While the books of the New Testament were written in the first century, they were never collated into a single authoritative Book until the fourth century, during the Councils of Carthage. Before then, there were not only the books of the New Testament, but a combination of writings from many others, both of which are considered to be orthodox (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.), and faulty (Gospel according to Peter, Gospel according to Thomas). These were all being circulated around in the first few centuries of our faith.
And in the fourth century, it was the Catholic bishops, and the Catholic priests, who convened together into a number of councils where they debated, dialogued, and put their book choices up for a vote. Some books that had opposition, like James and Revelation, were voted in. Some books that were thought to be slam-dunk acceptances, like the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, were not.
Let’s state, for the sake of argument, that these people were very much in error when they adhered to Catholic doctrine.
That said, if these men were so wrong and corrupt in their doctrine as to what they believed about God, then why are we taking it on their authority as to what books constitute the New Testament? If they are wrong when it comes to church hierachy, belief about Mary, sacramental confession, and the Eucharist, then what makes their decisions as to what books make the New Testament authoritative?
