The rather general consensus of the Christian Church is that the Canon is closed and a settled matter. Of course what makes this more complicated is that exactly what constitutes that Canon remains a matter of debate and disagreement; specifically in regard to the Deuterocanon.
The Roman Catholic Church has the Council of Trent which officially defined the Canon as far as Rome is concerned. However, since Trent is only meaningful to Catholicism, that doesn't really address Protestants, Orthodox, and other non-Catholics.
Most Protestant confessions speak of the Canon consisting of the standard sixty-six books as found in the Protestant Canon, based on the Masoretic tradition (rather than the Septuagint and Vulgate traditions), thus Esther and Daniel are both slimmer in the Protestant Canon than in the Orthodox and Catholic Canons.
Eastern Orthodoxy, as far as I know, has never *officially* spoken of the exact boundaries of the biblical Canon, such as that 4 Maccabees is generally regarded as apocryphal/deuterocanonical, but has in the past been found in some Orthodox Bibles, and according to
Wikipedia is still in the Georgian Bible.
Then most strangely is the Ethiopian Canon, which exists in two forms, a broader and narrower form, with even the narrower Canon containing more books than any other historic Christian body (for example, the inclusion of Jubilees and Enoch as Old Testament Scripture). However the Ethiopian Church is also the oddity among the Oriental Orthodox Churches, let alone historic Churches in general. I've also read that the Coptic Canon sometimes includes both the authentic epistle of Clement (1 Clement) as well as the spurious epistle (2 Clement).
What
is consistent across the board is that the Canon is not an "open document" in the same way that Mormonism treats its scriptures. Nobody is going to be adding C.S. Lewis'
Mere Christianity, Martin Luther's
Small Catechism, John Bunyan's
Pilgrim's Progress, or Pope Paul VI's
Humanae Vitae to the Canon of Holy Scripture.
-CryptoLutheran