Justin Martyr & Sola Scriptura (vs. Lucas Banzoli)

Justin Martyr & Sola Scriptura (vs. Lucas Banzoli) June 1, 2022

Lucas Banzoli is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ’s human nature after His death. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He’s active on YouTube.

***

The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in blue. I used Google Translate to transfer his Portugese text into English.

*****

This is a reply to Lucas’ article, “Justino pregava a Sola Scriptura?” [Did Justin preach Sola Scriptura?] (6-5-13).

People who like to stir up controversy

I like to stir up biblical, theological, and historical truth.

have claimed that Justin of Rome (AD 100-165) never taught Sola Scriptura . . . 

True.

Before showing whether or not Justin believed in Sola Scriptura, it is necessary for us to explain to Catholics what Sola Scriptura is, since I tirelessly see misrepresentations of the meaning of the term being put in their mouths.

That is too often true. But of course it’s also true that many Protestants don’t understand the proper definition of it, either. We’ll see if Lucas does. I’m glad that he is taking the time to define the term, since he didn’t in his article about Origen and Tertullian, that I replied to yesterday.

First, let’s get to what Sola Scriptura does not mean: 1st Sola Scriptura does not mean that everything has to be in the Bible.

• It is not in the Bible that Barack Obama would be president of the USA or that São Paulo would be three-time world champion in 2005, and yet I believe that. What has to be in the Bible is not “everything”, as some Catholics erroneously claim, but the doctrines that were taught by the apostles and Jesus Christ. We do not believe that “everything is in the Bible”, but we believe that no biblical writer has “hidden” any important doctrinal truth that was not written by any of them in the 66 books of Holy Scripture.

Good and correct, so far. Catholics agree.

2nd Sola Scriptura does not mean that we should reject all traditions.

• Even Protestant churches have their traditions, with their dress, their hymnals, their liturgies, their customs. Traditions that are rejected by evangelicals are those traditions that invent doctrines that are not found in the Scriptures and cannot be demonstrated from them, as is the case with many Catholic dogmas, which are sustained purely by what is not written.

So he claims. I have shown again and again that sola Scriptura itself is not taught in the Bible. It’s a self-defeating, late-arriving extrabiblical tradition of men. Every Catholic doctrine can be shown to be supported by the Bible in some fashion, and to be in harmony with the Bible. I’ve done this myself in my own work.

Now, let’s show Catholics what Sola Scriptura means:

1st Sola Scriptura means that we have in the Bible everything that is necessary for our salvation.

That’s material sufficiency, and we agree with it.

2nd Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is totally sufficient in matters of faith and practice.

3rd Sola Scriptura means that any doctrinal tradition that has no biblical basis must be rejected.

4th Sola Scriptura means that all moral or doctrinal teaching of the Christian faith must be based on Scripture. Now that we know what Sola Scriptura means and what it doesn’t mean, Catholics can stop arguing in a vacuum, refuting a scarecrow.

The standard definition of sola Scriptura in use among Protestants is that the Bible is the only infallible standard and norm for Christian theology, faith, and practice. Lucas fails to note this, so his definition (while a “fair” one) is inadequate. I went through the definition at length in my paper, Reply to Lucas Banzoli: 2 Tim 3:16 & Sola Scriptura (5-31-22).

It follows that the Church and tradition can never be infallible. Therefore, if  Church father asserts one of the latter two scenarios, he does not believe in sola Scriptura. I will demonstrate  that this is the case for Justin Martyr.

And if you pay a little more attention to Justin’s own works, you will see that he had exactly the same conception as evangelicals of what we really mean by Sola Scriptura:

Not at all, as I will prove. He asserts material sufficiency of Scripture, which is not the same as sola Scriptura, and he also asserts the infallibility of Church and tradition, which expressly contradicts sola Scriptura and proves that he didn’t believe in it.

1st Justin believed that what was not said by the Scriptures was doubtful and suspect.

That is untrue, as I will document, as we proceed.

2nd Justin tried to prove by the Scriptures everything he presented.

That’s great and true, but is not sola Scriptura. Simply arguing from the Bible doesn’t prove what one’s rule of faith is. And for this proposition about Justin to be true, it would have to be shown that he never appealed to anything but Scripture.

-Text: “If, sirs, it were not said by the Scriptures which I have already quoted, that His form was without glory, that through His death the rich would suffer death, that by His stripes we must be healed, and that He was led like a sheep to the slaughter, and if I had not explained that there would be two advents of him who was smitten for you, when you will know him whom you have pierced and your tribes will mourn, then consider what I have said to be doubtful and suspect. But it was through the contents of the Scriptures, dear holy and prophetic among you, that I try to prove all that I have presented, in the hope that one of you may be found to be a part of the remnant, which has been left by the grace of the Lord of hosts, unto eternal salvation” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.32)

As we see in the quote above, Justin used to say that if what he said has no Scriptural basis, let it be considered suspect, obscure, doubtful.

That’s not what he was arguing. The point isn’t that everything not in Scripture is “doubtful and suspect” (“dubious and obscure in the English translation from the Schaff set). His point, rather, was that, since Trypho was a Jew, he fully accepted Old Testament revelation as “holy and prophetic”). So Justin is saying, “I’m using your own Scriptures to prove my point. If I didn’t, you wouldn’t believe me.” He’s engaging in good evangelistic method and strategy (utilize what the opponent respects).

Once correctly understood in this way, it’s evident that it has nothing to do with the dispute about sola Scriptura.

But that, on the contrary, it was by the content of the Scriptures that he tried to prove all (and not some part) of what he presented!

Yeah, because the Old Testament was what Jews and Christians heled in common. He’s not even including the New Testament in this particular portion of his argument.

Catholics unfortunately cannot subscribe to Justin’s words, for:

• They believe in doctrines outside the Bible as dogmas of faith, not as “doubtful and suspect.”

• They do not try to prove everything they believe from the Scriptures, as they admit that much of what they believe is not found in the Bible, but in the so-called “oral tradition”.

All Catholic doctrines must be in harmony with the Bible, and that’s what we try to prove: almost always with massive use of Scripture.

So we see Justin contradicting the Catholic pillars of non-biblical oral tradition and reiterating the Christian principles of Sola Scriptura.

Nonsense. This was taken out of context, as shown. Later, I will prove that Justin doesn’t stick to the Bible Alone; hence, he held to a Catholic rule of faith, not a proto-Protestant one.

3rd Justin believed that we cannot fail to constantly refer to the Scriptures.

-Text: “It is a ridiculous thing… that whoever bases his discourse on the prophetic Scriptures should abandon them and refrain from constantly referring to the same Scriptures, thinking that he himself can provide something better than Scripture” (Dialogue with Trypho) , Chapter 85)

Failure to constantly refer to the Scriptures is the most usual thing for a Catholic who is used to basing his doctrines on tradition, for thinking that “it can provide something better than Scripture”.

Justin was saying that if one claims to be making an argument from the Bible, they can’t forget about the Bible and start arguing in another way (which is self-evidently true). Catholics do not say that tradition or Church doctrines are “better than Scripture.” They say that both can be authoritative and also infallible, under the right conditions. That’s not “better, period”; rather, it is “equally authoritative and sometimes even infallible.”

It’s Lucas who is warring against straw men so far. He first presented one of Justin’s citations out of context, and now he doesn’t correctly understand his meaning and misrepresents the Catholic rule of faith. I assume in charity that he is doing so out of ignorance, not deliberate intent to be inaccurate.

4th Justin demonstrated what he said in the Scriptures.

-Texts: “He said he saw a ladder, and the Scripture declares that God was lifted up on it. But that this was not the Father, we demonstrate by the Scriptures… And that the rock symbolically proclaimed Christ, we also demonstrate by many Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

“Are you familiar with them, Trypho? They are contained in your Scriptures, nay, not yours, but ours. For us we believe in them, but although you read them, you do not capture the spirit that is in them” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.29)

“For Christ is King and Priest, he is God and Lord, both of angels and of men, he is captain, he is the stone, and was born a son, and for the first time he was subjected to suffering, and then he returned to heaven, and, again, coming with glory, He is announced as having the everlasting kingdom: so I taste of all the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.34)

“Reversing the Scriptures, I must endeavor to convince you that he who is said to have appeared to Abraham and Jacob and Moses, and who is called God, is different from him who made all things numerically” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 56)

“I could have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of these three is God, and is called an Angel” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.56)

“Be assured, then, Trypho, who are established in the knowledge and faith of the Scriptures, of the counterfeits which he who is called the devil wrought among the Greeks” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.69)

“It is for this reason that I am, through fear, very sincere in my desire to converse with men according to the Scriptures, but not with those who have a love of money, or of glory, or of pleasure” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 82)

Of course he did (but not exclusively so). So do we. It’s the hallmark of my entire ministry: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (my blog); A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (my first book). But this is neither here nor there, with regard to proving that he supposedly believed in sola Scriptura. It proves nothing whatsoever about that. What’s interesting, then, is why Lucas and so many Protestants equate citing a lot of Bible in making theological arguments with sola Scriptura. That would make me one of the biggest supporters of sola Scriptura on the planet earth, if so. But in fact, I have written three books expressly against it.

It is noteworthy that Justin always insisted that in all doctrinal terms it was necessary to prove from the Scriptures what he was saying. Note that he never adds to “search in tradition”, but only in the Scriptures (=Sola Scriptura), . . .

“Never say never”! Keep reading . . .

which have always been the pillar and foundation of our faith. If there were hidden doctrines in Holy Scripture, then Justin would not be so insistent that what he himself said must be proved by Scripture. After all, why such a need and obligation to “prove something from the Scriptures” if, as Catholics insist on saying, there are a lot of doctrines that are simply not found in the Bible? In this case, such a need to have to prove all doctrines by “many Scriptures” would be useless, for Catholics themselves do not do that!

All Lucas’ citations from Justin so far are from the Dialogue with Trypho. Of course he cites the Old Testament Scripture because Trypho was Jewish, and this is what he accepts (as Justin said, above). It’s a basic misunderstanding to act as if this use of OT Scripture proves that he believed in sola Scriptura. Why would he cite any Christian tradition to a Jewish person, who couldn’t care less about that? He has to use a source that they both revere, which is the Old Testament.

5th Justin believed that it was necessary to prove doctrines by the Scriptures.

Repeating a falsehood over and over does not make it any less false.

-Texts: “But that this was not the Father, we must prove from the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

“And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we must also prove by many Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.86)

Note the term: “we have to prove it”, which refers to a necessity. Why such a need, if Catholics are more than convinced that there is no such need, in view of the supposed “insufficiency” of the Scriptures and that many doctrines are not there? If Catholic thought is right, what is the real purpose in being absolutely necessary to prove from many Scriptures about the doctrinal subject being treated? Why didn’t Justin just do like the Catholics, saying that nothing has to be in the Bible and that there’s no such need for any specific doctrine to be in the Bible? Note that what is being discussed here is not whether or not the matter in question is in the Bible, but why it is necessary to “have to prove” by the Scriptures, if not all doctrines need to be in them. In this case, even if there was a biblical passage about it, Justin could do like the Catholics and simply say that: “And that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we will show in the Scriptures, although there would be no need for this, for we also have the oral tradition…” But, on the contrary, he says that he had to prove it by many Scriptures! That is, proving a doctrine by Scripture was absolutely necessary!

Already dealt with. Lucas seems completely oblivious as to the background context of the Dialogue with Trypho. And of course he continues to caricature the Catholic rule of faith.

6th Justin believed in the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

-Texts: “Now then, make us the proof that this man whom you say was crucified and ascended into heaven is the Christ of God. For you have sufficiently proved by the Scriptures already quoted by you, that it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ should suffer and enter again into glory, and receive the everlasting kingdom of all nations, and that every kingdom be subordinate to Him: now show us that this man is he” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.39)

“But you seem to me not to have heard the Scriptures what I said I had blotted out. For such as have been cited, they are more than sufficient to prove the points in dispute, besides those that are maintained by us, and yet to be presented” (Dialogue with Trypho, Cap.73)

The Scriptures are more than enough to prove the points in dispute! If that’s not proof of the sufficiency of Scripture—which is a principle of Sola Scriptura—then I don’t know what is!

So do we; so this accomplishes nothing in this debate. Lucas correctly notes that [material] sufficiency is a principle of Sola Scriptura”: but it is a principle or premise that is held in common with Catholics. So it doesn’t disprove our view to trot it out, when we already agree with that aspect. I wish I had a dollar for every time I have seen Protestant apologists foolishly repeat this basic category error, times without number. I’d be rich.

7th Justin believed in the inerrancy of Scripture.

-Text: “I am fully convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, and you should endeavor to convince those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, instead of being of the same opinion as I am” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.65)

Interestingly, I’ve seen many Catholics claiming that the Bible is not infallible or inerrant, some even say it’s not the Word of God! Justin, however, was incisive in saying that in the Bible there are no contradictions, just as evangelicals do.

There are many individuals who call themselves Catholics but who do not fully accept the Catholic Church’s teachings (theological liberals or nominal Catholics). That has no bearing on what the Church actually teaches.

8th Justin believed in the free examination of the Bible.

-Text:

“I purpose to quote to you the Scriptures, not because I am anxious to make only an artistic exposition of words, for I have no such faculty, but because I have grace from God bestowed upon me for the understanding of his Scriptures.” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.58)

Note that Justin tells Trypho that he quotes the Scriptures to him because he had the grace of God to understand the Scriptures, even though he was neither the pope nor a Roman bishop. In fact, nothing in Justin’s biography, which can be read here or here, indicates that he ever held any position of ecclesiastical leadership in the Church. He was not pope, he was not a bishop, he was not a cardinal, he was not a presbyter, he was not born in Rome. It was not part of the “Magistery” [magisterium], according to the Catholic conception. And yet he said that God had given him the grace not only to search and quote the Scriptures, but to understand them!

Catholics don’t deny this possibility at all. We simply say that many others interpret the Bible wrongly (note all the heresies in the early centuries, that Lucas is well aware of), and so an authoritative Church is necessary in order to “check” those errors. Once again, this proves nothing as to whether Justin held to the falsehood of sola Scriptura. Lucas is fighting against air, or windmills, like Don Quixote.

9th Justin believed that doctrinal security comes from attachment to the Scriptures.

-Text: “I have commented to the lord, who is very anxious to be secure in all respects once you hold fast to the Scriptures” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.80)

We are not insecure if we have only Scripture to guide us, because holding on to Scripture means being secure in every way. If it is in all respects, then evidently the doctrinal aspect is not excluded from this picture. As we read Justin, we are well aware of the notion that we can be secure in all respects by holding to the Scriptures, and not just in “some” respects, as if the doctrinal aspect were left out and lacked the support of a tradition: extra-biblical oral.

Scripture is great and fantastic. That’s why the Catholic Church authoritatively pronounced its canon and preserved it through all those fifteen centuries before Protestantism existed. Next question?

10th Justin rejects human doctrines and asks to believe only if the Scriptures are frequently quoted.

-Text: “If I undertake to prove this by human doctrines or arguments, you must not agree with me, but if I frequently quote the Scriptures and ask you to understand them” (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.68)

It is clear that the acceptance of the doctrine, in Justin’s view, was conditional on its substantiation in the light of Scripture, and not on any other human argument that might be offered.

Yes, because Trypho was a Jew.

In view of all this, we can only conclude that Justin believed as strongly or more strongly in Sola Scriptura as any Reformer of the 16th century.

This hasn’t been proven to the slightest degree. Not one whit of proof . . .

FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

In view of all this, it is indisputable that Justin believed in Sola Scriptura in the same way that it was proposed by the Reformers and believed by the early Christians. If such statements were in the mouth of a Luther or Calvin, they would be immediately rebuked by a Roman Catholic, but as it came from a second century man, venerated by the Catholic Church itself, the conversation changes, and they try in every way to omit and distort information, resorting to personal attacks, accusations and real mental juggling to deny everything Justino said so clearly and explicitly.

We don’t have to deny anything that Lucas has presented from Justin, because we agree with all of it. All this shows is that Lucas lacks an accurate understanding of 1) precisely what sola Scriptura means, and 2) the Catholic rule of faith.

• But what about the pagan authors that Justin quoted? Does that mean he doesn’t believe in Sola Scriptura?

Of course not. In the Bible itself there are many quotes from authors outside the Bible, such as the apocrypha of Enoch which is quoted in Jude 14, the book of the Assumption of Moses which is quoted in Jude 9, the Greek comedy Thais (written by the Greek poet Meander ) which is quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:33, from the work Cretica, by Epimenides (600 B.C.), which is quoted by Paul in Acts 17:28, from the work Phenomena, written by the Greek poet Aratus (315 – 240 B.C.) , or from Cleantus (331 – 233 B.C.) in his Hymn to Zeus, which has quotations from his works mentioned by the same apostle in Acts 17:28.

Very good. It’s correctly noted that it proves nothing as to the present debate.

This obviously does not mean that Paul, Jude or the other biblical writers believed in the inspiration or doctrinal source of such writings, it just means that the specific quote from which it was taken constitutes truth. I myself, who believe in Sola Scriptura, often cite other authors outside the Bible in support of a particular point of view or interpretation of a biblical text, and this in no way means that I stopped believing in Sola Scriptura because of this. The Reformers themselves, such as Luther and Calvin, quoted other authors, and that did not stop them from believing in Sola Scriptura. Why only with Justin would it have to be different?

It proves nothing: just as Lucas’ entire presentation above proves nothing (except that Justin loved the Bible; so do I and so does the Catholic Church) and is one massive non sequitur. Now I’ll give my complete argument, which is completely relevant to the topic:

The algebraic “x” factor here is how Justin Martyr views Church and Tradition in relationship to Holy Scripture. It doesn’t logically follow that he has no opinion on those things. We can’t know one way or the other what Justin believes about the rule of faith, based on only the above information. If it could be shown that he did not grant the Church and Tradition binding authority, and didn’t include them in the rule of faith, the anti-Catholics might have a valid point.

The data in this instance is fairly scarce, since Justin’s three surviving works are primarily philosophical and apologetic in nature, rather than theological, and the theology that Justin does discuss is only rarely related to ecclesiology or the rule of faith as here discussed. It’s highly unlikely, prima facie, that Justin would differ radically from the other pre-Nicene Church fathers. Justin was a major source for Irenaeus, who speaks of apostolic succession and tradition and Church authority all over the place. Yet despite these difficulties, I believe there is enough information to be had, to reject a sola Scriptura interpretation.

Justin doesn’t always mention only Scripture (as if he thinks it is the only source for truth):

. . . the Scriptures and the facts themselves . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 23)

I bring from the Scriptures and the facts themselves both the proofs and the inculcation of them, . . . But you hesitate to confess that He is Christ, as the Scriptures and the events witnessed and done in His name prove, . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 39)

In Chapter 76 of the Dialogue with Trypho, entitled “From Other Passages the Same Majesty and Government of Christ are Proved,” Justin referred to “an obscure prediction,” and of prophecies “proclaimed in mystery” and “declared obscurely,” and which “could not be understood by any man” until Jesus Himself expounded upon them. So much for “perspicuity” and the entirely self-interpreting nature of Scripture in the main. Catholics readily agree that Scripture often interprets itself. We simply deny that it always does, or that there is no need for authoritative interpretation from outside itself. Here is the above chapter in its entirety:

“For when Daniel speaks of ‘one like unto the Son of man’ who received the everlasting kingdom, does he not hint at this very thing? For he declares that, in saying ‘like unto the Son of man,’ He appeared, and was man, but not of human seed. And the same thing he proclaimed in mystery when he speaks of this stone which was cut out without hands. For the expression ‘it was cut out without hands’ signified that it is not a work of man, but [a work] of the will of the Father and God of all things, who brought Him forth. And when Isaiah says, ‘Who shall declare His generation?’ he meant that His descent could not be declared. Now no one who is a man of men has a descent that cannot be declared. And when Moses says that He will wash His garments in the blood of the grape, does not this signify what I have now often told you is an obscure prediction, namely, that He had blood, but not from men; just as not man, but God, has begotten the blood of the vine? And when Isaiah calls Him the Angel of mighty l counsel, did he not foretell Him to be the Teacher of those truths which He did teach when He came [to earth]? For He alone taught openly those mighty counsels which the Father designed both for all those who have been and shall be well-pleasing to Him, and also for those who have rebelled against His will, whether men or angels, when He said: ‘They shall come from the east [and from the west], and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness.’ And, ‘ Many shall say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten, and drunk, and prophesied, and cast out demons in Thy name? And I will say to them, Depart from Me.’ Again, in other words, by which He shall condemn those who are unworthy of salvation, He said, Depart into outer darkness, which the Father has prepared for Satan and his, angels.’ And again, in other words, He said, ‘I give unto you power to tread on serpents, and on scorpions, and on scolopendras, and on all the might of the enemy.’ And now we, who believe on our Lord Jesus, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, when we exorcise all demons and evil spirits, have them subjected to us. For if the prophets declared obscurely that Christ would suffer, and thereafter be Lord of all, yet that [declaration] could not be understood by any man until He Himself persuaded the apostles that such statements were expressly related in the Scriptures. For He exclaimed before His crucifixion: ‘The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the Scribes and Pharisees, and be crucified, and on the third day rise again.’ And David predicted that He would be born from the womb before sun and moon, according to the Father’s will, and made Him known, being Christ, as God strong and to be worshipped.”

If no one could have understood these prophecies until Jesus fulfilled and explained them, of what use is Scripture Alone in that case? It would be of no use whatever, without the Teacher to give the proper sense of the prophecies. Compare Justin’s similar statements:

Up to the time of Jesus Christ, who taught us, and interpreted the prophecies which were not yet understood, . . . (First Apology, Chapter XXXII)

But in no instance, not even in any of those called sons of Jupiter, did they imitate the being crucified; for it was not understood by them, all the things said of it having been put symbolically. (First Apology, Chapter LV)

This brings to mind Jesus’ conversation with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). Scripture states:

Luke 24:27 (RSV) And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

The two disciples later marveled at how Jesus “opened to us the Scriptures” (Lk 24:32). In other words, those prophecies were not understood until Jesus explained them, and in fact, most of the Jews did not see that they were fulfilled. Thus, Old Testament Scripture was insufficient for these messianic truths to be grasped simply by reading them. One could retort that the Jews were hard-hearted and thus could not understand since they had not the Holy Spirit and God’s grace to illumine their understanding.

But that proves too much because it would also have to apply to these two disciples, and indeed all of the disciples, who did not understand what was happening, even after Jesus repeatedly told them that He was to suffer and to die, and that this was all foretold. They didn’t “get it” till after He was crucified. Justin Martyr noted himself that the disciples had not understood the very Psalms he was expounding:

The rest of the Psalm shows that He knew that His Father would grant all His requests, and would raise Him from the dead. It also shows that He encouraged all who fear God to praise Him, because through the mystery of the Crucified One He had mercy on the faithful of every race; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren, the Apostles (who, after He arose from the dead and convinced them that He had warned them before the Passion that He had to suffer, and that this was foretold by the Prophets, were most sorry that they had abandoned Him at the crucifixion). (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 106)

The Phillips Modern English translation renders Luke 24:32 as, “he made the scriptures plain to us.” The Greek word for “opened” is dianoigo (Strong’s word #1272). According to Joseph Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1977 reprint of 1901 edition, p. 140), it means “to open by dividing or drawing asunderto open thoroughly (what had been closed).”

This meaning can be seen in other passages where dianoigo appears: Mk 7:34-35, Lk 2:23, 24:31,45, Acts 16:14, 17:3). Obviously, then, Holy Scripture is informing us that some parts of it were “closed” and “not plain” until the “infallible” teaching authority and interpretation of our Lord Jesus opened it up and made it plain.

This runs utterly contrary to the Protestant notion of perspicuity of Scripture and its more or less ubiquitous self-interpreting nature; also to biblical passages such as 1 Peter 1:20: “. . . no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own private interpretation” (cf. Peter’s description of Paul’s letters: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures”: 2 Peter 3:16). The need for an interpreter was also illustrated in the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch:

Acts 8:28, 30-31 . . . he was reading the prophet Isaiah . . . So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?”

It turns out that he was reading Isaiah 53:7-8, as we are informed in Acts 8:32-33. Philip then interprets the passage as referring to Jesus, and preaches the gospel to the eunuch (Acts 8:35). An authoritative interpreter was needed. And no one can say that the eunuch didn’t understand because of “hardness of heart” because subsequent events show that he was willing to accept the truth (as he got baptized in Acts 8:38). He simply didn’t have enough information. He needed the authoritative (“infallible,” if you will) teacher. Old Testament Scripture (which was Justin’s primary Scripture) was not sufficient enough for him to come to the knowledge of the truth.

One might also note that Justin Martyr’s routine casual assumption that his own interpretations of a host of biblical passages are self-evident, clear, etc., is itself highly questionable. Protestant Bible scholar F. F. Bruce commented upon this, in his analysis of Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho:

Both appeal to the Old Testament, but they cannot agree on its meaning, because they argue from incompatible principles of interpretation. Quite often, indeed, the modern Christian reader is bound to agree with Trypho’s interpretation against Justin’s. For example, they discuss the incident of the burning bush . . . Trypho says, ‘This is not what we understand from the words quoted: we understand that, while it was an angel that appeared in a flame of fire, it was God who spoke to Moses.’ [Dialogue, 60.1] Here Trypho’s understanding is sounder than Justin’s.

. . . Justin’s Greek text of Psalm 96:10) (LXX 95:10) read ‘the Lord reigned from the tree‘ – to him a clear prediction of the crucifixion. Trypho’s Bible did not contain these additional words (and neither does ours). ‘Whether the rulers of our people’, said Trypho, ‘have erased any portion of the scriptures, as you allege, God knows; but it seems incredible.’ [Dialogue, 73] Again, Trypho was right.

. . . Justin Martyr . . . evidently regards the Septuagint version as the only reliable text of the Old Testament. Where it differs from the Hebrew text, as read and interpreted by the Jews, the Jews (he says) have corrupted the text so as to obscure the scriptures’ plain prophetic testimony to Jesus as the Christ. (The Canon of Scripture, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988, 65-66)

As we would expect at that early stage in the development of the canon of Scripture, Justin Martyr did not have a clear understanding of which books belong in the New Testament. F. F. Bruce contends that he “appears to quote” the Gospel of Peter. He elaborates, in a footnote:

In First Apology 36.6, speaking of the passion of Christ, Justin says, ‘And indeed, as the prophet had said, they dragged him and made him sit on the judgment-seat, saying “Judge us”.’ Compare Gospel of Peter 3:6 f. where Jesus enemies ‘made him sit on a judgment-seat, saying “Judge righteously, O king of Israel!”‘ The prophet referred to by Justin is Isaiah (cf Is. 58:2). The idea that Jesus was made to sit on the judgment-seat could have arisen from a mistranslation of John 19:13 (as though it meant not ‘Pilate sat’ but ‘Pilate made him sit’). (Ibid., 200-201)

Here is the passage from Justin:

And as the prophet spoke, they tormented Him, and set Him on the judgment-seat, and said, Judge us. And the expression, “They pierced my hands and my feet,” was used in reference to the nails of the cross which were fixed in His hands and feet. And after He was crucified they cast lots upon His vesture, and they that crucified Him parted it among them. And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate. (First Apology, 35 – Bruce appears to have mistakenly cited chapter 36)

Finally, according to the eminent 19th-century Protestant patristics scholar Brooke Foss Westcott, there is some indication in Justin of acceptance of an apostolic Tradition, including an oral component. After an exhaustive, remarkable 75-page exposition of Justin’s understanding of the canon of the New Testament. Westcott concludes:

There are indeed traces of the recognition of an authoritative Apostolic doctrine in Justin, but it cannot be affirmed from the form of his language that he looked upon this as contained in a written New Testament. ‘We have been commanded,’ he says, ‘by Christ Himself to obey not the teaching of men but those precepts which were proclaimed by the blessed Prophets and taught by Himself.’ [Dialogue 48] But this teaching of Christ was not strictly limited to His own words, as Justin explains in another passage:

As [Abraham] believed on the voice of God and it was reckoned to him for righteousness, in the same way we also when we believed the voice of God which was spoken again by the Apostles of Christ, and the voice which was proclaimed to us by the Prophets, even to dying [for our belief], renounced all that is in the world. [Dialogue, 119]

Thus the words of the Apostles were in his view in some sense the words of Christ, and we are therefore justified in interpreting his language generally, so as to accord with the certain judgment of his immediate successors. His writings mark the era of transition from the oral to the written Rule. His recognition of a New Testament was practical and not formal. As yet the circumstances of the Christian Church had not led to the final separation of the Canonical writings of the Apostles from others which claimed more or less directly to be stamped with their authority. (A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1980, from the 1889 sixth edition, 172-173)

Following are the two passages cited by Westcott, along with similar thoughts in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho:

For we have been told by Christ Himself not to follow the teachings of men, but only those which have been announced by the holy Prophets and taught by Himself. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 48)

What greater favor, then, did Christ bestow on Abraham? This: that He likewise called with His voice, and commanded him to leave the land wherein he dwelt. And with that same voice He has also called of us, and we have abandoned our former way of life in which we used to practice evils common to the rest of the world. And we will inherit the Holy Land together with Abraham, receiving our inheritance for all eternity, because by our similar faith we have become children of Abraham. For, just as he believed the voice of God, and was justified thereby, so have we believed the voice of God (which was spoken again to us by the Prophets and the Apostles of Christ), and have renounced even to death all worldly things. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 119)

“The twelve bells which had to be attached to the long robe of the high priest, were representative of the twelve Apostles, who relied upon the power of Christ, the Eternal Priest. Through their voices the whole world is filled with the glory and grace of God and His Christ. David testified to this truth when he said: ‘Their sound has gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world‘ [Ps 18.5]. [2] And Isaiah speaks as though in the person of the Apostles (when they relate to Christ that the people were convinced, not by their words, but by the power of Him who sent them), and says: ‘Lord, who has believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? We have preached before Him as a little child, as if a root in a thirsty ground‘ [Isa 53.1-2]. (And the rest of the prophecy as quoted above.) [3] When the passage, spoken in the name of many, states: ‘We have preached before Him,’ and adds, ‘as a little child,’ it proves that sinners will obey Him as servants, and will all become as one child in His sight. An example of this is had in a human body: although it is made up of many members, it is called, and is, one body. So also in the case of the people and the Church: although they are many individuals, they form one body and are called by one common name. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 42)

From Isaiah we know that the Prophets who were sent to carry His messages to man are called angels and apostles of God, for Isaiah uses the expression, ‘Send me’ [Isa 6.8]. (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 75)

. . . we Christians, who have gained a knowledge of the true worship of God from the Law and from the word which went forth from Jerusalem by way of the Apostles of Jesus, . . . (Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter 110)

All of this shows the likelihood that Justin Martyr did not hold to sola Scriptura. Nothing seen in Justin is inconsistent with the perennial Catholic understanding of authority. His thought is simply at an early stage of Christian development, as we would fully expect in the 2nd century. Loving Scripture and believing it is materially sufficient is not enough to establish that one believes in sola Scriptura, or else I myself would be an enthusiastic proponent of it, whereas in fact I think it is a dangerous falsehood not found in the New Testament and viciously self-defeating. What Lucas has produced as “proof” in no way, shape, or form, proves what he erroneously thinks it proves.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Lucas Banzoli, Facebook photo as of 5-3-22, dated 15 January 2018.

***

Summary: Brazilian Protestant apologist Lucas Banzoli attempts to show that Justin Martyr held to sola Scriptura, but only proves his belief in the truth of material sufficiency.


Browse Our Archives