I agree completely. However, it was several centuries later before Christians divided out the God-breathed writings from the many other writings of the time. It appears that this was done through consensus rather than thru some "Choose A, B or C" type of test. Quoting from the book "From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man" (1999), the chapter on Canonization and Apocrypha:
From ppg 31-32,
In general, the process of collecting the books of the Old Testament involved four steps over a period of about twelve hundred years.
1. God directed men to write, spanning about a millennium.
2. Throughout that time, Israel recognized the divine origin of writings inspired by God.
3. Those scrolls so recognized were left with the priests for safekeeping.
4. Ultimately, the present thirty-nine books of the Old Testament were accepted as Scripture. (Jewish Bibles number differently. For example, the twelve minor prophets are collected as one book.)
The collection of the books of the New Testament involved three basic steps over a period of about three centuries.
1. The books of the New Testament were all written by God's direction during a period lasting thirty to fifty years.
2. The early churches circulated, copied, translated, and taught those books they recognized as divinely inspired and, therefore, authoritative.
3. Eventually, church councils officially recognized the list of the present twenty-seven books that had long been regarded as Scripture.
From page 59,
The benchmark for canonicity was the book's content. Does it teach that which is consistent with the rest of Scripture without contradiction? Is it appropriate and helpful for public reading and instruction? Does it speak with the dynamic power of the Word of God?
