Monday, October 21, 2019

Christina Darlington Shoots Herself in the Foot on the Canon and the Council of Carthage


In her book, Misguided by Mormonism, Protestant Christina Darlington shoots herself in the foot with the following comment:

Most of the New Testament books were accepted by 100 A.D. with the exception of six debateable books that were officially recognized into the Christian canon at the Third Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. (these books are Hebrews, 2 Peter, James, 2 John, 3 John, and Revelation). (Christina R. Darlington, Misguided by Mormonism But Redeemed by God’s Grace: Leaving the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for Biblical Christianity [2d ed.; 2019], 199)

Why is this so? Consider the following:

Firstly, consider what she previously said about the illumination of the individual believer:

In John 14:26: Jesus promised, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”(Ibid., 110, emphasis in original)



If her previous comments about John 14:26 and the personal inspiration of the individual believer is true (for a fuller discussion, see Refuting Christina Darlington on Sola Scriptura, John 14:26, 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, and the Priesthood), there would never have been such debates about something as important and central as the “tota” of scripture (for Sola Scriptura to be operative, according to Protestant apologists and theologians, one must first have the “totality” [the tota] of scriptura). For a fuller discussion of this, and how this alone proves Sola Scriptura is an exegetical impossibility, see:


Secondly, the fact that, for Darlington, a local council “officially” settled any doctrinal issue, let alone the central issue of the New Testament canon, is problematic for her Protestant ecclesiology.

Thirdly, imputing to Carthage the privileged position she has given it results in her being, well, very Catholic in her understanding of the entire biblical canon. How so? If she will accept Carthage’s declaration about the 27-book New Testament as being “official,” one must ask: on what consistent basis will she accept the New Testament canon list of Carthage as being “official” while simultaneously rejecting its Old Testament canon? The canon of the Old Testament of Carthage, while differing a bit with that of the dogmatic decree of Trent (session 4; April 1546 [see 1 Esdras and the Canon of the Council of Trent; cf. Gary Michuta on Trent and the Book of Esdras) included the Apocryphal/Deutero-canonical books that Darlington rejects. Here is the listing of the canon lists as provided by Denzinger:


The Canon of the Sacred Scripture
92 [DS 186] Can. 36 (or otherwise 47). [It has been decided] that nothing except the Canonical Scriptures should be read in the church under the name of the Divine Scriptures. But the Canonical Scriptures are: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Josue, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Paralipomenon two books, Job, the Psalter of David, five books of Solomon, twelve books of the Prophets, Isaias, Jeremias, Daniel, Ezechiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Esdras, two books of the Machabees. Moreover, of the New Testament: Four books of the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles one book, thirteen epistles of Paul the Apostle, one of the same to the Hebrews, two of Peter, three of John, one of James, one of Jude, the Apocalypse of John. Thus [it has been decided] that the Church beyond the sea may be consulted regarding the confirmation of that canon; also that it be permitted to read the sufferings of the martyrs, when their anniversary days are celebrated. (The Sources of Catholic Dogma, eds. Henry Denzinger and Karl Rahner [trans. Roy J. Deferrari; St. Louis, Miss.: B. Herder Book Company, 1954], 39-40)

Darlington seems to impute inspiration of some sorts (to Carthage, protection from error and the ability to proclaim the New Testament canon "officially" [in other words, with some type of authority]). Darlington's comments, already problematic in light of her Protestant epistemology, reminded me of something Reformed Protestant Eric Svendsen wrote:

We can accept the general reliability of those who collected the Canon--and thank them for their contribution, acknowledging that the Holy Spirit gave infallible guidance to them! (This is far different from ascribing infallibility to the ecclesial body itself! (Svendsen, Protestant Answers [1995], 59).

Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis responded thusly:

Here is another case of “wanting your cake and eat it too.” This apologist wants infallibility for what is dear to him (the canon of Scripture) but he reserves himself the right to deny it for anything else that “those who collected the Canon” deemed infallible truth. First, we must ask who he thinks “those who collected the Canon” were if he does not believe they were the very “ecclesial body” which he questions. The Fathers of the Church did not consider themselves outside the “ecclesial body,” nor did the Councils that collected and the defined canon. The apologist is simply reading back into early Church history his own Protestant mindset – a mindset that believes there can be a legitimate separation between the Church at large and individual Christians. None of the Fathers ever entertained such a notion. Second, we can surmise that he does not want to say that the “ecclesial body” (i.e., the Church) has infallibility, probably because he does not want to accept many of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church. If they were infallible, but he denied them, he would be signing his own death warrant. But how can he claim that “those who collected the Canon” had “infallible guidance” in only one area of the faith but not in other areas? Where does Scripture, the Church, Tradition, or any other source, ever even hint of such a single deposit of infallibility? It is only the musing of one who knows he cannot dogmatically claim that Scripture is Scripture without infallibility, yet one who does not want to accept the logical conclusion that if “those who collected the Canon” were granted infallibility in one important area they would also be granted infallibility in other important areas. Third, the apologist has not explained how such an extraordinary event as the intrusion of the Holy Spirit to provide infallibility took place, and what vehicle He used to accomplish this. Did the Holy Spirit implant this infallible certitude directly into the minds of “those” men? Unless he defines the nature of this divine intrusion he simply has no precedent or right to define its limitations and its recipients. It is similar to the undefined and ambiguous claim presented by the previous apologist that we can know the canon because “the sheep hear the voice of the shepherd.” Fourth, many of “those who collected the Canon” in the first four centuries of the Church included the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, and it was some of these very fathers who were presiding at the early Councils who decided that these books were indeed canonical. What the apologist having to say is that of “those who collected the Canon” the Holy Spirit infallibly guided only the ones who agreed with the Protestant version of the canon. One can readily see that this kind of “cut and paste” recounting of ecclesiastical history is a total distortion of truth, not to mention being illogical. (Robert A. Sungenis, "Protestant Objections and Catholic Answers" in Sungenis, ed. Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013], 193-294, here, pp. 257-58)

Darlington’s comments, apart from showing how she is inconsistent with Protestant epistemology and ecclesiology, shows the utter failure and inconsistency Protestant apologists engage in as a result of holding to, among other things, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

For a listing of previous responses to Darlington’s book, see: