If you've been following along, you'll recognize that I'm not a big fan of "sola scriptura" as it's often used today. I used to be, but not anymore. If you're curious, do a quick search of that Latin term here on this web log to read more.
Early Christians didn't have a New Testament canon for centuries. They had oral traditions, letters, and eyewitness testimony—and they had to discern, community by community, what rang true. The Church fathers collected these testimonies and the writings of the patriarchs and prophets before them and assembled them into a canon of Scripture.
The Bible is not a single book dropped from heaven. It's a library—written by dozens of human authors over centuries, each with their own fears, cultural baggage, and political agendas.
The authors were human witnesses, not mouthpieces of dictation.
Witnesses can be sincere, flawed, and even biased in their framing—but they still point to something real. It's important to remember that.
Each writer gives you a facet, not the full diamond. You get to hold them together and ask: What kind of person would generate these reflections?
The four people who recorded the Gospel accounts saw the same events but from four different perspectives. They agree on the broad strokes, but the words are not the same. The details reflect their own personalities and emphases.
So be careful with ideas like "sola scriptura". It's a doctrine about Scripture — a later interpretive lens, not a teaching of the Bible itself. Assumptions like this can act like a cage.
Jesus himself felt free to state, "You have heard it said... but I say to you" (Matthew 5:38–48).
In Jesus' farewell discourse to his disciples before his crucifixion, he said:
"It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you"
- John 16:7
and
"The Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things"
- John 14:26
