Told you so

Thank you, I really appreciate the response. Just so I can understand you better, and not assume incorrectly, can you tell me what you mean by “self-attesting”? Thanks again.

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?