As I have walked through this life of mine, people - upon hearing of canonization - have asked, "How, then, can we say that the Bible is legitimate?" At times I myself have asked the question as well, but a nice apologetics book which I received not too long ago cleared everything up for me. The church fathers were not in error when they recognized -- not "selected" -- the Books that would enter the Bible as God's authentic, infallible Word. They asked the questions:
"1) Was the Book written by a prophet/spokesman of God?
2) Was the writer confirmed by acts of God?
3) Did the message tell the truth about God?
4) Does it come with the power of God?
5) Was it accepted by the people of God?"*

Utilizing these questions, the church fathers were able to ascertain what was actually Scripture and what was not. Generally, a skeptic would jump up and say, "HAH! SEE? HUMANS WERE INVOLVED! IT'S FLAWED!" This mindset is inaccurate, however. The church fathers did not decide for themselves what Scripture was; they merely saw what fit the criteria. "The Church is not the Determiner of Canon; it is the Discoverer of Canon. The Church is not the Mother of Canon; it is the Child of Canon. The Church is not the Magistrate of Canon; it is the Minister of Canon. The Church is not the Regulator of Canon; it is the Recognizer of Canon. The Church is not the Judge of Canon; it is the Witness of Canon. The Church is not the Master of Canon; it is the Servant of Canon."*

In the past, moneychangers existed. Of course, they were there for exchanging money for payments and such. However, they were also there to distinguish the fraud coins from the real ones. Gold and silver were obviously big back then. However, some people would take a coin that was not gold and paint it. That way, they could outsmart the person from whom they were purchasing an object. Thankfully, the moneychangers stopped them in their tracks. They could use scales to contrast valuable metals with the less valuable ones. If someone painted a coin gold, they could use a magnet; and if the coin attached itself to the magnet, then it was clearly not gold. Thus, the moneychangers would discover that the "golden coin" was not actually gold. Does that mean their verdicts were faulty because they were humans? No. They took the facts and used them to ascertain the truth.
Again, if an unlearned person saw two identical pearl necklaces -- one genuine, one not -- he or she would not be able to tell the difference. An appraiser would be needed to scrutinize both necklaces; and after doing so, he or she could say, "This one is faux, but that one is by no means counterfeit!"
Likewise, those who declared, "These make up the infallible, God-breathed Scriptures," were not horrible dictators seeking to tell man what they wanted to believe to be God's Word. Rather, these God-loving people, through legitimate observation and study, allowed other believers to see what was of God and what was not.



Just something that came to my mind recently. smile



* -- McDowell, Josh. The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict. Nashville, TN: T. Nelson, 1999. Print.