Can the Bible be inspired if people decided which books belong in it?
By Will Bourne · Question 93
The direct answer
The biblical canon was recognized through a historical process involving communities, leaders, use in worship, and disputes. That human process does not prove inspiration is invented, and a council did not simply create Scripture by vote. My primary authority is Scripture, while the church's historical witness helps us understand how the collection was received and where traditions differ.
Fuller explanation
The canon is the collection a community receives as Scripture. To evaluate its formation, ask which writings were used, which lists and decisions survive, where agreement or disagreement appears, and what authority the community believed it had. A single slogan about a council does not supply that history.
One surviving example is Athanasius’s festal letter for 367. It lists the 27 books now familiar as the New Testament and distinguishes canonical writings from other books recommended for reading. That is evidence of a particular list and judgment in that setting. It does not show that the entire process began or ended with that letter.
Christians differ over how church tradition and authority identify Scripture. A Catholic account in Dei Verbum, section 8, places knowledge of the full canon within the church's living tradition. Other Christian accounts give different explanations. I treat Scripture as the primary authority and the church's historical reception as important evidence, not as a shortcut that makes the human process disappear.
A skeptic may ask how a fallible community could reliably identify inspired writings. A Christian may answer that God works through human processes. That is possible within the belief, but possibility alone is not evidence that this particular process was guided without the relevant error.
Historical investigation can clarify what communities did and why. It cannot simply label a list inspired by repeating the list’s authority. The public answer needs both a historically grounded account and a clear theological argument, with their different limits kept visible.
The objection we still need to face
Are you using the church to validate the Bible and the Bible to validate the church?
That can become circular if each is treated as established solely by the other. I receive Scripture as the primary authority and treat the church's historical witness as important evidence about how the writings were preserved, recognized, and interpreted—not as an institution that can make any claim true by declaring it. The historical, textual, theological, and experiential reasons offered should remain open to examination rather than being trapped in a closed loop.
Scripture and its use
Luke 1:1–4; 2 Timothy 3:14–17. Historical primary source: Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, sections 4–7, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2806039.htm . Catholic doctrinal source: Dei Verbum, section 8, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html .
Read these passages in their surrounding chapters alongside the explanation.