Some yes, but most NO! That is why they had the councils of Hippo and Carthage in 393 and 397 respectively. To settle exactly which books were and were not.
Flash forward a thousand years and you will see that Martin Luther wanted to remove James and Revelation. Do you think they he couldn't tell the difference between an epistle from the Apostle Peter James and the book claiming to be the "Gospel According to Peter? fill in the blank and the real apocalyptic literature.
Why are modern protestants able to discern that they are both scripture but Luther was not able to?
A very good question actually, but before i answer that it seems that the RC premise is that an infallible interpreter is necessary to authoritatively determine what Scripture all consists of and its meaning, and that Rome, being the steward of Divine revelation, and inheritor of promises of God's presence and preservation, and having historical descent, is therefore that infallible interpreter. Is this a correct argument?
Yet...those councils decided on the EXACT same books for the New Testament as was held since the first century, didn't they?
Flash forward a thousand years and you will see that Martin Luther wanted to remove James and Revelation. Do you think they he couldn't tell the difference between an epistle from the Apostle James and the book claiming to be the fill in the blank and the real apocalyptic literature. Why are modern protestants able to discern that they are both scripture but Luther was not able to?
Obviously most Christians COULD, since they did know what was Divinely-inspired Sacred Scripture.
Here's an easy question for you, that really only requires a yes or no answer: Did Martin Luther remove any books from his translation of the Bible? The correct answer is NO, he didn't remove any books. Though he questioned the authenticity of a few - and he was not all by himself there - he kept them ALL. He admitted in his later years that he was wrong to even question the books of James and Revelation. So, at least he was able to admit he was fallible - unlike some religious leaders who think they are infallible on all matters of faith and morals.