Discussion Jumpstarter

Study leader reference - not a definitive answer

Question 8

David calls the objection “they’re never quoted in the New Testament” a “fake objection” and lists many Protestant OT books never quoted either; what standard are you actually using—consciously or unconsciously—when you decide what counts as authoritative, and how consistent is it with the standard you demand for other believers?

Another way to ask: If “not quoted in the New Testament” would also remove some Protestant Old Testament books, what rule are you really using to decide what is authoritative? How consistent are you with that rule when judging other believers?

Discussion Jumpstarter

Direct Answer
The transcript challenges the listener to admit that “quoted in the NT” is not the real standard, since many accepted OT books aren’t quoted either. A more consistent standard in his presentation is what the apostolic and early church actually used and recognized as Scripture (especially the Septuagint tradition).

Support from Transcript:

He quotes the objection: “these books are never quoted by Jesus and the New Testament writers. Therefore, they’re not Scripture.”
He labels it directly: “That’s a fake objection,” because “over a fourth” of Protestant OT books “are never quoted in the New Testament either.”
He lists examples: “Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes… Nahum, Zephaniah, and Obadiah.”
He adds that none of the “historical books… during the exile or after the exile are ever quoted,” and five Deuterocanonical books are historical from that period.
He proposes a fairness test: if an objection “fits only” the Apocrypha it may have weight, but if it also knocks out Protestant books, it’s not a real litmus test.

Discussion Follow-ups If your functional standard is “what my community received,” how do you evaluate communities (early church, Anabaptists, Reformers) that received differently than you?

Jumpstarter 8 of 10