Now we come to the formation of the Christian canon; to the process by which it evolved. Again I bring to your attention what very distinguished men, like Brooke Foss Westcott D.D., D.C.L., honorary fellow of Trinity and King's College, at Cambridge, had to say to help us today understand how one should approach the New Testament writings let alone determine what kind of authority we should attach to such documents, especially in light of the prior existence of the Torah and the Tanakh, the Scriptures used by Jesus. As you read this information balance what you learn with the prior held beliefs "from Roman Church tradition" as to the importance of such documents.
More than forty Gospels and a much greater number of Acts, Epistles, and Revelations were in use by the Church corporate. The writer of the Gospel according to Luke says, "Forasmuch as many have taken to hand to set forth in order a declaration of these things," etc., showing that when he wrote many Gospels were already in existence. From the mass writings then in circulation, the books in our New Testament were taken, and the other books out of use (Westcott, On The Canon Of The New Testament, p. 183).
Origen says:
"And that not four Gospels, but very many were written, out of which these we have were chosen and delivered to the churches, we may perceive" (In Proem. Luc., hom. I, vol 2. P. 210).
The selection of books, and the formation of the list, was a very slow process, and it is "impossible to point to any period as marking the date at which our present canon was determined" (Westcott, On The Canon Of The New Testament, p. 496).
"This result (the formation of the canon) was obtained gradually, spontaneously, silently. There is no evidence to show that any time the claims of the apostolic writings was to be placed on equal footing with the Old Testament, which formed the first Christian Bible,...this was deliberately discussed and admitted…Step by step the books which were stamped with apostolic authority were collected from the other works which contained the traditions of less authoritative teachers" (Westcott, On The Canon Of The New Testament, p. 345).
Answer for yourself: Did you understand that those who first collected such writing admitted among themselves and have passed down their own thoughts that these collection of writings were not intended to replace the Old Testament in authority...let alone be considered another "Bible?" But yet it regrettably has happened! We have added to the Word of God whether we want to admit it or not! It seems ridiculous to me today that we consider documents as the "Word of God" then those who originally collected them did not!
This is a very damaging quote from a most renown New Testament scholar that impugns the integrity and the authority of the whole of the New Testament.
When the Catholic Church began to be formed, about the year 170-180 A.D., the tendency was to use fewer books, and the ones accepted as authoritative began to be called "divine".
Answer for yourself: Do you know what is the meaning to the word "divine?" There is a big difference between deity and divine. According to Webster's Dictionary the word "divine" means:
1. Pertaining to God, or to a heathen deity or false g-d,
2. Partaking the nature of God; g-dlike; heavenly; sacred; holy; excellent in the highest degree; apparently above what is human; relating to divinity or theology.
You should have noticed the glaring absence of any mention that "divine" means originated with God or comes from God. Nowhere in such understanding is room for a concept of "infallible, inerrant, or even inspired." Thus being so, and upon serious study, and in-depth analysis, one can quickly see how these documents which appear "g-dly and sacred" are exposed in their true colors....conflicting documents relating to theologies of various sects and their conflicting and competing dogmas...each intended for mastery over each other. The early church Fathers knew this; it is we who have approached these documents with false suppositions about their value and authority for our lives.
You should understand that the early Fathers originated the theory that these books were divinely inspired, and in another place that the heretics did so. There is no contradiction here. Both the Fathers and the heretics were Christians! They simply belonged to different sects. In the contest for the mastery it so happened that the sects to which the Fathers belonged…the Petrine…gained the supremacy, and from them arose the present Christian Church. Had the other sects gained the victory, their Fathers would now be the orthodox authorities and the others would be the heretics. Now, it is true that in the so-called heretical sects originated the theory that the New Testament was divine and of equal authority with the Old, but that doctrine would not have been accepted by us had not the orthodox Fathers of that time adopted it into their sects. We are the descendants of the orthodox sects, and so far as we are concerned the early Fathers originated the theory. They did it to have authority for the new and unusual doctrines coming into use, just as the heretics were using the same theory to support their doctrines. The books were, in those days, mainly in the hands of the bishops (Davidson, On The Canon Of The Bible, p. 164). The laity had nothing to do with them. Not one in ten thousand of the laity could read. The recognition of the authority of the New Testament was brought entirely by ecclesiastical usage (Westcott, On The Canon Of The New Testament, p. 185).
As you read the next sentence fully understand the impact of such a fact. Each Father included in the newly forming New Testament what books he liked and which promoted his positions, and excluded what he did not like. Sounds like God to me! The consequence were to be expected; there were as many Bibles in those days as there were Fathers engaged in making them. In their differences of opinion as to what constituted the canon, the Fathers made no attempt to compare the books by a critical investigation into the history of the records themselves (Ibid., p. 406). Dr. Westcott says the canon was "formed by instinct and not by argument" (Ibid., p. 386). Instinct is not a good thing to form a Bible by. The Fathers contended for centuries as to what should go into the list until they found they could not agree, and then the church held councils and voted on it, and the books which polled the most votes went into this "divine collection."
St. Augustine was a great advocate of this plan. He thought that the books which were received by all the churches should be in the Bible, and that in the case of books on which there was a difference of opinion, the majority voice of the churches should decide it (De. Doct. Christ., ii. 8). So in other words, according to St. Augustine, according to which fraction or sect that had majority power would come the determination which was "of God and what was not." This sounds right to me, how about you? In other words, what ever group had dominance and political, economic, and military power would flow the "divine oracles." I hope you have sense to understand the ludicrousness of such folly. Let me share another thing that was said by this distinguished man, St. Augustine. We have, for instance, the story related by St. Augustine, who is styled "the greatest of the Latin Fathers," of his preaching the Gospel to people without heads. In his 33d Sermon he says:
Now I ask you, is it wise to follow anything from such a man as this? Surely this should be enough for you to want to seriously begin a study into the men who decided what you believe today for your Eternal Life!
An exact parallel to this is found in the manner of making changes in the recent New Testament revision. On the first reading of a disputed text a majority vote authorized the amendment, but on the second and final reading a two-thirds vote of all those present was necessary (Revised New Testament, Preface, II. fifth rule of May, 25, 1879). But even this plan did not work satisfactorily in the church, for the councils whom you were taught to believe were led by the Holy Spirit in the selection of these books differed continually for centuries! Quite often such disagreements on Heavenly things ended in wholesale murder of bishops by bishops. It seems like God cannot make up His mind let alone infill those making such monumental decisions for all mankind with the fruit of the Spirit. One council as led by the Holy Spirit would adopt a list inserting books which another rejected, and rejecting books which another had inserted, and this continued over and over and over again until the church held one great council which adopted a summary final list which even contradicted itself. The ultimate capstone of such religious bickering and folly was summed-up by the the final ecclesiastical order that has poisoned all of Christianity even to this day:
Thus Christianity has become an exclusive religion that is ingrained by such a tenant which mandates belief in these conflicting and contradicting documents for one's Eternal life; such documents which can be shown to be paralleled to Gentile paganism no less. Why not find out what Jesus really believed about Eternal Life and what was really the Bible for him, and adopt his religious belief system as yours? I would think that as a Christian you would want to do that. Well, this is but the introduction to what I will show you as we begin a serious study into the formation of the New Testament and the role of the Holy Spirit within it...if He had one at all. You will have to be the judge, but you need to know the facts in order to make an intelligent decision on the matter.