In another thread, Historical Number Cruncher wrote:
"In 397 AD, the Roman Cathoics and the Eastern Orthodox held the Council of Carthage to separate the Wheat from the Chaff: to select the Books of the Bible; to mark Commentaries, Histories, and Training Manuals as useful non-Biblical Books; and to discard the books being insinuated into the Scripture by the Gnostics. What have the Reformers done? John Calvin's Doctrine of Total Depravity implies that the Church Fathers of Carthage were not Competant because of their sin to do the work that they did. Chapter XXXI, Article iv of the Westminster Confession declares that their work is not binding....While I believe in Biblical Inerrancy, I listen more to those who actually did something about it rather than to see someone's MANMADE Doctrines bring it into Question....Chapter I of the Westminster Confession copies the Council of Carthage List, at least a Thousand years too late, and is hardly authoritative....If Chapter XXXI, article iv invalidates the Council of Carthage, it also invalidates the Westminster Confession....The Integrity of the Bible is an ALL-IMPORTANT issue for me, unlike you LIBERAL PROTESTANTS....What have you or your Church done to protect the Integrity of the Scripture besides teaching the Doctrines of Men, like Presedtination, Total Depravity, Monergism, or that legal Church Councils are invalid as the Westminster Confession teaches?...You forget that before 397 AD, there was no Scripture. It was nothing more that a scattered collection of scrolls, both fact and fiction."
Historical Number Cruncher is a poor communicator. It's often difficult to determine what he's trying to say. I suspect that he hasn't done much research and hasn't given these issues much thought.
There are a lot of problems with what he seems to be saying. Many of those problems have been addressed by other posters. I want to address one of the problems in particular.
He suggests that the council of Carthage gave us the Bible, that its work is "competent", "valid", "binding", "authoritative", "legal", etc. He thinks that this issue is "ALL-IMPORTANT", unlike us "LIBERAL PROTESTANTS".
A lot of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox cite the council of Carthage (or the earlier councils of Rome and Hippo) in a similar way, though often in a more informed and nuanced manner than Historical Number Cruncher does. One of the problems with citing any of these councils in such a manner is that many patristic, Roman Catholic, and Eastern Orthodox sources disagreed with the canons advocated by those councils after the councils were held. Gregory the Great believed in a different Old Testament canon. John of Damascus held a different New Testament canon. Etc. To this day, Eastern Orthodox disagree among themselves about which books to include in the Old Testament canon (see, for example, here and here). Why would these people be ignorant of the "binding" and "ALL-IMPORTANT" authority of the council of Carthage (or Rome or Hippo)? Did men like Gregory the Great and John of Damascus have the spirit of a "LIBERAL PROTESTANT" on such issues? In addition to disagreeing with the canon(s) of many modern Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox apologists, did these men also disagree with their view of church authority?