what's right here.
Yeah, he's the first, like facts don't care about your feelings guy. But when he comes to this, he literally says, so you're quoting from book one chapter seven of Institutes of Christian Religion and elsewhere in this same chapter he says that we don't know because of the church or anything like this, but "We feel a divine energy living and breathing in it. " And it's like, when did he take up surfing?
This is the most hippie dippy kind of argument for how we know the canon. We feel it in our bones. And so there's a few things that follow from that, right?
Right. If everyone can just know, well, more specifically he's going to argue everyone guided by the Holy Spirit just knows which books are in the Bible. So we don't need the church.
We don't need the Holy Spirit guiding the church because basically he guides all of us the level of our feelings. Now the first thing to point out is that is a weird model of infallibility and inspiration and Holy Spirit guidance that the Holy Spirit's not going to guide the external visible church. He's going to guide the individual Christians.
This is a very inefficient way for the Holy Spirit to work, that the church isn't infallible. I'm infallible and you're infallible and so is everybody else. And the second thing is just, it's obviously false, right?
We can say this in a few ways. First, because Calvin and Martin Luther and modern Protestants don't just disagree with the Catholic church about which books belong in the Bible. They don't just disagree with the early Christians, they disagree with one another, and Calvin cites to Baruch as scripture.
Modern Protestants think he's wrong to do that, so somebody's feelings are wrong there. Martin Luther argues four of the New Testament books shouldn't be in the New Testament. Somebody's feelings are wrong.
So all these people appealing to like, well, you just feel it in your bones. It's so easy. It's no more difficult to tell which books are in the Bible as telling black from white.
Okay, well, why are so many of you disagreeing and contradicting one another? It doesn't make sense. Those two things can't both be true.
Right. And then the other thing to maybe add to that is when you look at how did the early church come to know which books were and weren't in scripture, nobody on any side of the question was saying, well, isn't it so obvious we all just feel it in our bones? Nobody is saying this because that's not really how anyone who's ever told which books are and aren't in the Bible.
It's also the case if you ask, think about just modern Christians. How do most people come to know that the Bible is inspired? It's rarely because you open a Bible and you read it and are convinced, yes, every single book, page and word in this collection is so beautiful and profound it must have God as its source.
It is just obvious to me. There's certainly passages of scripture that are beautiful, but there's other passages that are just long census collections, for example. It doesn't really seem to pass that test.
It seems like I would say for most people, the reason they came to believe the Bible is inspired is because somebody else told them. I think that's probably true for nearly all Christians well throughout history and especially even until today. I remember reading a book from a fundamentalist author who argued that we should read the Bible as if we were on a desert island and it had washed ashore.
So we'd read it as free as possible from any human interpretation. Yeah. And it struck me that not only was this a terrible standard- Right.
But even in this world, someone is putting together the books that are in the Bible that washes on your particular shore. It could be a Catholic Bible, it could be a Protestant one, it could be an Orthodox one. It could be the Joseph Smith interpretation of the Bible that was used by some Mormons.
It could be a Jehovah's witness translation. It could be the message where it's the paraphrase of the Bible, what is determined. There's still this incredible role of human agency to figure out which books and which translations are you having ashore.
Unless you're just getting ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that wash ashore, in which case as a non-Greek or Hebrew speaker, you're probably not struck by the profundity of them. You're probably at a loss to know what they mean. Right.
And also I think this idea about contradicting the facts of history, because if we're saying, well, the Bible authenticates itself, then how do we know that people come to believe in the Bible, not because of a tradition, but just because they immediately encounter the text? It would seem if we went back in church history, let's say to the early second century, the time [inaudible 00:08:14] Ignatius of Antioch. When you go back to this period, and this is after the apostolic age, probably at least by [inaudible 00:08:23] of Antioch, we would say the period of public divine revelation has ended.
And yet here you have authors that barely ever cite the New Testament as scripture. They far more likely cite the Old Testament as scripture. Lee Martin McDonald, who is a Baptist scholar, one of the best on the canon.
I know you're familiar with him. I am. He says, "The notion of a closed New Testament canon was not a second century development in the early church, and there were still considerable differences of opinion about what should comprise that canon even in the fourth and fifth centuries.
" So it seems like how could it really be self-authenticating if these earliest Christians still had these vast kinds of disagreements? Oh yeah. And it's not as if this is an area where he's just speculating.
The Christians in the fourth and fifth century are very clear about this. St. Augustine an on Christian doctrine has rules that he gives for this skillful interpreter of sacred writings to know which books are and aren't in the Bible.
And what he argues for is that we should follow the canonical writings favored by the greater number of the churches and by the churches of the greater kind of authority, like ones that were founded by apostles. And so notice in that he doesn't say, just search your feelings and you'll know it to be true. He doesn't say, everybody who follows Jesus all just agrees.
He's clearly acknowledging that there are discrepancies in which books are and aren't in different Christian canons. Right. And that there's a way we can know, and it's not our feelings, it's by looking to the church and the broader church consensus that we should take the majority opinion here.
And it's a safe sort of theological conservatism. It's not in my heart I just think God wants me to believe in x, Y, or Z book. And so it's really remarkable that the first thing I'd say is the church fathers don't use the approach Calvin lays out.
But the second thing is that scripture itself, you get nothing in scripture that says, this is how we're going to know which books belong in the Bible. Now I would contrast that with the Quran and with the Book of Mormon. So in the Quran in the 17th Surah Al Isra, it actually proposes that one of the ways you can know the Quran is inspired by God is it's so beautiful that no one can create us equal.
And very much the kind of standard you were talking about, no one has that reaction upon reading one of the census lists and then in the book of [inaudible 00:10:50]. [inaudible 00:10:50] in the book of numbers. Oh yeah, yeah, exactly.
And there's plenty of these things where there are these passages that are hard to understand and are confusing, and scripture acknowledges this, right? Second Peter, Peter acknowledges that Paul's theology is hard to understand. It's almost as if building your entire rejection of the church's teaching off of your understanding of Paul's theology would be a really poor idea.
Right? Maybe a theology that's labeled in the Bible is hard to understand, might be actually hard to understand, and maybe your understanding is mistaken. And I was going to say that it seems like for these Protestants who try to use a self-authenticating canon as their ultimate source of authority, it seems like they've really undercut their ability to really oppose the Mormon standard for authority that uses the burning of the bosom for the Book of Mormon.
Yes. And [inaudible 00:11:41] verse four to five explicitly lays that out that if you want to know, well just quote it says, "And when you shall receive these things, I would exhort you that you would ask God the eternal Father in the name of Christ if these things are not true. And if you ask with a sincere heart, with real intent having faith in Christ, he'll manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost.
" Now, you'll notice Maroney and John Calvin are doing the same move, the same trick is what I wanted to say, but maybe that's too harsh. They're saying- [inaudible 00:12:10]. Same gambit.
You can know on this subjective level that it's true if you're one of the chosen ones, if you ask with the sincere heart or if you're one of the elect the Holy Spirit is working in. This creates a really strong impetus as a seeker to say, oh, yeah, yeah, that's got to be right. The emperor must have clothes because if he doesn't, then I'm not one of the righteous ones.
Right. It becomes [inaudible 00:12:39]. Yeah.
How do you say, oh yeah, well, it must be scripture because I'm one of the elect? How do you know that you're the elect? Well, scripture gives these signs and I fulfill them.
So I'm among the elect, and so I know that this is scripture, so you're going to end up having this kind of circular argument and trying to prove it. It reminds me when James White was debating Pat Madrid on Sola scriptura, that classic debates 30 years ago, 1993, and he was saying, "Well, II Timothy 3:17 says, all we need is scripture because it equips the man of God to do every good work. " And so you don't need anything beyond scripture to which Madrid asked in his rebuttal, "Well, Mr White, who is the man of God?
Is the Lutheran who believes in baptismal regeneration? Is he a man of God? Are you a man of God who disagrees with him?
How do you know that you are the man of God that scripture's equipping in the first place? " Yeah. What did he say to that?
Well, I don't recall because it wasn't in cross. It was in a- Oh, fair enough. Fair enough.
It was in a rebuttal that [inaudible 00:13:43]. If you're someone who's starting to question, where did the Bible come from? Or where did the Book of Mormon come from for that matter, if you're an LDS viewer, both of these systems are set up where even ask that question calls into question your good faith or calls into question your elect status.
And so there's a strong deterrent about probing any deeper. And I just want to really point out, this is not biblical. Right.
Scripture never makes this manipulative move. It doesn't say, if you're really one of the good ones, you'll know this is all true. Right.
There's nothing like that. Instead, we're warned by the Jeremiah of the prophet that the heart is deceitful above all things. Right.
So the fact that you feel really deeply in your bones X, Y, or Z is not a terribly great predictor of X, Y, or Z being true. So it seems like with scripture authenticating itself, you sort of have, let me see, two or three options here. So one would be you could try to create just like a set of criteria, objective rules say, okay, scripture authenticates itself because it meets these criteria, which of course isn't self-authenticating.
You're coming up with the criteria, but even there, you can't reverse engineer it to only get and just say the 27 books of the New Testament for simplicity. If you say, well, it's apostolic authors, what do you do about Mark, Luke, the anonymous author of Hebrews, you talk about, does it preach Christ? Well, III John doesn't preach Christ.
Any objective thing you'll never reverse engineer it back into the canon we have now. So that might be one option. Well, [inaudible 00:15:13] notice, by the way, you're throwing the darts and then painting the bullseye around them.
Yes. That is the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Yes.
Is what that's called to see the data afterwards and draw the boundaries around it. [inaudible 00:15:28]. We want exactly these 66 books in.
What rules do we need to create to make sure these books and no others make it through the door? And once you're doing that, you're not. .
. Obviously you didn't follow that journey to get there yourself. Right.
You're trying to invent a route that would've gotten you to a predetermined conclusion. Right. So it's blatantly post hoc rationalization.
You're not actually following any principled standard there. Another way would be, okay, ultimately the reason we have this is because the church selected it, but it's so funny. Yeah, the church selected it, but that has no bearing on really the nature of the church, which I find amazing.
Here's a quote from Robert Godfrey. He's a Protestant apologist. It's from an anthology, and I love the title, which I must emphasize because it includes an exclamation point.
It's a 1995 anthology, Sola Scriptura! The Protestant position on the Bible because it has the exclamation point in there, I must pronounce it that way. Of course.
And Godfrey has an article in there, what do we mean by Sola scriptura? And he says, "The self-authenticating character of the canon is demonstrated by the remarkable unanimity reached by the people of God on the canon. " So the idea is that because the church gives us this tradition, ah, that's just further evidence that it's self-authenticating, which is another bold gambit to make.
Yeah. And once you do this, it's funny because the whole reason the reformers are creating this doctrine of self authentication is to get rid of the need for the church to know the Bible. Right.
Because if you admit that you have to have the Catholic church to know which books are in the Bible, that undermines the Reformation project in a pretty serious and pretty obvious way. And so it is not a coincidence. I mean, the quote you gave from Calvin, he's explicitly asking, how do we know which books are in the Bible without the church?
And so you have this modern generation of Protestant apologists. I would include Michael Krueger on the list as someone even newer doing this who say they're defending self-authentication, but their idea of self-authentication is, well, these books have X quality that is recognizable, not necessarily to the individual believer, but to the church. Right.
And once you do that, you've just backed into the Catholic model, but in a really weird and confusing kind of way. Right. Where you say, basically we still know it through the church.
Now, one important distinction is that frequently these Protestant apologists and Krueger here, I'd say is extremely guilty of this in an obvious way. They're arguing against a false vision of the Catholic view. And so Krueger gives the example of a thermostat versus a thermometer.
Right. So a thermometer tells you what temperature it is, a thermostat controls what temperature it is. And so the church's relationship to the canon, the Catholic model, is that it's like a thermometer.
It tells you which books are divinely inspired. Right. But Kruger claims that the Catholic position is that the church imagines that it's creating these books [inaudible 00:18:24], that if the church had chosen 73 other books that Catholics would consider those inspired, not because of anything in the books themselves, but just because of the church's subsequent decree.
Now, the thing to know as a Catholic is that position is explicitly condemned by the first Vatican Council. Right. That it says explicitly, we are not saying this.
We are not claiming to be a thermostat making uninspired books inspired. These books were inspired from the moment they were written. The church is guided by the Holy Spirit to recognize that, not to create that.
So these Protestant apologists work by ironically defending the real Catholic view against a fake Catholic view, but they defend the real Catholic view by claiming it's the view of the reformers when it's not the view. . .
It's the view the reformers were actually arguing against. So it's a fun house mirror. It is a real strange distortion of the actual debate.
And I want to turn to these Protestant apologists and say, great, there's X criteria or criterion or criteria that is recognizable not by the individual, but by the church. Right. And the church is guided by the Holy Spirit and not the individual.
Well, I'll give you an analogy I sometimes give or comparison is there are three views. So we're not saying that the church infallibly determines the canon, but we're also not saying that the church infallibly discovers the canon either. We have a middle position, which would be that the church infallibly declares the canon, which is very different.
We're not, and that's where you have the thermostat that says what the temperature is versus making it or just happening to get it right. But apart from any kind of divine authority. Yeah.
And I actually like the thermostat image because as an individual non thermostat, I can still have a rough idea. I can feel the difference between 50 and 80 degrees. Right.
But I'm not going to know precisely. And that's very much like what we find with the early Christians before the church steps in with regard to the books of the Bible. It's not like they have no idea, they have a general idea, but then there's some question just like you might say, is it 72 or 74 degrees?
Likewise, you might say, I know Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are in. I don't know about Hebrews. Right.
So there's some general idea. II Peter, Revelation, What the church calls the Deutero canon. There's a Deutero canon or antilegomena both in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Right. Those are the disputed, those are the question books. Those are the ones where the church really has to step in and clarify some confusion.
And then there's some no-brainer books as well. The proto canon. I also think this is helpful, Joe, because more when I hear Protestant apologists making certain arguments like, well, we know that Peter says that Paul's writings are scripture, so therefore there's scripture of case we're what makes Peter scripture in the first place.
You solve the problem there. But even they're saying, well, look, we have early on this testimony that the writings of Paul are scripture. What do you do though when you have modern scholarship that calls into question whether Paul really wrote, especially things like first and second Timothy, for example.
I think most critical scholars don't hold that Paul wrote these, but the Catholic position would still survive even if one of Paul's disciples, for example, wrote one of those letters and attribute it to him because the church doesn't infallibly declare all of the historical circumstances of each writing. It just declares that it is inspired that it belongs to the canon of scripture. But if you're a Protestant and you've really hitched your wagon to, well, it's definitely inspired if it was written by Paul, and if it wasn't, then it's not.
Then you kind of become a slave to what modern scholars say on the question. What do you think? Yeah, I think that's well put.
R. C. Sproul famously refers to the Bible as a fallible set of infallible books, but it's fallible in some really obvious ways.
If you are saying it's inspired if it meets these criteria, apostolicity and those other things, then you're hitting a lot on critical scholarship as you say, where tomorrow a scholar could come and blow apart your view and say, oh, well you thought Hebrews to take a really safe example. You thought Hebrews was written by Paul for a long time, and now you don't think that. Okay, so what happens to it?
Exactly. Or for that matter, hey, here's some other writing that wasn't included before. And so you can't really have a closed canon on the Protestant view if you have this fallible canon, you're always.
. . And that's just looking at one of the criteria Apostolicity.
What makes it even trickier is that one of the other criteria often given is orthodoxy. And so Martin Luther and his preface, the original preface, he writes to the epistle of James in the German translation of the New Testament argues that James can't have been written by an apostle because it contradicts [inaudible 00:23:12]. Now look, I'm happy to agree with Luther that the Apostle James contradicts [inaudible 00:23:18].
I can't find a way of harmonizing both the New Testament and Luther's theology, and Luther seemed to realize this problem. The problem is that he threw out the part of the New Testament that doesn't agree with him. So what stops someone from doing that to just say, "Well, I don't find this orthodox because it's fill in the blank.
It's against my view of how we should approach homosexuality, or I don't like what it has to say about the trinity," or fill in the blank. In other words [inaudible 00:23:47] the authority of scripture to smithereens. If it's only as binding as you find it Orthodox, and other than it determining orthodoxy, you determine orthodoxy and then judge scripture.
And it's not just whole books. Why not just say, "Okay, well I accept this book except this passage here I don't think is inspired or there's no end to it. " Let's round it out a little bit here.
I'm going to go back to Michael Krueger because I think he's one of the Protestants who done the most work defending the self-authenticating thesis. A good way to distill his argument. One of his arguments is that, look, just as we know that God exists by looking at the world around us, and it naturally points back to a divine creator, when we look at scripture, we see it points back to a divine author, and that's the only move we need to make.
So he writes this. He says, "If the created world general revelation is able to speak clearly that it is from God, then how much more so would the canon of scripture special revelation speak clearly that it is from God? " So what do you think of that argument they're trying to make to say, look, we can figure out the natural world comes from God.
Why can't we just do the same thing? You look at scripture and see it comes from God? Yeah.
Kruger's a smart guy, and I think it's a clever kind of rhetorical move, but it falls apart once you actually think about it pretty carefully because even though we can speak broadly about the natural world speaking to a divine creator, if you were to look at a particular thing in the world, you wouldn't necessarily know from looking at it whether it was of human or divine authorship. Now obviously even stuff of human authorship ultimately is of divine authorship. Right.
But likewise, when we're talking about scripture, even if you said in a general way, the Bible seems to be speaking of God, there's a continuity. Whether you happen to find in your bones this warm fuzzy when you get it, that doesn't really work at the individual level to let you know whether the epistle of Jude belongs in or not because or without Jude, you might still get the same warm fuzzy. And again, the fact that Martin Luther wanted to take four books out did take seven Old Testament books out.
John Calvin wanted to keep one of those seven in. Obviously, it's not just you the viewer, it's historically the reformers. And more importantly, the early Christians didn't have some way they could just look at the whole thing and say, aha, well, if I put one hand over the eye, I can see exactly these 66 or exactly these 73 books belong to God and nothing else.
So it doesn't work at the particular level, which is what it needs to work at for that to be a workable kind of model would be the first thing I would respond with that. Yeah, and I think that when I hear this, I think that his claim that the canon of scripture, how much more so would the canon of scripture speak clearly that it is from God given these alleged divine attributes like beauty, harmony, efficacy, but that's just patently false. If you go back to the church fathers, for example, even though they did have disagreements on some issues, all of the church including the limits of the canon, for example, all of the church fathers agreed that God created the world.
So they all looked around at the world and came to the conclusion, well, yes, obviously God created this and it's a good God who created this. So they all did agree on that even though they might've had disagreements about the nature of the cannon. We know Jerome was the one exceptional case with the Deutero cannon, for example.
Even Jerome doesn't claim that his view is self-evident from his feelings. No. He's going off of Jewish authorities in the area where he's at.
So it is fascinating that even Jerome is not a good case to cite to for a Protestant holding this view. He is not pro self- authentication or self-attestation. He doesn't believe in that.
Right, exactly. And so even when you find people who would agree with the 66 books, they don't get there by the same avenue that you're claiming is the real way to get there. Nobody gets there that way.
That is a pretty striking denunciation of the view. I don't know how much you want to cover this, but I'll just throw out a bomb and then not defend it, I guess. Yeah.
Let's cover one more and then I want to share a little bit, but go ahead. Well, I was going to say Krueger's coming from this kind of presuppositional framework, and there's a lot of people coming from this, and it's starting with the idea that because scripture's the word of God, you can't appeal to anything else to prove it or else you're putting some authority above the word of God. So it has to be self-authenticating.
And one of the problems with that is it's not the biblical model at all. This is just human philosophy and it's human philosophy that doesn't really work. A lot of the presuppositional stuff is deeply [inaudible 00:28:32] it's kind of framework.
And so there's a lumina to scripture that isn't proved by any of its phenomena, and this is completely unworkable. Right. And so anything you would point to as evidence of the proof of any of the New Testament claims, this view would say, well, don't do that because you're putting human reason above scripture.
And so then you just have to irrationally accept all of this stuff is true or claim based on feelings, but for some reason you can appeal to feelings, but you can't appeal to reason. And so it just strikes me as a failed intellectual venture of just kind of an intellectual wrong turn that doesn't bear a lot of fruit, and it is sort of floundering without being able to defend the very thing it is trying to set out to defend. Right.
I totally agree. So Joe, thank you so much for walking us through this. I would definitely recommend our listeners, I'll leave a link to this particular episode where you cover this topic and go into other details as well.
If there's any other point you wanted to raise or engage, we can do that here to close out. Otherwise, I'm just happy to encourage more people to check out Shameless Potpourri because I think it's an awesome channel. You've been growing a lot recently with subscribers.
I really hope more people will go and check it out. There's a lot to learn. You had great episodes recently on Mormonism.
You've been covering other Protestant apologetics. So yeah, floor is yours. Oh, thanks.
I appreciate you saying that. I would just say in addition to everything that's been said, if you want a better understanding of where the Bible comes from, one way is to look at the history of canonical lists. Another way is to look at what the early church fathers had to say about scripture.
What did the early Christians believe about scripture, where it came from and how we could know which things were and weren't in scripture. So yeah, I really appreciate the opportunity to come on and to kind of shop with you on this issue, Trent. That's awesome.
Thank you so much, Joe. Definitely encouraging everyone. Go ahead and check out Shameless Potpourri here on YouTube, also on audio platforms, and if you still have time, you can come hang out with Joe and myself and the other apologists at the Catholic Answers Conference.
That'll be at the end of September. I believe it's September 22nd through the 24th. Help me out here, Joe.
I'm pretty sure- That sounds right, but I was starting to second guess that myself [inaudible 00:30:48]. 21st. [inaudible 00:30:51].
It's Thursday to Sunday. 21st to the 24th. Yeah.
We'll be looking at answering atheism. So even if you are a Protestant or a Mormon or a Muslim who heard all this and thought you guys are totally wrong about the canon, you'll be happy to agree with us on why atheism is wrong. And so you might as well come and join us.
Absolutely. Check that out at Catholicanswersconference. com.
Thank you so much, Joe. Thank you guys so much for watching, and I hope you have a very blessed day. 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.
