Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 6
David points out that Protestants often appeal to the Council of Carthage (397) to support the 27-book New Testament, while “very honestly” not mentioning that it also affirmed the Old Testament list including these books; what does this selective use of history expose about our modern apologetic habits, and where might we be doing something similar in other doctrines?
Another way to ask: What does it say about us if we cite the Council of Carthage to defend the New Testament but ignore that it also supported these Old Testament books? Where else might we use history this selectively in defending our beliefs?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
The transcript suggests selective history is used to win arguments: we quote a council when it supports our position and ignore what it affirmed that challenges us. This exposes an apologetic habit of using sources as “proof-texts” rather than receiving the full historical witness.
- He says “almost all Protestant reference works… point to… the Council of Carthage in AD 397” as definitive for the 27-book NT canon.
- He notes they present it as settling the issue: “a definite, clear canon… that forever settles the issue.”
- Then his charge: “What our Protestant reference works very honestly do not tell us is that the Council of Carthage also officially pronounced the Old Testament canon… [and] included these books.”
- He argues it was “simply affirming what Christians had embraced… from the very beginning.”
- In Q&A, another participant highlights the same point: the council deciding the NT canon “also included the Apocrypha,” and David says people “never knew it. It’s hidden from us.”