On your question of authority, if we hold these two premises...

paxchristi

npub13paz6seqlckvtvwfxwhjz60ycupkh5zj6ykz7d67zqkxyjnl6j8sqcmj3f

hex

c2477e08f56c61f043b9a22f8ec6d19f2d13079c6d0b65c25290e1c0758ff58f

nevent

nevent1qqsvy3m7pr6kcc0sgwu6ytuwcmge7tgnq7wx6zm9cfffpcwqwk8ltrcprpmhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuem4d36kwatvw5hx6mm9qgsgs73dgvs0utx9k8yn8tepd8jvwqmt6pfdztp0xa0pqtrzfflafrcuyrwlc

Kind-1 (TextNote)

2026-03-18T17:14:13Z

↳ Reply to Event not found

da22312e958ce793315539678479735210cda44f7a2369f12c0dd65bd554bc56...

On your question of authority, if we hold these two premises true:

First, Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, the supreme authority by which we judge all doctrines, councils, and traditions. I don't dispute that if God has spoken, His Word carries supreme authority. But this isn't just a theoretical claim; we actively employ it. We judge doctrines by it, reject traditions by it, and evaluate councils by it. Which means we need to know what "it" is before we can use it.

Second, for that to work, the Bible must have defined content. Specific books. "Scripture alone" is an empty principle if we don't know what Scripture is. The canon isn't a side issue; it's what makes Sola Scriptura possible in the first place. Before Scripture can judge any doctrine, council, or tradition, we need to know which books constitute Scripture: no settled canon, no standard to judge anything by.

Someone had to identify which books carry God's inherent divine authority. On this point, you cite that you personally find Jerome's canon better. But Jerome held a minority position and later translated and included all the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate. And no apostolic or post-apostolic Church Father ever proposed "self-attestation" as a way of identifying canonical books. Some Fathers spoke of Scripture's inherent divine authority, but always in reference to books already recognised as canonical. When they tackled the question of which books actually belong, they used apostolic origin, reception by the churches, liturgical usage, and consistency with the rule of faith.

Scripture needs a canon. The canon needs an authority. That authority can't be Scripture, and it can't be a single man's. With this in mind, what, in your belief, is that authority?

Raw JSON

{
  "kind": 1,
  "id": "c2477e08f56c61f043b9a22f8ec6d19f2d13079c6d0b65c25290e1c0758ff58f",
  "pubkey": "887a2d4320fe2cc5b1c933af2169e4c7036bd052d12c2f375e102c624a7fd48f",
  "created_at": 1773854053,
  "tags": [
    [
      "p",
      "eda96cb93aecdd61ade0c1f9d2bfdf95a7e76cf1ca89820c38e6e4cea55c0c05",
      "wss://nostrelites.org/",
      "freeborn | ἐλεύθερος | 8r0gwg"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "356875ffd729b06eeb4c1d7a70a1f750045d067774d21c0faffe4af2bf96a2e8",
      "wss://140.f7z.io/",
      "Laser"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "833336b45cf8af785669e4a47b69c688834d2e4c695b297c0b39c186a5850cf2",
      "",
      "npub1sve…rpt05"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "291c75d937a45f66a1209f8ea6611df7448c59b3526520c66ca2cdcd37f1bfbe",
      "wss://relay.nsec.app/",
      "jaredlogan"
    ],
    [
      "p",
      "3881beaeead2cce4df1e7f527e9ade0a5721e4a6f612ff9ac82aa6c92b014a17",
      "",
      "Lew☦️"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "1b63d46a2d4edb3e1e6d0fd764fcc587eeea8481358e6251607cc3d76992a3a6",
      "wss://nostr.wine/",
      "root",
      "887a2d4320fe2cc5b1c933af2169e4c7036bd052d12c2f375e102c624a7fd48f"
    ],
    [
      "e",
      "da22312e958ce793315539678479735210cda44f7a2369f12c0dd65bd554bc56",
      "wss://relay.0xchat.com/",
      "reply",
      "eda96cb93aecdd61ade0c1f9d2bfdf95a7e76cf1ca89820c38e6e4cea55c0c05"
    ]
  ],
  "content": "On your question of authority, if we hold these two premises true:\n\nFirst, Scripture alone is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, the supreme authority by which we judge all doctrines, councils, and traditions. I don't dispute that if God has spoken, His Word carries supreme authority. But this isn't just a theoretical claim; we actively employ it. We judge doctrines by it, reject traditions by it, and evaluate councils by it. Which means we need to know what \"it\" is before we can use it.\n\nSecond, for that to work, the Bible must have defined content. Specific books. \"Scripture alone\" is an empty principle if we don't know what Scripture is. The canon isn't a side issue; it's what makes Sola Scriptura possible in the first place. Before Scripture can judge any doctrine, council, or tradition, we need to know which books constitute Scripture: no settled canon, no standard to judge anything by. \n\nSomeone had to identify which books carry God's inherent divine authority. On this point, you cite that you personally find Jerome's canon better. But Jerome held a minority position and later translated and included all the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate. And no apostolic or post-apostolic Church Father ever proposed \"self-attestation\" as a way of identifying canonical books. Some Fathers spoke of Scripture's inherent divine authority, but always in reference to books already recognised as canonical. When they tackled the question of which books actually belong, they used apostolic origin, reception by the churches, liturgical usage, and consistency with the rule of faith.\n\nScripture needs a canon. The canon needs an authority. That authority can't be Scripture, and it can't be a single man's. With this in mind, what, in your belief, is that authority?",
  "sig": "5ae33ca6f65c803c5567f5412f0069cb959aa0a2dcd4e605b267f7c2dd393397d20e17277221cd76e262b88931db015c51647eb9d0407ed3cc9556d6c4164303"
}