I don't think it was quite that smooth a process; but kosta knows far more about the development of the canon than I, so . . .
kosta -- I respectfully request that you come in here!
For much of the NT, it was very smooth. The 4 Gospels and the writing of Paul and 1 Peter and 1 John were, IIRC, all accepted almost immediately as scripture. Revelations and Hebrews were not, and 2 Peter, 2,3 John were also in doubt.
From my perspective, the Good News does not rest on 2 Peter or Revelations or Hebrews. I read them and accept them as scripture, but I wouldn’t have to change any of my beliefs if they fell out of the Bible.
Over a year ago, I posted this thread on how we got the New Testament, and kosta50 & I discussed things at length at that time. I post it here for any who want to re-read the articles or the debate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2320483/posts
The Baptist in me says each of us is responsible for his/her decisions under God, and we make them and will be judged for them as individuals. As I’ve explained (admitted?) to kosta50 before, I BELIEVE what I believe, but I do not think logic forces us to become Christians, or to believe the scriptures.
I sometimes argue with birthers on other threads because I do not believe the courts are the proper place to settle a political question. In like manner, I don’t believe logic is the proper tool for relating to God or other people.
I’m an Arminian, not a Calvinist, but I appreciate the scripture that says, “14 One who heard us was a woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple goods, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.” (Acts 16) As an Arminian, I don’t believe we come to God by our own power - God has to draw us. But we can reject the will of God, and will do so if we insist logic must be our guide.
Long ago, I read a book called “A Severe Mercy” (http://www.amazon.com/Severe-Mercy-Sheldon-Vanauken/dp/0060688246/ref=sr_1_1_title_0_main?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1284485093&sr=1-1). Logic lead him to the point of decision, but he realized that decision required faith. However, he also realized that refusing to take the step of faith was also a decision...and we will be held accountable for the decisions we make. It takes a leap to accept Christ, but also one to reject Him.
Mr Rogers writes: "congregations - decided what they accepted as God’s word, and the council merely ratified current practice."
And marryz replies "I don't think it was quite that smooth a process."
Mary is right. Christianity was not a democracy and congregations did not decide anything. I would be very interested to see an account where the congregation decided what was to be read in church. You didn't have each member of the church toting a bunch of scrolls giving his five cents' worth.
Among notable Christian apologetics, who were not excessively large in number, but who were authorities on church teachings, the few apostolic and church fathers whose works survive one way or another, we indeed see that some books of the current Bible were uniformly included, namely the Four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles.
These books, I am sure Mr Rogers would agree, make up the core Christian beliefs. The deuterocanonical epistles of the NT (i.e. James, Jude, 2, 3 John, 1, 2 Peter, Hebrews, Revelation, etc.) merely embellish and their absence from some canons does not in any way affect Christian faith to a significant extent.
I believe Mr Rogers and I will agree up tot his point. However, the important thing is that Pauline Epistles and the Four Gospels do not represent all the books found in various canons, a fact Mr Rogers seems to either ignore or is not aware of.
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.
All of these were used for "reproof and doctrine" leading to a variety of heretical teachings (universal salvation, pre-existence of souls, a Smörgåsbord board of Christological heresies, Trinitarian heterodoxy, etc.) well into the late 3rd and early 4th century.
The present canon of the Christian scripture was put together not by the congregation of Alexandria but by the bishop of Alexandra, +Athanasius and other African and western bishops agreed to it eventually and proclaimed the Christian scripture (at least in the West) at the (local and non-binding) Council of Carthage (the Third African Council) at the end of the 4th century.
The canon was ratified not by the congregation of Rome but by the Bishop of Rome in the first decade of the 4th century but not by the Eastern bishops who did not fall under his jurisdiction. For various reasons too complex to to into here, the Eastern Church refused to accept Revelation until the 9th century AD.
So, if I may summarize: (a) canonical authority was not in the hands of the congregations and (b) early church canons represented a heterodox collection of various books, sharing only the Four Gospels and the Pauline Epistles in common, but pretty much nothing else, and representing completely heterodox and incompatible beliefs.