The following (by AI) is for those who hold that all doctrines must be based on scripture, “sola scriptura”.
This is a well-known paradox within the framework of sola scriptura, a doctrine that holds Scripture as the supreme authority in all matters of faith and practice. The paradox arises when one tries to determine the canon of Scripture—that is, which books should be included in the Bible—using sola scriptura itself.
The problem is that sola scriptura presupposes the authority of the Bible, but the Bible doesn't contain a list of its own books. In other words, there's no scriptural basis within the Bible itself that explicitly defines which texts are canonical. As a result, you can't use sola scriptura to establish the canon because you'd need the canon to know which scriptures sola scriptura applies to in the first place. This creates a circular problem: to know which scriptures have ultimate authority, you first need to know which texts are authoritative, but sola scriptura cannot provide that answer without already assuming it.
Thus, in practice, the canon of Scripture is typically established by historical, ecclesiastical, or traditional means, which sola scripturatheoretically tries to move beyond or avoid. This highlights a tension within the doctrine when it comes to the very foundation of the biblical texts it seeks to uphold as the sole rule of faith.
