I don't think so! How would a saint prior to the first coming of Christ answer this question? The Word of God was the inspired Word of God before Christ was ever born, before there was an empty tomb. The absolute evidence that the Word of God is inspired by God is the continuing accompanient of God's Spirit with the Word as He continues to speak through it, empowering it and fulfilling it and it is because of that, science, archeology and fulfilled prophecy, transformed lives confirm it as God's Word.
Okay, then---show me the list (or lists) from pre-Christian saints which give a table of contents so to speak for the (Old Testament) 'Canon' without question begging anachronisms. In other words, show me a list that pre-dates Christ's birth and provide a source please.
God's Word does not need the confirmation of churches to be God's Word. God's Word does not rely upon any human being or institution to be God's Word. It is living and powerful because God accompanies His Word and continues to speak through His Word. God simply calls upon man to put His Word to the test and see if God does not confirm His Word by His power.
But that begs the question of how to
identify the
contents of God's inspired word. Historically certain writings were ultimately agreed by the consensus of the church to be authentic (and thus inspired) only after initial dispute which lasted a couple of centuries in places--ie Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation of John, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter. This
doesn't mean, of course, that they
became inspired only in the 4th century, but that the consensus to their canonical status wasn't reached until then. The fact remains that they were disputed in many places, while certain other works (
Barnabas, Hermes, 1 Clement, Didache, etc) that had a measure of local canonicity for a while were ultimately deemed to lie outside the canon by the Church at large.
You see, it's not easy from a
subjective point of view to exactly idenify inspired writings. That's why Christians had a certain degree of disagreement to the boundaries of the NT Canon (described above) and the OT Canon--the earliest fathers like Clement, Polycarp, and 'Barnabas' (followed by Irenaeus and Tertullian) quoted the Deuterocanonical books (ie 'Apocrypha') as they did with other Scripture; it wasn't until the time of Melito of Sardis that certain eastern Christians began to express hesitation about these works. This is why it took some time for the Church to recognized which books were actually inspired (NOT that they somehow 'inspired' them in so recognizing them)
Given this level of disagreement, one can't just arrogantly sit back in the 21st century and say: "Well, then so-and-so must not have had the Spirit or else he would have known the exact same books (that happen to be in
my Bible) to be inspired!". The fact is one even wouldn't be able to make such a smug claim without someone else
who lived before collected a specific set of books, recognized them to be and declared them canonical, and handed them down to the rest of us.
Likewise, the Mormon is able to look at the books handed to him (from Joseph Smith through his LDS 'church') and confidently affirm (by the 'burning in his bosom') that those are the words of God--obviously all of us would disagree. That's why the question of history is important--which works and which Church actually goes back to Christ and the Apostles. If we make the claim that
everything went wrong after the apostles died, then anyone can make up whatever imaginary history he wants to support whatever cult or heterodox version of 'Christianity' he wants which thus frees him to accept whatever books (whether it's the Koran or the Book of Mormon, or the Gospels of Thomas, Judas, or Mary) he happens to be holding in his hand.
