Considering the early Church compiled the New Testament, what authority did they have to do so—and do you recognise that same authority today?

[LanaPodesta]

The New Testament did not fall from the sky complete and bound. It was the early Church—bishops, councils, and communities guided by apostolic tradition—that discerned, debated, and ultimately canonized the books we now call Scripture. This process wasn't driven by individual interpretation, but by a consensus of the unified Church, centuries after Christ's resurrection.


So the question is:

• Who gave them the authority to determine which texts were divinely inspired?
• Why trust their discernment on the canon, but reject their teachings on things like the Eucharist, apostolic succession, or the veneration of saints?

To accept the canon of Scripture is to implicitly trust the Church that gave it to you. But if that Church was fallible or "corrupted" by tradition, how can you trust the canon itself?
If the early Church was reliable enough to determine the boundaries of divine revelation, perhaps it is also worth considering their broader doctrinal framework.


Is it consistent to trust their table of contents, but not their theology?

 

[for_his_glory]

Each church/man (denomination-non denomination) teach many different doctrines and what we have in what we call the Bible has many different translations that can become very confusing. The best way to receive all truths is by first praying and ask the Holy Spirit teach you and learn how to discern the spirits that teach us. Many of the early church leaders that compiled the letters that were written by the Prophets and Apostles could not always agree with each other in their understandings. It is better to trust the Holy Spirit in whom teaches all truths rather than what others try to teach us.

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1John 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

 

[Who Me]

• Who gave them the authority to determine which texts were divinely inspired?
• Why trust their discernment on the canon, but reject their teachings on things like the Eucharist, apostolic succession, or the veneration of saints?

The early church leaders used the same standards any Christian leader today would use in assessing scripture.

Was the author a companion of Jesus or known to have been a close associate of a disciple.
Is there a clear chain of contacts going back to the apostles.
Is there consistency in teaching.

There are plenty of other documents that are claimed to be written by apostles or their associates, but they all fail the tests above.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Is it consistent to trust their table of contents, but not their theology?

Remember, they didn't write them. They endorsed them. Just as the Jewish leadership endorsed the writings of Moses and the Prophets, even though the very scriptures they endorsed and honored and preserved testified against them and their un-scriptural practices.

Many false Christian religions do that. They honor the Bible and recognize its inspired status, but are oblivious to their own wickedness and false doctrines condemned in the very scriptures they honor. It's an interesting phenomenon.

 

[LanaPodesta]

Each church/man (denomination-non denomination) teach many different doctrines and what we have in what we call the Bible has many different translations that can become very confusing. The best way to receive all truths is by first praying and ask the Holy Spirit teach you and learn how to discern the spirits that teach us. Many of the early church leaders that compiled the letters that were written by the Prophets and Apostles could not always agree with each other in their understandings. It is better to trust the Holy Spirit in whom teaches all truths rather than what others try to teach us.

2Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Timothy 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1John 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

So who is right and who is wrong?

 

[LanaPodesta]

The early church leaders used the same standards any Christian leader today would use in assessing scripture.

Was the author a companion of Jesus or known to have been a close associate of a disciple.
Is there a clear chain of contacts going back to the apostles.
Is there consistency in teaching.

There are plenty of other documents that are claimed to be written by apostles or their associates, but they all fail the tests above.

Thanks for your thoughtful response. But I think this raises even more important questions:

If the early Church used “standards any Christian leader today would use,” then why can’t every modern Christian leader just re-evaluate the canon themselves? Why are we bound to their decisions, rather than conducting our own tests afresh?

And more importantly:
Who had the authority to define and enforce those standards in the first place? Because even the criteria you mention—apostolic origin, continuity, doctrinal consistency—require an authoritative body to interpret and apply them. After all, many disputed books like Revelation, Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter were hotly contested precisely because those standards weren't self-evident.

In the end, it wasn’t an individual reading Scripture and deciding; it was the unified Church—gathered in councils, guided by apostolic tradition—that canonized the New Testament. They had sacramental and spiritual authority, not just scholarly reasoning. That same Church also believed in things like:

• Apostolic succession
• The real presence in the Eucharist
• The intercession of saints
• The role of bishops as successors of the apostles

So again: if the Church got the canon right, why assume they got everything else wrong?

It seems inconsistent to trust their judgment on Scripture, but not on the very faith that Scripture was meant to serve.

 

[LanaPodesta]

Remember, they didn't write them. They endorsed them. Just as the Jewish leadership endorsed the writings of Moses and the Prophets, even though the very scriptures they endorsed and honored and preserved testified against them and their un-scriptural practices.

Many false Christian religions do that. They honor the Bible and recognize its inspired status, but are oblivious to their own wickedness and false doctrines condemned in the very scriptures they honor. It's an interesting phenomenon.

That’s an interesting point—and I appreciate the parallel you're drawing with the Jewish leadership. But I think it may unintentionally undercut your own position.

You're saying the early Church merely endorsed the New Testament writings, much like the Jewish leaders endorsed the Old Testament—even while being in error. But that raises a troubling implication:

If the Church that canonized the New Testament was in serious doctrinal or moral error, then why trust their endorsement at all? Why not assume, as you imply with Jewish leaders, that they may have gotten it wrong—either omitting books they didn’t like, or including ones that suited their theology?

And yet, despite this, you trust that the Church—somewhere between the 4th and 5th centuries—correctly preserved the canon and passed it down faithfully?

You can't have it both ways:

• Either the Church had spiritual discernment and God-given authority to recognize the canon,
• Or it was corrupt, in which case its decisions (including the canon itself) would be suspect.

Also, the Jewish comparison breaks down in one critical way:
The Old Testament canon was not fully closed or universally agreed upon even in Jesus’ day (cf. Sadducees vs. Pharisees). Meanwhile, the Church did not just passively "recognize" the New Testament canon—it debated, discerned, and defined it across multiple centuries, through the actions of bishops, synods, and councils. That's not mere endorsement; that's authoritative ecclesial action.


So I’d gently ask again:
If you accept the Bible as inspired and reliable, do you not also accept the authority of the Church that gave it to you?
And if not—on what grounds do you separate the fruit from the tree?

 

[Hidden In Him]

If you accept the Bible as inspired and reliable, do you not also accept the authority of the Church that gave it to you?

Because the early fathers increasingly began teaching corruptions and falsehoods. It's why the canon had to be decided upon to begin with. You don't separate the apostles from church leaders as having more authority?

 

[Free]

The New Testament did not fall from the sky complete and bound. It was the early Church—bishops, councils, and communities guided by apostolic tradition—that discerned, debated, and ultimately canonized the books we now call Scripture. This process wasn't driven by individual interpretation, but by a consensus of the unified Church, centuries after Christ's resurrection.


So the question is:

• Who gave them the authority to determine which texts were divinely inspired?

Does it matter? David committed adultery and had the husband killed, yet he was a man after God's own heart, through whose lineage the Messiah came. God uses the imperfect to complete his will.

• Why trust their discernment on the canon, but reject their teachings on things like the Eucharist, apostolic succession, or the veneration of saints?

Because while the books of the Bible are very close to the autographs, people are corrupt and teach what they want, even if it is contrary to Scripture. It is one thing to have the canon; it is another to correctly understand what those books say.

The Bible is God's revelation to us. As such, it should be clear that everything we need to know as followers of Christ is in the Bible. The Bible says in at least two places to not add or take away from what was written, so we should be very sceptical of teachings that can't be found in it, such as indulgences, the immaculate conception and perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. Those things are causes for serious concern and why other things shouldn't be accepted as true.

It is ironic, isn't it? The very canon God gave us through that fallible Church, is the very canon that shows how wrong it is in some of its teachings.

To accept the canon of Scripture is to implicitly trust the Church that gave it to you.

Trust them to an extent, yes. But just because they gave us the canon doesn't mean we can or should trust them in everything.

But if that Church was fallible or "corrupted" by tradition, how can you trust the canon itself?

And if that Church changes its teachings, doesn't that mean it is fallible? If so, why trust it?

The first apostles were fallible, yet God used a few of them to write the NT books in the first place, along with other fallible writers. God, in his grace, works through fallible people and the fallible organizations those people create. There has never been an infallible person on the face of this planet other than Jesus. Hence, there has never been an infallible Church.

If the early Church was reliable enough to determine the boundaries of divine revelation, perhaps it is also worth considering their broader doctrinal framework.

No, not really.

Is it consistent to trust their table of contents, but not their theology?

Yes, because, again, that table of contents shows that some parts of their theology are just plain wrong.

 

[Johann!@#]

The New Testament did not fall from the sky complete and bound. It was the early Church—bishops, councils, and communities guided by apostolic tradition—that discerned, debated, and ultimately canonized the books we now call Scripture. This process wasn't driven by individual interpretation, but by a consensus of the unified Church, centuries after Christ's resurrection.


So the question is:

• Who gave them the authority to determine which texts were divinely inspired?
• Why trust their discernment on the canon, but reject their teachings on things like the Eucharist, apostolic succession, or the veneration of saints?

To accept the canon of Scripture is to implicitly trust the Church that gave it to you. But if that Church was fallible or "corrupted" by tradition, how can you trust the canon itself?
If the early Church was reliable enough to determine the boundaries of divine revelation, perhaps it is also worth considering their broader doctrinal framework.


Is it consistent to trust their table of contents, but not their theology?

The Church did not create the canon—it recognized it.
The early Christians did not “determine” which books were Scripture by some kind of institutional authority. They received these writings as authoritative because of their apostolic origin, widespread use among the churches, and internal consistency with the gospel already proclaimed. The canon was not imposed by the Church—it emerged within it. As F.F. Bruce rightly said:

“The Church did not create the canon; it did not confer authority upon the books that make up the New Testament. It recognized the authority that was already there.”
(The Canon of Scripture, F.F. Bruce, p. 27)

So, we are not trusting in the infallibility of later bishops or councils, but in the authenticity and preservation of apostolic teaching, which was evident long before official canon lists were drawn up.

2. The books of the New Testament were already functioning as Scripture well before any Church council.
Paul’s letters were being circulated and read publicly in churches as early as the first century (cf. Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27). Peter refers to Paul’s writings as “Scripture” (2 Peter 3:16), showing recognition even within the apostolic age. The four Gospels were already being quoted and used authoritatively in the second century by men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria—long before any official canon list.

So, the canon was discerned by usage, not dictated by hierarchical decree. The Holy Spirit preserved the Word among the body of believers, just as Jesus said:

“My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” (John 10:27)

3. The early Church’s discernment about the canon does not require us to accept all of their developing traditions.
There is a difference between the early Church’s recognition of inspired Scripture and the later development of doctrines like transubstantiation, purgatory, indulgences, or Marian mediation. These did not exist in the apostolic age and are not found in the inspired texts themselves. Trusting the early Church’s recognition of Scripture is not the same as endorsing every theological opinion that developed afterward.

→ To illustrate: A scientist might correctly recognize the laws of physics, but later draw wrong conclusions in their application. Likewise, the Church rightly recognized the Scriptures—but that does not grant infallibility to every subsequent theological development.

4. The Bereans are praised for testing even apostolic teaching against Scripture.
Acts 17:11 commends the Bereans for not taking Paul’s word at face value, but for examining the Scriptures daily to see if what he said was true. If even an apostle could be tested against Scripture, how much more should later Church leaders and councils be measured by the same standard?

→ Sola Scriptura is not individualism, but humility—submitting every teaching to the only infallible rule God has given.

5. Trust in God’s providence, not in Church infallibility.
The process of canon recognition was not perfect, but God’s providence is. Just as He used fallible men to write inspired Scripture (Moses, David, Paul), He also used fallible men to recognize and preserve it. The authority of Scripture does not rest on the Church’s perfection, but on God’s faithful work through history to guide His people into truth (cf. John 16:13).

6. The early Church was not doctrinally monolithic.
There was no single "unified Church" with universal doctrinal consensus in the early centuries. Even within the Church Fathers, you’ll find vigorous disagreement on the Eucharist, baptism, millennialism, Mary, and more. To claim we must accept all their theology if we accept the canon is historically inaccurate.

In summary:

The canon was recognized, not created, by the Church.

Its authority derives from God’s inspiration, not the Church’s sanction.

The Bereans are our model: test all things by the Scriptures (Acts 17:11).

Trusting the canon does not mean accepting later doctrinal developments.

God used imperfect people to preserve perfect truth.

The apostles gave us the faith “once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), and the Spirit bears witness to that Word in every generation—not by ecclesiastical decree, but by the power of God.

Grace and peace to you.

J.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

I appreciate the parallel you're drawing with the Jewish leadership. But I think it may unintentionally undercut your own position.

Actually, it establishes it perfectly.

The Christ rejecting Jews couldn't see their own Messiah in the scriptures they revered so much:

39You pore over the Scriptures because you presume that by them you possess eternal life. These are the very words that testify about Me, 40yet you refuse to come to Me to have life. John 5:39-40

No argument can be made that their judgment about the authenticity and inspiration of their scriptures was suspect because of their blindness to the message contained in those scriptures. He preserved those scriptures through history despite their failure to live according to those scriptures.

It's the same way today with Christian organizations who recognize the inspiration of the scriptures, but who live contrary to those scriptures.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

You're saying the early Church merely endorsed the New Testament writings...

Yes, because they didn't write them. The Apostles, and those close to the Apostles, did. The only thing the early church could do was approve them as authentic and inspired. Which they did. Even though, over time, they deviated from the message of those scriptures. Various Christian organizations do that to this very day.

...much like the Jewish leaders endorsed the Old Testament—even while being in error.

Yes. That's what the Pharisees did with the law and the Prophets. Jesus even telling the people of the day to do what they say (for they sit in the seat of Moses), just don't do what they do:

2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. Matthew 23:2-3

That in no way made the scriptures they abused somehow suspect.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

If the Church that canonized the New Testament was in serious doctrinal or moral error, then why trust their endorsement at all?

Because God uses even corrupt leaders to accomplish his goals. Here's another example from the Jews:

49But one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! 50You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”

51Caiaphas did not say this on his own. Instead, as high priest that year, he was prophesying that Jesus would die for the nation John 11:49-51

Caiaphas was completely oblivious to the meaning and ministry of Jesus' death, yet, as High Priest, he correctly prophesied the necessity of his death.

Why not assume, as you imply with Jewish leaders, that they may have gotten it wrong—either omitting books they didn’t like, or including ones that suited their theology?

I'm not implying at all that Jewish or Christian leaders got it wrong. Not perfect, perhaps (the Jews don't recognize Daniel as a prophet, as Jesus did), but there's no reason to wonder about the authenticity and inspiration of their scriptures. Jesus confirms so much of it. Honestly, it looks like the worst thing the Church did was include some unnecessary books, not leave out essential ones.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

So I’d gently ask again:
If you accept the Bible as inspired and reliable, do you not also accept the authority of the Church that gave it to you?

No. Because they are hypocrites who, like the Scribes and Pharisees before them, violate the very scriptures they endorse and approve. I need only follow their scriptures, not them.

And if not—on what grounds do you separate the fruit from the tree?

All real Christians with the Holy Spirit in them grow up to successfully navigate the waves and winds of doctrine that buffet humanity:

14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed about by the waves and carried around by every wind of teaching and by the clever cunning of men in their deceitful scheming. Ephesians 4:14

The scriptures themselves speak of the anointing that each true believer has to be able to discern whether what they hear is truth or not. Even though the Catholic church, who approved these scriptures, doesn't think we do!

20You, however, have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.c
26I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. 1 John 2:20,26-27

So don't worry. The authenticity and inspiration of the word of God is not in doubt because of the corruption of church leadership (post Apostles) through which it comes. Unbeknownst to them, the scriptures they approved attest to this.

 

[LanaPodesta]

The Apostles, and those close to the Apostles, did

The Apostles WERE the early Church. That is why the validity of the Church hinges on Apostolic succession.

 

[LanaPodesta]

violate the very scriptures they endorse and approve

Why would the Church give us scripture and 'violate' it themselves? How are they doing this?

I need only follow their scriptures, not them

Which denomination are you? How can you know your denomination's interpretation of scripture is the correct one?

 

[for_his_glory]

So who is right and who is wrong?

If what one is teaching you does not line up with scripture then know it probably is not a truth. We study to show ourselves approved unto God, not man. In my 70 years I have sat under so many different teachings until I got to the point of total confusion. It was then that I quit listening to others teach me and started digging deeper into the word of God for that which has already been written allowing the Holy Spirit teach me either directly or through those who have been anointed by the Holy Spirit. We have to learn to Spiritually discern that of what others are teaching us so we will know truth from error.

2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

John 14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

1John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.


1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
1John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
1John 4:4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
1John 4:5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.
1John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

The Apostles WERE the early Church. That is why the validity of the Church hinges on Apostolic succession.

For the purpose of this discussion, I was careful to distinguish the Apostles from the early church. Generally speaking, we understand the early church to mean the earliest of times after the Apostles.

There is no such thing as apostolic succession. If you look at the description of the church in Revelation 21:14 the Apostles, and the Apostles, alone, are the foundation of the church:

14The wall of the city had twelve foundations bearing the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

They laid the foundation of the church and it is that foundation, and that foundation, alone, that we recognize and honor. That doesn't mean there are not various offices of ministry that have passed down to later generations (Pastor, teacher, etc.). It means there are Twelve original Apostles composing the foundation of the church, and them alone. No Popes are in the Apostolic foundation of the church. They are not necessary. The ministry of the original Apostles continues through their own anointed and inspired writings, preserved for us by God, despite the failings of the church through which they have been preserved.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

Why would the Church give us scripture and 'violate' it themselves?

Because a lot of false teachers and prophets have come into the church. It started right after the Apostles:

28Keep watch over yourselves and the entire flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God,g which He purchased with His own blood.h 29I know that after my departure, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number, men will rise up and distort the truth to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:28-30

True to Paul's prophecy, it didn't take long for this happen. In my honest opinion, he's talking about the beginning of the Catholic church.

How are they doing this?

Oh, wow. Where do we start, lol?

Just as an example, why is it the early church didn't know from Revelation 21:14 that God is not passing down a succession of apostolic church foundations? Somehow, even though they approved the scripture that says there is only the foundation of the Twelve Apostles they can't see this truth in those scriptures.

 

[Jethro Bodine]

How can you know your denomination's interpretation of scripture is the correct one?

Ultimately, the true believer can know if anyone's interpretation of scripture is correct by the anointing that every believer has within himself to know that. That doesn't mean you're going to know it over-night. It means that, ultimately, at the end of the day, you don't need anyone to tell you if what you're hearing is really the truth or not. The Holy Spirit will do that. It may take time as you grow and develop in knowledge, but that is in fact what the scriptures say is the anointing that each of us believers has, even though the Catholic church says we don't have that capacity, and that only the Catholic leadership has it.

20You, however, have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.c
26I have written these things to you about those who are trying to deceive you.
27And as for you, the anointing you received from Him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. 1 John 2:20,26-27

13until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God, as we mature to the full measure of the stature of Christ.14Then we will no longer be infants, tossed about by the waves and carried around by every wind of teaching and by the clever cunning of men in their deceitful scheming. Ephesians 4:13-14