Where in the Canon Bible does RCC get their doctrines from?

Sorry, but I don’t believe this to be true. As Martin alluded to earlier, this didn’t occur until the 70s AD (the so called council of Jamnia I believe?).

Also, “pretty much” doesn’t quite cut it. You have “pretty much” all of the OT canon. I mean, you have almost 90%! If scripture was as self evident as you say it would have been 100% agreed upon instead of merely pretty much agreed upon with disagreement over a few books. Luther wouldn’t have tried to throw out NT books he didn’t care for (didn’t fit his theology)

 

Which apostles stated that Jude, 2 or 3 John, or 2 Peter were inspired (among others).

 

Attempted sophistry? Allow me to translate the above statement: scripture should be believed because it is the word of God and it is the word of God because we believe it to be. This is circular reasoning.

And also, “we believe this because the Holy Spirit tells us it is so”. “Anybody who believes differently? They don’t have the Holy Spirit. Obviously”

 

According to whom? How do you know its the Truth? You say it is but where is your support? You can't say scriptures because the scriptures do not include an inspired table of contents. If you use all the references to books that are identified as "it is written" you miss many books you consider canon because they are not referred to in that way.

 

OK! Now we are getting somewhere! So you accept them in the authority of the earliest Christians?

 

And ‘round and ‘round we go.

So are we back to “the saved know which are canonical because the Holy Spirit reveals it to them”?

 

The word of God is self-authenticating. 'The Pharisees said to Him, "You bear witness of Yourself. Your witness is not true [or 'valid']." Jesus answered and said to them, "Even if I bear witness of Myself, My witness is true, for I know where I came from and where I am going.......You judge according to the flesh"' (John 8:13-14). According to fleshly reasoning, this is a circular argument. '...For the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them because they are spiritually discerned' (1 Corinthians 2:14).

There are loads of reasons for believing in the Canon of Scripture. I have given some and I can give you plenty more, but you are not interested in them. FYI, nearly 4,000 times in the O.T. we read expressions such as 'The LORD spoke,' 'the LORD commanded,' 'the LORD said.' None of the prophets believed he was speaking on his own authority. Check out, for example, Micah 3:8. This in contrast to the writers of the Apocrypha.

However, the final evidence of the extent, truthfulness, inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture, does not come from men but from the Holy Spirit.

 

If Scriptures are your sole authority on truth

So, to summarize you are saying that your authority to which books belong in canon and those that do not are based on your opinion and anyone who happens to agree with you?

 

The problem is that the records of the early Christians is that they used books from the Deuterocanonical books. We even see their use in the NT.

 

Again, according to whom? You say the Holy Spirit. But how do you know? So far the only suggestion is everyone who agrees with you, which means you are your own authority. Your opinion is your authority. The Holy Spirit doesn't argue with itself. Apart from extra biblical tradition of the Torah there is nothing you can rely on to verify that the books of canon are just the 39 books of the OT. You can't say Scripture Alone because there is nothing in scripture that list all 39 books as canon. If you say, when scripture says about another book "it is written" you fall shorter than 39 books. If you say the Holy Spirit revealed it to you then, one must ask how? If you say because I just know it and recognize it then you fall back upon your own opinion rather than objective evidence.
I also find your answer interesting though, because it seems to me what you are suggesting is that parts of Deuterocanonical books are inspired but not the whole book or group of books. Which then leads me to ask maybe parts of the 39 books of the OT canon you hold to aren't entirely inspired themselves only parts of each book. How can you determine which part of books are inspired and those that are not?

 

The "truth" is what our friend thinks it is. He makes up his own as things roll along, totally rejecting the all that came before him (or at least all that came before the 15th - 16th century). True Christianity was on hiatus form the 1st century on don't you know and the great theologians of the early church are to be rejected as if they never existed.