Canon and Roman Catholicism

RC: I’m still waiting for James White to explain which Canon of Scripture I’m allowed to use when if I take up sola scriptura.

Chris: Canon is a function of Scripture. Those things which I have written are in the canon of my works. Similarly those things which God has breathed out constitute the canon of Scripture.

RC: Chris… what I meant… am I permitted to use the Scripture comprised of 73 books, or the one comprised of only 66 books? Of course both versions are God breathed, inherent, and authoritative.

Obviously this is all hypothetical as I do not… follow sola scriptura.

Chris: I’m not sure what you mean by “permitted?” I use all sorts of books that are not God breathed and it does not follow by someone’s “permission” or my use of them that they are God breathed. Are you asking how I know that the Bible is God’s Word?

RC: I have a feeling this can/should be a long conversation. Researching the rich history of our Scriptures is part of what led me to the Catholic Church.

By permitted I simply meant… even if I were to follow sola scriptura I would be using a Bible that has 7 additional inspired books. Your Bible is incomplete… that is all I meant. My Bible has 73 books and each word is inspired and inherent and authoritative.

Chris: Ah, so you meant to assert that I am wrong about what the Word of God is without providing any argument. Okay.

Where and what did you study concerning the history of Scripture? I’ve done a bit of study in that area too and would not mind some other reading on it.

RC: Well, if you truly want to talk about the Canon… I suppose we can. I would just like you to give me the earliest known year that your Canon was formed and the names of the men who put your Bible together, and declared it to be the inspired, Holy Word of God.

Chris: “I would just like you to give me the earliest known year that your Canon was formed”

As I mentioned above, canon is a function of Scripture. Whatever year God spoke the first word to Adam, that was when canon was formed.

“and the names of the men who put your Bible together, and declared it to be the inspired, Holy Word of God.”

I don’t believe that men declare the Bible to be the inspired, Holy Word of God in any sense that it then *becomes* the Word of God. The Word of God is self-attesting and since God is the highest authority, self-authenticating. People have been recognizing the Word of God as such from the beginning. The psalmist certainly knew this when he wrote, לְעוֹלָם יְהוָה– דְּבָרְךָ, נִצָּב בַּשָּׁמָיִם

“Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.” (Psalm 119.89)

RC: Either way, and I’m certainly not claiming that the Word does is not self attesting, there was still a time and a place where men gathered together and argued about which books were inspired and which weren’t. So, I still need the earliest date whereupon your Scripture was settled upon.

Chris: As I’ve answered several times now, canon is a function of Scripture. God determines what is canon by speaking the Word. At whatever time God spoke the first word to Adam, that was when canon was formed.

The Word of God is self-attesting and self-authenticating. It always has been. That is how, in my example, the psalmist knew the Word of God and that it is “firmly fixed in the heavens.” Men do not determine what the Word of God is, God does.

Think through what you are saying and what you are asking of me. You claim that, “there was still a time and a place where men gathered together and argued about which books were inspired and which weren’t.” I do not know what time you are referring to. When did this gathering take place? What are you talking about? You seem to know, but I do not, and so I am puzzled as to why you are asking me about it. It’s like me insisting, “No really, I know of a time when you played professional football, so tell me when that was.” You are saying that you, “still need the earliest date whereupon your Scripture was settled upon.” I’ve already answered that question. It is when God first spoke.

Now when do you believe that the Word of God “was settled upon?” Was it after the psalmist that I quoted? If so, then how did he know what the Word of God was? How did Adam? Since when do men determine what God says?

RC: Chris, Clearly we are talking around each other. I’m sorry if I have befuddled you in any way. Let me rephrase.

What is the earliest date upon which Christians had the FULL, COMPLETE, Word of God in written form. I’m assuming you believe our Canon of written Scripture (known as the Holy Bible) is closed. Obviously revelation was still ongoing at the time of the Psalms, and I know we can both agree that David did not have the fullness of Truth in written form during his life.

I am looking for a date. If you would rather repeat your argument again, I will simply ask you for the date yet again. You can’t deny that at one time Christians didn’t have the same Holy Bible in Greek/Hebrew that we have today. My request is quite simple. What is the earliest date that the Church of Jesus Christ had the full and complete written Word (Holy Scripture)?

Chris: “What is the earliest date upon which Christians had the FULL, COMPLETE, Word of God in written form.”

Since I take Revelation to be the last book of the Bible revealed, and since I take it to have been written approximately 90AD, I believe that the earliest date upon which Christians had the “FULL, COMPLETE, Word of God in written form” was approximately 90 AD. Please note now that I have given you an answer to your question. You asked what the earliest date is upon which Christians had the full, complete Word of God in written form and I am answering “approximately 90AD.” I want you to see that I am answering your question directly so that we do not have to return to this.

“I’m assuming you believe our Canon of written Scripture (known as the Holy Bible) is closed.”

Correct.

“Obviously revelation was still ongoing at the time of the Psalms”

Correct.

“I know we can both agree that David did not have the fullness of Truth in written form during his life.”

Correct.

But I’m not sure what your statements here have to do with the topic? I agree with all of these things, but the point is that the psalmist was able to recognize the Word of God. The psalmist was able to recognize the canon, even though it was incomplete. Agree?

“I am looking for a date.”

I gave you one above.

“If you would rather repeat your argument again, I will simply ask you for the date yet again.”

I’ve given you the argument several times so I assume you are following it by now. Now I’ve also given you a date.

“You can’t deny that at one time Christians didn’t have the same Holy Bible in Greek/Hebrew that we have today.”

No, I don’t deny this, but I don’t see your point.

“My request is quite simple.”

I agree, so are my answers.

“What is the earliest date that the Church of Jesus Christ had the full and complete written Word (Holy Scripture)?”

Approximately 90AD.

RC: Thank you Chris. Now tell me the date at which point those 73 inspired books were officially declared as the ONLY inspired books.

Chris: I don’t remember saying that 73 books were officially declared as the only inspired books, so I’m not sure what you’re asking about.

I also don’t know what you mean by “officially.”

RC: Well, how many inspired books did the early Christians have? There is a number, is there not?

Chris: The divisions and arrangements of books have differed throughout history. I’d have to look up how many books they divided our body of inspired texts into at that time. But I’m curious what that has to do with canon?

RC: ‎”I’d have to look up how many books they divided our body of inspired texts into at that time.”

Yes, that is what I am looking for. If you could provide a list of books (order not important, although for clarity sake it would be best to have them separated OT and NT) and a date at which point this list was accepted to be the full, and complete list… that would really help in clarifying some things for me.

When I use the word Canon I am referring to the complete list of Holy, Inspired, Self Attesting books of the Bible. In other words… the Christian Canon has …. fill in the blank…. books in it, and has had ALL of these books in it since …. fill in the blank…. year.

‎Chris: “If you could provide a list of books (order not important, although for clarity sake it would be best to have them separated OT and NT) and a date at which point this list was accepted to be the full, and complete list…”

Accepted by whom…?

“When I use the word Canon I am referring to the complete list of Holy, Inspired, Self Attesting books of the Bible.”

That is an incorrect understanding of canon, as I’ve already mentioned. Canon is a function of Scripture. It is not a “list.”

You may also be confused regarding what “self-attesting” means. If something is self-attesting, then it gives testimony regarding itself. In other words, the Word of God claims to be the Word of God. It is possible, in other words, to know what the Word of God is by virtue of the self-attesting Word of God itself. And indeed, that is what we see in the case of, for example, the psalmist who knew what the Word of God was.

“In other words… the Christian Canon has …. fill in the blank…. books in it, and has had ALL of these books in it since …. fill in the blank…. year.”

The Christian canon consists of the recorded words of God which I would argue constitute, at least as we typically divide them now, 66 books. It has had this same *content* since, as I said before, approximately 90AD. (The content remains the same even though the books have been divided differently throughout the years.)

Hope this helps.

RC: ‎”The Christian canon consists of the recorded words of God which I would argue constitute, at least as we typically divide them now, 66 books. It has had this same *content* since, as I said before, approximately 90AD. (The content remains… the same even though the books have been divided differently throughout the years.)”

I would like to see documentation of this.

Chris: Documentation of what? You asked for my position and I gave it to you.

RC: You asserted that the Christians in 90AD had a completed and compiled list of inspired books, upon which no one could ever add or take away from. You also asserted that this number of books was 66. I am simply asking for you to show me something to back this claim up with, as I have never seen anything to support your assertion.

Chris: ‎”You asserted that the Christians in 90AD had a completed and compiled list of inspired books, upon which no one could ever add or take away from.”

No, I didn’t. Go back and read more carefully.

“You also asserted that this number of books was 66.”

Again, this is mistaken per what I just mentioned.

“I am simply asking for you to show me something to back this claim up with, as I have never seen anything to support your assertion.”

Again, I didn’t make the assertion, and so I do not need to support it.

I hope you’ll pay close attention to what I am actually saying that my position is and not just place something on me as though it were my position. The Roman Catholic arguments are really good when you are using them against a position that I do not hold, but that position doesn’t really have much to do with me!

You’ll note that I even explicitly *denied* that it is a “list.”

I wrote:

“That is an incorrect understanding of canon, as I’ve already mentioned. Canon is a function of Scripture. It is not a ‘list.’”

You don’t like it when I repeat my arguments, but it does help for us to see them restated.

RC: You said… “It has had this same *content* since, as I said before, approximately 90AD.”

I asked you to please give me the earliest date upon which the Christians had a complete and compiled list of books that now constitute our Bible. This complete and compiled list of books would consist of a number. The books that existed in this grouping could neither be altered, nor could they be taken out entirely.

I am looking for list of these books, and documentation showing me that this is the case, and that it hasn’t changed over time.

Chris: But I keep telling you that it has changed over time. Are you reading what I’m writing?

RC: Chris… I’m not sure what word you would like to use. In any case, you now have Bible with 66 Books in it… there is a LIST at the beginning of your Bible.

Some may call it the ‘Table of Contents’ divided into and Old and New Testament….

I am merely asking for you to show me that the early Christians used this SAME list of inspired texts … none taken out … that you use today.

Chris… What has changed over time?

This is the first question I asked you. You talk about repeating yourself, but I have repeated this same question numerous times so far, and just when I thought I had an answer, you told me I didn’t.

Do I need to ask you the question again?

Chris: The number of books has changed over time as the divisions of the books have changed over time.

I do not believe the table of contents in an English Bible is inspired.

You’re asking me to show you that the early Christians used the content that I have in my Bible? Do Roman Catholics not think that the early church treated this same content as the Word of God?