The problem all three must survive. Sola scriptura requires a list, and the list is not in the list: no biblical book names the canon. That list was fixed by the church over roughly three centuries. If the church's judgment was reliable enough to settle the table of contents, on what grounds is it unreliable elsewhere? And if it was not reliable, what grounds confidence in the table of contents?
~/christian-local-questionThe canon-circle is genuine but local to Christian disputes about the church and the New Testament. Treating it as the universal problem of scriptural authority hides older Jewish questions: how inherited Torah, interpretive tradition, legal procedure, and communal practice authorize one another without requiring either scripture-alone or an infallible ecclesial list.
~/fallible-collectionBite the bullet. The canon is a historical judgment held at high but not infallible confidence, and that suffices. Certainty about the list was never promised; sufficiency of the books was. The price is conceding that the Protestant norm rests on a process Protestantism does not itself authorize.
no votes on this pair in this scope yet
you’ll log in, then return to this pair to cast your vote.
~/fallible-collection0.345 · 4p~/recognition-not-conferral0.253 · 4p~/infallible-list0.221 · 4p~/self-authentication0.181 · 4p~/christian-local-question · unranked~/history · unranked