It is common for opponents of Christianity to argue that there was never a universal decision as to which books belonged to the New Testament canon, nor did orthodoxy exist prior to the late fourth century. Even then—the argument goes—many literary traditions existed. Is there historical accuracy to these charges? Was there really no orthodoxy prior to the councils of the fourth century? Did scholars and theologians really vote on which books belonged in the canon?
Christians will inevitably encounter these questions and more, and if unprepared to give an answer, they can be left with grave doubt. But rest assured the truth of the matter is something far different than what opponents of Christianity often charge about the canon of Scripture.
The term canon has come to mean "rule" or "standard." It refers to those books included in the Old and New Testaments that are theopneustos—breathed out by God (2 Tim 3:16). Early Christians rightly wanted to know which books were given by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for a number of reasons. Gnostic, Marcionite, and Montanist writings were circulating that contradicted the doctrines the apostles were proclaiming. The appearance of these spurious works and others—together with the passing time from the life of Jesus, growing heretical movements, and an increase of Christian persecution for possessing Scripture—all gave rise to the discussion as to what exactly constituted inspired books. After all, who would want to die or suffer persecution for a book that was not theopneustos?
A three-fold test was administered to answer this question, namely: conformity to orthodoxy, apostolicity, and wide-spread acceptance. Orthodoxy was not something that developed over succeeding generations, but rather, was known from the time of the apostles—an idea that is supported by the numerous passages that confirm the idea of a standard rule of faith from the time of the apostles. Wrote Paul:
"I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel—not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:6-9 ESV).
"So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess 2:15 ESV).
"Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor 11:2 ESV).
Furthermore:
"Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3 ESV).
Second, apostolicity meant that the writing had to come from one of the apostles or that it had to be commissioned by someone directly linked to one of the Twelve, as is the case with the Gospel’s Mark and Luke.
A third and lesser criterion in the administrative process was the wide-spread acceptance and usage of the books. That is, the writings must be used everywhere and not just in isolated Christian communities.
So it is disingenuous to argue that the early Christians voted on which books belonged to the canon. It is more accurate to state they merely recognized the divine origin of Scripture, just as the people of God in Old Testament times were moved by the Holy Spirit to recognize that God spoke to them through the Law and the Prophets. The church has never created a canon nor has it attributed inspiration to any book—it has only recognized the divine origin of the theopneustos Scriptures.
