<img height="1" width="1" style="display:none" src="https://www.facebook.com/tr?id=1906385056278061&ev=PageView&noscript=1" />
Skip to main content Accessibility feedback

“Bible Verses that Teach Sola Scriptura”

Trent Horn

Audio only:

In this episode Trent critically examines the typical Bible verses Protestants offer as proof of the doctrine of sola scriptura.


Welcome to The Counsel of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.

Trent Horn:

Hey, everyone. So today, I’m trying something new with my rebuttal videos. Usually, I take a single video, and I reply to just the arguments in that video, and I’ll probably still continue to do that, but I think it might be more helpful to rebut a particular argument or claim that shows up in a lot of different videos. In today’s video, I’m going to address claims that the Bible explicitly teaches the doctrine of sola scriptura, and we’ll see how a variety of Protestant apologists make their case.

Trent Horn:

Now, this ended up taking a lot longer than I thought, so I probably won’t do another video like this soon, but I am interested in kind of putting together a team that could help me compile different clips, so I could address a single argument comprehensively in videos. All right, so let’s jump into the topic.

Trent Horn:

Matthew Barrett in his recent book, God’s Word Alone, defines sola scriptura this way; sola scriptura means that only scripture, because it is God’s inspired word, is our inherent, sufficient, and final authority for the Church. All things necessary for salvation and for living the Christian life in obedience to God and for his glory are given to us in the scriptures. The 1646 Westminster Confession says the same thing, it says, “The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.”

Trent Horn:

All right, so where is this taught in the Bible? Now some Protestant apologists have said sola scriptura can be true, even if it’s not taught in the Bible. And it’s kind of ironic for sola scriptura. And I’m going to save those claims for another video.

Trent Horn:

In this rebuttal, I want to focus on the idea, the Bible itself teaches sola scriptura. Now, there’s one verse that comes up more than any other when people debate this in the Bible, and I’m going to save, well, those two verses to the end of our discussion, but there’s other verses Protestant apologists will bring up that say they prove sola scriptura or teach it, so let’s take a look at them.

Trent Horn:

One verse often cited is Acts 17:10-11, which says, “The brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived they went into the Jewish synagogue. Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; for they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.”

Trent Horn:

All right, now, here’s how Protestant apologists say that this particular verse, this episode in Acts, supports sola scriptura.

Protestant apologist:

I think the doctrine and the claim of sola scriptura can be seen at work in the lives of real people. The case study is found in Acts 17:1-15, which we’ve already read. The text says in verse 11 that they examined the scriptures daily to see if these things, that is the preaching of Paul, was so. You see, the Bereans obviously knew that the word of God was contained in the scriptures of the Old Testament. And this Paul, he was a relative newcomer. They didn’t know Paul, but it seems they did know their Bible. And if they were to then accept the preaching of Paul, it would only be because Paul’s preaching could be demonstrated and proved to be the preaching of the scripture.

Trent Horn:

Matthew Barrett in God’s Word Alone writes this about the bere episode. “What is assumed in the Berean response to Paul? First, their actions assume that scripture is the final authority. The validity and veracity of Paul’s message is tested against the scriptures. Second, their actions assume that scripture is enough; it is enough to verify or disprove Paul’s message.” But Acts 17:1-11, doesn’t say anything about scripture; it’s not a formal teaching, it’s a narrative. And it just talks about how some Jews accepted Paul’s message and others rejected it. So, it’s an insufficient framework to build a biblical foundation for something as important as sola scriptura.

Trent Horn:

At most, this only shows that Christian doctrine should not contradict scripture, that the Berean saw Paul didn’t contradict scripture. Not that all doctrine is explicitly found within scripture. The Old Testament does not explicitly say the Messiah would rise from the dead three days after being crucified. The Bereans, they had to just trust Paul’s preaching of these new truths. They didn’t contradict the old Testament, they didn’t come directly from there either. And in fact, Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians that the Thessalonians received his preaching, not as the word of men, but as what it really is the word of God. Even Keith Mathison in his book that defends sola scriptura says, “There is nothing in this passage which warrants a radically individualized concept of sola scriptura, apart from the apostolic rule of faith.”

Trent Horn:

The argument also depends on Luke’s assertion that the were more noble than the Thessalonians. But why were they more noble? The idea here is they were more noble because, according to Protestants, they examined the scriptures to see if Paul’s teachings were true. In other words, the Bereans made the scriptures their sole infallible rule of faith. Now, that interpretation might make sense if Paul was criticizing the Thessalonians that he encountered before the Bereans, if he criticized them for not checking the Old Testament and just believing whatever he said, but that’s not the behavior Luke is comparing between the Thessalonians and the Bereans. It’s not people who didn’t check scripture and people who did, instead, the difference between the two groups was that some of the Thessalonians were persuaded by Paul’s biblical arguments related to the Old Testament, but others started a riot.

Trent Horn:

According to the evangelical scholar, David Peterson, talking about the noble term, “Noble here referred originally to noble birth, but came to be applied more generally to high minded behavior.” This includes qualities associated with members of the upper class, such as “openness, tolerance, and generosity.” Peterson agrees with the Protestant scholar, C. K. Barrett, who said, “Luke means that the Berean Jews allowed no prejudice to prevent them from giving Paul a fair hearing.” So, in this account, Luke isn’t saying the Bereans were more noble because they practiced some kind of sola scriptura. They were more noble because they didn’t start a riot, and they gave Paul a chance. This can be demonstrated by noting the general pattern in both of the stories.

Trent Horn:

In Acts 17:1-9, talks about how Paul and Silas went to Thessalonica. They argued for three weeks in the synagogue that Jesus was the Messiah, which resulted in the conversion of some Jews and Gentiles. Unfortunately, the unconvinced Jews who may have checked the scriptures and disagreed with Paul, started a riot and they had to leave.

Trent Horn:

Acts 17:10-12 then describes Paul and Silas, they go to Berea, they argue for several days that Jesus is the Messiah. This resulted in the conversion of some Jews and Gentiles. But unlike the Thessalonians, the Berean Jews didn’t start a riot. At least the ones who didn’t agree, they didn’t riot. The Bereans nobility may also be due to that they were zealous, that they were willing to meet during the week in the synagogue, and not only on the Sabbath. In fact, their nobility, when Luke says they’re noble; it might be due not to the fact that they just examined the scriptures, but it’s the fact they did so every day, that they were zealous for truth. In any case, Luke tells us in Acts 17:13, the word of God was preached in Berea.

Trent Horn:

So, from all this, we can conclude the word of God is not confined to the written word alone. This and everything else shows that Acts 17:10-11… it just doesn’t support the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura, it certainly doesn’t teach it.

Trent Horn:

All right. Now, let’s look at some of the writings of St. Paul; they’re cited a lot for sola scriptura. An interesting one comes from Galatians 1:8. Here’s what Paul writes in that section, I think it’s verses six through nine, “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and turning to a different gospel—not that there is another gospel, but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.”

Trent Horn:

And here’s our Protestant apologists say that this supports sola scriptura.

Protestant apologist:

And I would say there’s a number of strands just in the teachings; that if applied today, requires something like what I’m defining as sola scriptura. So if you’re going to apply, like Paul’s statement in Galatians 1:8, where he says, “If anyone comes to you, even an angel from Heaven or even I myself, preaching to you a teaching different than what you’ve received from us; then you should not listen to them, you should turn them away.” Well, how do we apply that today? Except by going back to the writings that we have good reason to believe came back from that first generation apostolic community themselves.

Protestant apologist:

Paul the apostle says of himself that he is to be rejected. He doesn’t have the authority to tell you, “Nevermind what you heard before, listen to what I’m telling you now.” The message has more authority than the messenger. Meaning the authority stays with the message, not with the office of the person giving it.

Trent Horn:

All Paul is saying is that nobody, absolutely nobody, has the authority to contradict the gospel that God delivered through the apostles. So it’s true, there is no authority beyond scripture that can contradict scripture, but that doesn’t mean there’s no authority beyond scripture that can compliment scripture. For example, Paul could not have told the Corinthians that Christ… He couldn’t have told them in his second letter to them, Jesus did not rise from the dead, that would contradict his first letter. But Paul was able to tell them many things in the second letter to the Corinthians that he didn’t tell them in the first letter. They didn’t just tell Paul that his authority stayed with the first letter they received and that’s all they needed to afterwards.

Trent Horn:

So yes, no angel could ever tell people to disobey the gospel. But in the future, an angel might announce that Christ is now returning to usher in his kingdom at the final judgment, which is a historical fact that’s not in scripture, like when the final judgment will take place, but we’d still believe it because it’s happening right in front of us. Also, there’s more to the Christian faith than just the gospel. You have things like revelations of angelic and heavenly realities, moral teachings, we need to follow the gospel. There’s nothing here in Galatians 1 about where all necessary Christian truths will be found or that they are only going to be found in scripture.

Trent Horn:

Finally, when Mike Winger says the authority stays with the message, he hasn’t proved sola scriptura because Paul isn’t telling the Galatians that the message is only in a written revelation. Paul is telling the Galatians to follow the gospel he preached to them, and he is writing a letter to remind them of the oral preaching. So Paul is saying don’t stray from the gospel, but he hasn’t said anything about where the gospel or other doctrines can be found in a written or unwritten form, so this just doesn’t prove sola scriptura.

Trent Horn:

Another Pauline passage that gets cited sometimes is 1 Corinthians 4:6, it says this, “I have applied all this to myself and Apol′los for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another.” Here’s how Matt Slick used this verse in a debate with the Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis.

Matt Slick:

Well, there’s no place in scripture that says it’s the right one. And the Bible says we’re not to exceed what’s written.

Robert Sungenis:

Where?

Matt Slick:

1 Corinthians 4:6.

Robert Sungenis:

No.

Matt Slick:

Yes.

Robert Sungenis:

It doesn’t say that.

Matt Slick:

Yes it does.

Robert Sungenis:

No.

Matt Slick:

Yes it does. You want me to read it to you?

Robert Sungenis:

No, I didn’t deny it.

Matt Slick:

Yes, you did.

Robert Sungenis:

…that you know what it’s talking about.

Matt Slick:

I know what it is talking about. It says you might learn [foreign language 00:13:01] that you might learn the not beyond what has been written, [foreign language 00:13:08] not what has been written, don’t exceed, don’t learn or go beyond what is written. That’s what the literal Greek says.

Trent Horn:

And it’s not just Matt Slick. You can find this verse being used to defend sola scriptura in the works of Protestant apologists like Ken Samples, Matthew Barrett, and the late Norm Geisler. But the problem with using this verse is that Bible scholars aren’t sure what Paul is referring to, to not go beyond what is written where? They’re not really sure, so it’s a really weak foundation for sola scriptura.

Trent Horn:

In his commentary on first Corinthians, the Protestant theologian Anthony Thiselton… He proposes seven possible interpretations of that phrase, and none of them correspond to the modern doctrine sola scriptura. Tim Savage and other scholars says this verse “probably refers to the five scriptural quotations, which Paul had already cited in Corinthians 1-3”. And this is something that John Calvin also believed. In fact, Patrick Madrid says none of the reformers used this verse to prove sola scriptura. Another interpretation of it is that Paul is metaphorically saying Christians should follow examples that were set for them.

Trent Horn:

The Bible scholar Ronald Tyler says, “Paul might be alluding to how school children are taught to trace over letters when they learn to write. So just as school children should not go beyond the lines that were drawn for them, or what is written, new Christians should not go beyond the example Paul set for them or the example that was set in the Old Testament of not being puffed up against each other.” This makes sense, because 10 verses later, Paul refers to his audience as my children, he says that I have become a father to you 1 Corinthians 4:15. 1 Corinthians 4:16, he says, “be imitators of me.” So that could be an example of alluding to just as children don’t go beyond what is written on their practice paper; Paul’s children, the children of the Corinthians community, should not go beyond his example or the example set forth in the Old Testament. But see, that’s just one other interpretation. There’s lots of others, none of them point to sola scriptura.

Trent Horn:

In fact, this verse has become notorious among Bible scholars for being really hard to understand. According to Bradley Bitner in his study of first Corinthians, he writes, “In many ways, the history of scholarship on this verse resembles a demolition zone littered with the debris of collapsed and tottering hypotheses.” He especially notes the phrase, not beyond what is written “is surely the stone over which most interpreters have stumbled, and the one that has crushed the most hypotheses in the history of scholarship.” So, this verse, it simply has no force improving, especially a substantial doctrine like sola scriptura.

Trent Horn:

All right, let’s go to the granddaddy of all bible verses offered to support sola scriptura. And that would be 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Here’s the passage, “Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted,” so we’ll start a few verses earlier, “while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.” And now, here’s the key verses, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” So there’s really two arguments for sola scriptura in these verses. First, there’s the claim that scripture is theópneustos inspired, God breathed that we see in verse 16. So let’s look at this.

Protestant apologist:

It’s not a controversial claim, among Christians at least, that scripture has a kind of authority as God breathed the way 2 Timothy 3:16 puts it, that there are many, many texts that speak of a unique kind of authority that is afforded to scripture.

Protestant apologist:

Since the Bible is theópneustos, the word you used at 2 Timothy 3:16, God breathed. It provides to us the very voice of God, or to use the words that the Lord Jesus used in Matthew 22:31, have you not read what was spoken to you by God. If you want to correct, if you want to rebuke, if you need to train in righteousness; Timothy, you have the sufficient source only in that, which is God breathed. Don’t accept a substitute.

Trent Horn:

First, there’s a legitimate translation issue regarding the phrase, all scripture, [foreign language 00:18:07] in Greek. The non-Catholic scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes, “There is no definite article here in the Greek, and where [inaudible 00:18:14], all or every, is used with a noun in the singular without the article, it usually means every rather than whole or all. The balance of argument seems in favor of every scripture.” Other commentaries reach a similar conclusion, but they don’t see a problem saying all scripture instead of every scripture, because they mean the same. According to Thomas Lea and Hayne Griffin, “If we affirm that each part of scripture is inspired, we come eventually to assert that its entire context is inspired.” If scripture’s inspiration means it’s the word God, and so it’s useful for teaching. Then when you say all scriptures inspired, that’s the same thing as saying every individual scripture is inspired. Each book of the Bible, as well as the whole Bible, equips the man of God with divine revelation that helps him teach and do good works.

Trent Horn:

Now, the problem for Protestant apologists is the claim that scripture’s inspiration means it is the believer’s sole source of doctrine and authority. In that case saying every scripture is inspired in this way, that’s not the same thing as saying, all scripture is inspired this way. Saying every scripture is inspired like this, the sole source of doctrine or authority, if inspired has that heavy a meaning, you could say then the Gospel of John is all we need for the Christian life, or the Book of Genesis is sufficient for us to be able to have divine revelation. There is a problem here if the beginning part of verse 16 says every scripture is inspired, and theópneustos inspired is very heavily loaded with the idea of sola scriptura, the sole source of doctrine and authority; everything we believe is found there, we’re obligated to believe it, we may not believe what is not found there. If that is what inspired means, you can’t apply that to every book of the Bible individually, but you can given the grammar here.

Trent Horn:

So, I think that argues against theópneustos having such a heavy sola scriptura meaning in it, instead of saying just that it is, God breathe, it’s inspired by God. But ramifications after that, you’re using speculation to get sola scriptura out of that word. And that’s problematic because theópneustos only occurs once in the Bible, and it’s really rare in ancient Greek literature. The word, it literally means God breathe. But as I’ve said, you’re really stretching the text to say that this word carries with it all of the characteristics of sola scriptura we discussed earlier.

Trent Horn:

The evangelical author, Kern Trembath writes… He says that it is an assumption that we know what the word theópneustos means, but we do not, in spite of the staggering amount of attention it has received over several generations. Craig Allert, another Protestant scholar writes, “To claim that we know the meaning of the term theópneustos, regardless of whether it is to be understood in the active or passive sense, is saying more than the Bible actually does.” So, if the scriptures are God breathe, does that mean that God breathes into human words to make them inspired? Does he breathe out the very words that are written down? It’s not that we don’t have any idea what theópneustos means, but when you try to get to specific details of the meaning, that’s where it gets difficult, because the word is just not very common.

Trent Horn:

In fact, the Baptist scholar, Lee Martin McDonald points out that “in the early church, the common word for in ‘inspiration’ (theópneustos) was used not only in reference to the scriptures (Old and New Testament) but also of individuals who spoke or wrote the truth of God.” So in the early church, McDonald shows us… Gregory of Nyssa said that St Basil’s commentary on the creation story was theópneustos. So it doesn’t seem like that the early church believed theópneustos was identical, not even just to sola scriptura, but necessarily even to scripture in general.

Trent Horn:

Now, the context though seems very clear this is talking about why scripture is unique from other merely human writings. But that’s the thing, the overall problem with relying on this verse is that the emphasis is not on the fact that scripture is God breathe, but on the fact that it is [foreign language 00:22:39], which in Greek means useful, profitable. For example, prayer is useful, it’s profitable for Christians. That doesn’t mean it’s sufficient, it’s not all we need to live the Christian life. And the same is true of scripture. Gerhard Kittel’s theological dictionary of the New Testament says, “In the New Testament, theópneustos occurs only in 2 Timothy 3:16. The word here is used attributively to describe [foreign language 00:23:06] scripture more closely as holy. The emphasis, however, is on [foreign language 00:23:11], it is thus evident that the author is differentiating the writings ordained by God’s authority from other secular works.

Trent Horn:

So, it’s very clear here when we start with verse 16, it does say scripture is important, scripture is different, scripture is profitable, it is helpful. It allows us to do correction, to teach, to reprove others. But it does not say that it is sufficient in the sense that it is all we need as the source of divine revelation. It does not say it is the only thing we need to have knowledge of the necessary truths of the Christian life or that we’re obliged to believe only what is in scripture, and we ought not believe things that are not found there. None of that is present in verse 16 at all.

Trent Horn:

Does verse 17 fair any better? Remember it says that the man of God may be complete equipped for every good work. Here’s how Protestant apologist say this verse applies to sola scriptura.

Protestant apologist:

That it is theópneustos. It is God breathed and that without it, the man of God will not be able to do what Timothy was able to do.

Protestant apologist:

And Paul says the scriptures complete and fully equip the man of God. And so my contention is that Paul came as close as he possibly could have within the apostolic age, this transitional age in the church of affirming what would later become known as the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Trent Horn:

In other words, sola scriptura is true because 2 Timothy 3:17 says scripture is enough to equip the man of God for every good work. The man of God only needs scripture in order to accomplish his good works. This must mean that all the doctrine he needs to believe is found completely and only in those same scriptures. The scripture also talks about things that prepare us for every good work, and it talks about things that perfect believers that are not our sole source of authority.

Trent Horn:

In 2 Timothy 2:21. Paul says that if Timothy keeps away from bad influences, “he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work.” The Greek phrase, every good work, [foreign language 00:25:26] is identical here to what’s in 2 Timothy 3:17, but no protestant is going to say that as a Christian, you only need to stay away from bad influences for the Christian life.

Trent Horn:

James 1:4, it uses stronger language. It says that endurance or patience makes us perfect [foreign language 00:25:46] or complete [foreign language 00:25:48], rather than it doesn’t just equip us, it perfects us, it makes us complete. But that doesn’t mean that Christians only are made sufficient by the virtue of patience alone.

Trent Horn:

To summarize, in other parts of the scripture, we see other behavior that is described as preparing us for every good work, perfecting us, completing us. But those things are not sufficient as a source of doctrine, so we shouldn’t apply that same reading to 2 Timothy 3:17 either.

Trent Horn:

When you put all these verses together, it becomes clear the man of God needs prayer, grace, holiness, community, in order to perform every good work. So Paul cannot be speaking of any of these alone, let alone scripture, as being sufficient for that task, so that doesn’t prove that scripture alone is our source of divine authority. And from that, we could see 2 Timothy 3:17 doesn’t prove sola scriptura. This cannot support the doctrine just because both versus affirm the helpfulness of scripture.

Trent Horn:

Now, some apologists, they’ll hone in on the Greek word in verse 17 and show that… It’s [foreign language 00:26:57] I believe, it shows that scripture is sufficient. Even though it doesn’t say scripture is sufficient, it says the man of God becomes sufficient because scripture equips him for every good work. It would follow that if something can’t be proved from scripture, then it’s not one of the good works that we’re prepared to do or that we’re able to do, and sola scriptura would follow. Here’s how James White put it in a debate.

James White:

It says scripture is God breathe. And because it is God breathe, the man of God is thoroughly equipped for every good work. Now let me ask Mr. [inaudible 00:27:32] a question. Is it a good work from his perspective to teach that Mary was bodily assumed into heaven? If that is a good work, please show me how the Bible equips you to teach that doctrine. Is it a good work to teach that the Bishop of Rome is infallible in his teaching office? Well, please show me where the Bible equips you by talking about the Bishop of Rome.

Trent Horn:

At this point, I would ask, is it a good work to know if the letter to the Hebrews or Mark’s gospel or scripture? Is it a good work to tell people divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostles? Is it a good work to tell people there’s no more living apostles? Is it a good work to tell someone what beliefs are required to be a Christian? Now I’m planning to do another video soon, which shows that these questions Protestants can’t answer them from the Bible alone, but I’m sure James White would say that they are a good work a Christian should be equipped to do, so there must be something else that equips us to answer these questions and do these good works. And if there is something else that does that, that’s like sacred tradition, the teaching of the magistarium; then that would show that this verse 2 Timothy doesn’t prove sola scriptura. In fact, there’s many Protestant apologists… will admit that this verse and these other verses in these particular verses in the Bible, the verses themselves, do not teach the doctrine of sola scriptura.

Protestant apologist:

Where’s sola scriptura in the Bible? They’ll ask where’s sola scriptura in the Bible. And I’ll say you misunderstand what sola scriptura is. Sola scriptura does not require that the doctrine be found in it. That’s what sola scriptura means, scripture alone. It does not mean that you have to have that particular teaching of sola scriptura in the Bible.

Protestant apologist:

So, actually a lot of what Timothy needed for ministry, he got [inaudible 00:29:27] from the apostle Paul and other apostles, right? You could say that technically this is not a proof text for sola scriptura.

Dr. Ortlund:

I’d also admit that verses like 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:20-21, and John 10:35 don’t in themselves get you to sola scripture. Respectively, these verses say the scriptures are God breathed, that those who wrote prophecies of scripture were carried along by the Holy Spirit. And then John 10, Jesus says the scripture cannot be broken. Okay, so we’ve got here these claims in the Bible that the scripture possesses this kind of God breathed unbreakable divine authority, but they don’t say that they’re the only thing that has that kind of authority. So, I’d admit that those verses in themselves don’t get you to sola scriptura, they do raise the question though, of course. Well, what else could there be that has that level of divine unbreakable spirit carried authority.

Trent Horn:

Now these other arguments Dr. Ortlund speaks of, they might include implicit arguments from scripture or logical arguments that don’t rely on scripture, which as I said before is a little ironic for a doctrine like sola scriptura. And I plan to address those arguments in a future rebuttal.

Trent Horn:

But if you like what I presented in this rebuttal, I’ve done even more research and you can check out more of what I’ve written in my book, The Case for Catholicism. We have a lot of other content on sola scriptura at the website catholic.com as well. But thank you guys so much for all of your support. We’d love to make more videos like this, so don’t forget to support us at trenthornpodcast.com. And I’m serious, I’d love to maybe get people together to assemble clips so we can really put out some quality content. If you’re interested in that, maybe I’ll put out a casting call for that role soon.

Trent Horn:

In any case, thank you guys so much for listening and sharing, and I just hope you have a really 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.

 

Related

Enjoying this content?  Please support our mission! Donate