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.
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.
Maybe you don't mention it here because it's not directly relevant, but aren't there Christological and Trinitarian heresies that grew -- or at least were claimed to be found -- in the books finally declared canonical?
“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.