“If you look at the collection of books in various canons, other than the Pauline Epistles and Gospels, you will find that different churches read very different canons indeed. They contained many currently banned and uneconomical books, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Book of Enoch, various Gnostic apocalyptic gospels (of Peter for example), and others.”
Not really. Here is a link summarizing which books were considered scripture based on various lists made prior to 400 AD, including the Shepherd of Hermas, Apocalypse of Peter, Epistle of Barnabas & Epistle of Clement:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html
In particular, the Muratorian Fragment is of interest, dating back to before 200AD:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/muratorian.html
It was not a democratic process where it was all put up to a vote of all Christians, but the bishops at the councils around 400 AD were reflecting the practices of the churches in their care.
Nor do Protestants believe the councils themselves are binding, since we reject the Apocrypha. Protestants largely argue that scripture is self-authenticating...that each person reading it must decide for himself if they agree what they are reading is the word of God. If they do not, then they will not obey it regardless of who is pushing it.
Mormons, for example, have 4 texts of scripture - 3 of which I reject utterly. So Mormons and I differ in beliefs...not surprising. When talking with Mormons, I can encourage them to read the Bible, but I cannot make them decide anything.
Religious beliefs are just that - beliefs. We can discuss them with reason & logic, but the decisions the individual makes will involve belief about the right way to proceed.
I first believed because I met some Jr High kids who were different than any kids I had known before, and I wanted to be like them They told me the difference was Jesus - that they had decided they didn’t want to live their lives on their own, but to follow Jesus. And 40 years later, I have no regrets about my decision, nor any reason to believe I erred. Over the last 40 years, I have often failed God, but He has never failed me.
At first, I believed because of what I saw in their lives. Now I believe because of my experience. That may not suffice to convince anyone else. We all make choices, and I pray we make them well.
I disagee. Using the criterion of this list, namely that if the "author does not mention the book at all," it "implies its rejection." From this, one would conclude that St. Ignatius (c. AD105) rejected half the of the Gospels and more than one half of Paul. He quotes only from Matthew and Luke, from five of Paul's thirteen Epistles!
St. Polycarp (d. AD155) does not quote from the Gospel of John, and only quotes from 10 Pauline Epistles. He also quotes form the book of Hebrews, I Peter, I John, and III John. Does that mean he rejected James, Philemon, Jude, the book of Revelation? Not really.
Perhaps he quoted form them but those manuscripts are lost. So, argument form absence is not valid. The only way we can know if someone rejected a specific book is if he says so outright.
Justin Martyr (c. AD150), for example quotes only from the four Gospels and the book of Revelation as far as we know. That doesn't mean he rejects the rest of the New Testament.
St. Irenaeus (end of 2nd century) quotes form all the NT books except Philemon, II Peter, III John, and Jude. He specifically states that I Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas (but not the Epistle of Barnabas) "of value."
However, he specifically condemns the Gnostic Gospel of Truth (Irenaues, Adversus Hæreses. 3.11.9).
Clement of Alexandria (contemporary of Irenaeus), quotes form all NT books but Philemon, James, II Peter, II John, and III John. However, he considered the following "of value:" Gospel of the Egyptians, Gospel of the Hebrews, Traditions of Matthias, Preaching of Peter, I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache, Shepherd of Hermas and the Apocalypse of Peter.
Tertullian (AD155-220) leaves out only II Peter, James, II John, and III John of his canon, mentions Epistle of Barnabas as "of value" and condemns the whole book Acts of Paul as heretical (because it allowed women to baptize and teach!):
As for those (women) who [appeal to] the falsely written Acts of Paul [in order to] defend the right of women to teach and to baptize, let them know that the presbyter in Asia who produced this document, as if he could add something of his own to the prestige of Paul, was removed from his office after he had been convicted and had confessed that he had done it out of love for Paul (De Baptismo 17).
Origen (AD185-253/4) is already mentioned in your list but it doesn't mention that he considered the Gospel of Peter. the Gospel of Hebrews, Acts of Paul (which Tertullian rejected as heretical), I Clement, Didache, and Shepherd of Hermas, not only "of value" but actually divinely inspired; but he rejects (as unauthentic) The Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of the twelve, The Gospel of Basilides, the Gospel of the Egyptians, the Gospel of Matthias, and Preaching of Peter.
The two highlighted in maroon are the same ones Clement of Alexandria considered "of value" in his church.
The Ethiopian Church considers (to this day) the Book of Enoch as divinely inspired.
Didymus the Blind (AD 313-398) only leaves out Philemon and III John form the NT, and lists I Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Didache and Shepherd of Hermas as being "of value."
The Peshitta (Syriac translation of the Bible c. AD400) leaves out II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, Revelation of John.
It is clear, therefore, that various churches had different canons and books of value (which can only mean "for doctrine"), the way the Catholic Church draws the perpetual virginity of Mary from the non-canonical Protoevangelium of James, a 2nd century Infancy work. It is also clear that some have had a number of Gnostic works which they treated either as divinely inspired (Origen) or of value (Clement of Alexandria). It is therefore clear that churches differed theologically and doctrinally based on the differences in their individual canon, just as modern Churches do (i.e. those with and those with the so-called "Apocrypha").
It is also well documented that many churches read the Book of Enoch, which was immensely popular in the pre-Nicene Church, and that it was not without influence in the Christian psyche.
St. Igantius states that where the catholic church is where the bishop is. The bishop determined what is to be read and what was not to be read. The bishop determined the canon of his church, not the congregation. neither were there sufficient number of copies available nor was there sufficient literacy and education for the congregation to read and understand scriptures, especially among non-Greek speaking converts.
Therefore canonization did not take place "smoothly" as you seem to imply but rather after some 350 years of "doctrinal development" and struggle, amid rampant heterodoxy.