![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/BanzoliLucas.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> 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\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s 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\u2019s active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. I used\u00a0Google Translate<\/em>\u00a0to transfer his Portugese text into English.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n This is a reply to his article,\u201cTertuliano e Or\u00edgenes em defesa da Sola Scriptura\u201d<\/a> [Tertullian and Origen in defense of Sola Scriptura<\/span><\/em>] (4-17-16).<\/p>\n \u2022 Tertullian (160 \u2013 220) <\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Tertullian also took pains to show the unique authority of the Bible: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cFor even the apostle, in his declaration \u2013 which he does not do without feeling the weight of it \u2013 that \u2018Christ died,\u2019 immediately adds, \u2018according to the Scriptures,\u2019 that he might lighten the harshness of the declaration by the authority of Scripture, and thus remove the offense from the reader\u201d [Contra Pr\u00e1xeas<\/em>, 29]<\/span><\/p>\n He notes that Paul argued from the Scriptures. So what? Of course he did. So do all<\/em> the fathers, all Catholic apologists, theologians, bishops and popes, priests in their homilies, and I myself constantly in my work. This doesn\u2019t prove sola Scriptura<\/em>. It proves use of Scripture as an inspired authority.<\/p>\n For him, the only reason that could lead them to believe a doctrine is if it were given to them in Scripture: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cSurely one could not believe even these things even of the Son of God, unless they were given to us in the Scriptures.\u201d [Contra Pr\u00e1xeas<\/em>, 16]<\/span><\/p>\n This is an interesting one and carries some force, I grant [link<\/a>]. It can\u2019t be immediately dismissed like so many Protestant patristic arguments. But I think it could probably be interpreted in terms of material sufficiency. My own take on what he says here is that he is commenting on all these amazing events recounted in the Bible, that are so much<\/em> so that it would be difficult for people to believe<\/em> in them, but<\/em> for the fact that they are included in the inspired revelation of the Bible. We know that elsewhere (as I will show below) Tertullian stated that extrabiblical doctrines (harmonious with the Bible) could and should be believed, so he is not absolutely against that.<\/p>\n Remember, Catholics fully agree that the Bible is unique. We simply assert that there are other infallible<\/em> \u2014 not inspired \u2014 authorities, too (Church and tradition).<\/p>\n He does not say, \u201cunless it is given to us in Scripture or tradition,\u201d but only in Scripture. It is the only authority that can lead a Christian to believe any doctrine. <\/span><\/p>\n He says those things elsewhere (which Lucas will have to grapple with). But it could be partly an exaggerated or rhetorical argument as well, because immediately after<\/em> this cited portion, he says: \u201cpossibly also they could not have been\u00a0believed\u00a0of the\u00a0Father, even if they had been given in the\u00a0Scriptures, since these men bring\u00a0Him<\/em>\u00a0down into Mary\u2019s womb, and set Him before\u00a0Pilate\u2019s judgment-seat, and bury Him in the sepulchre of Joseph.\u201d He isn\u2019t going to argue that these things shouldn\u2019t be believed, despite being in the Bible. So it seems to me at least this second statement must be rhetorical and non-literal, with a particular meaning. If it is (which seems clear), then it is likely that the preceding statement may be, too.<\/p>\n She is also enough, as he said: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cMake us happy to say that Christ died, the Son of the Father; and let that be enough, because the Scriptures have told us so.\u201d [Contra Pr\u00e1xeas<\/em>, 29]<\/span><\/p>\n Material sufficiency . . .<\/p>\n For him, the \u201cvoice of the Holy Spirit\u201d present in Scripture is enough and no other deliberation is necessary beyond that: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAnd why should I, a man of limited memory, suggest anything more? Why remember anything else in Scripture? As if the voice of the Holy Spirit wasn\u2019t enough; or else any other deliberation were necessary, if the Lord cursed and condemned by priority the artisans of these things, of whom He curses and condemns the worshippers!\u201d [On Idolatry<\/em>, 4]<\/span><\/p>\n Well, yes, inspired Scripture is enough to settle problems. But this is not also a logically necessary denial that nothing else<\/em> could also do so.<\/p>\n Against the school of Hermogenes, he declares one of the most emphatic statements of Sola Scriptura, saying: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cLet the school of Hermogenes show us that what it teaches is written: if it is not written, tremble at the anathema fulminated against those who add to Scripture, or take away from it.\u201d [Contra Herm\u00f3genes<\/em>, 22] <\/span><\/p>\n There were, therefore, two options: either the doctrine was written (in Scripture) and valid; or, if it was not written, it represented an addition to the Scriptures, and would be the object of God\u2019s anathema withering. From this statement we see how seriously the early Church Fathers took the concept of Sola Scriptura, where only doctrines that were written in the Bible were accepted and where anything more or less than that was anathema.<\/span><\/p>\n The topic at hand here [link<\/a>] was whether creation was made out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo<\/em>), or from \u201cunderlying matter.\u201d\u00a0 The sentence immediately before Lucas\u2019 citation reads: \u201cBut whether all things were made out of any underlying Matter, I have as yet failed anywhere to find.\u201d So Tertullian asks his opponent to produce such a passage (I have produced the contrary<\/a>) and then notes that no one should add or take away from Scripture because the book of Revelation (22:18-19) tells us not<\/em> to do so. No one disagrees with that. I don\u2019t see how this is any sort of proof of sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n This represents the entirety of Lucas\u2019 arguments with regard to Tertullian and the rule of faith (one semi-convincing proof that\u2019s not compelling). I can produce far more than this, because I don\u2019t ignore<\/em> the many relevant passages in Tertullian, like Lucas does:<\/p>\n The material below is from Philip Schaff\u2019s 38-volume collection of the Church fathers. Anglican Church historian J. N. D. Kelly summarizes Tertullian\u2019s view on the rule of faith:<\/p>\n [F]or Tertullian what was believed and preached in the churches was absolutely authoritative . . . on occasion [he] described this original message as tradition, using the word to denote the teaching delivered by the apostles, without any implied contrast between tradition and Scripture . . . Tertullian can refer [de praescr<\/em>. 21; c.\u00a0Marc<\/em>. I, 21;4 5] to the whole body of apostolic doctrine, whether delivered orally or in epistles, as\u00a0apostolorum traditio\u00a0<\/em>or\u00a0apostolica traditio<\/em>\u00a0. . .<\/p>\n Tertullian\u2019s attitude does not differ from Irenaeus\u2019s in any important respect . . . In its primary sense, however, the apostolic, evangelical or Catholic tradition [C.\u00a0Marc<\/em>. 4, 5; 5, 19;\u00a0de monog<\/em>. 2] stood for the faith delivered by the apostles, and he never contrasted tradition so understood with Scripture . . .<\/p>\n But Tertullian did not confine the apostolic tradition to the New Testament; even if Scripture were to be set on one side, it would still be found in the doctrine publicly proclaimed by the churches. Like Irenaeus, he found [E.g.,\u00a0de praescr<\/em>. 21; 32; c.\u00a0Marc<\/em>. 4, 5] the surest test of the authenticity of this doctrine in the fact that the churches had been founded by, and were continuously linked with, the apostles; and as a further guarantee he added [De praescr<\/em>.\u00a028] their otherwise inexplicable unanimity . . .<\/p>\n This unwritten tradition he considered to be virtually identical with the \u2018rule of faith\u2019 (regula fidei<\/em>), which he preferred to Scripture as a standard when disputing with Gnostics . . . where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e., in the Church [De praescr<\/em>. 19] . . .<\/p>\n He was also satisfied, and made the point even more forcibly than Irenaeus, that the indispensable key to Scripture belonged exclusively to the Church, which in the\u00a0regula<\/em>\u00a0had preserved the apostles\u2019 testimony in its original shape. . . . the one divine revelation was contained in its fulness both in the Bible and in the Church\u2019s continuous public witness.\u00a0(Early Christian Doctrines<\/em>, HarperSanFrancisco, revised 1978 edition, 36, 39-41)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Church<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [T]he churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church . . . (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 20)<\/p>\n [I]t is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were proclaiming through the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0churches, \u2014 as if they spoke of one God in the\u00a0Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of\u00a0Christ, publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection before all\u00a0men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, seeing that they, whether\u00a0Paul\u00a0or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered (the words):\u00a0 Sacred Tradition<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the\u00a0apostles, and whether all other\u00a0doctrines<\/em>\u00a0do not\u00a0ipso facto<\/em>\u00a0proceed from falsehood. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 21)<\/p>\n When, however, that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not the result of\u00a0error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say that they were in\u00a0error who handed on the tradition? (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 28)<\/p>\n Such are the summary arguments which we use, when we take up arms against\u00a0heretics\u00a0for the\u00a0faith\u00a0of the gospel, maintaining both that order of periods, which rules that a late date is the mark of forgers, and that authority of churches which lends support to the tradition of the\u00a0apostles; because\u00a0truth\u00a0must needs precede the\u00a0forgery, and proceed straight from those by whom it has been handed on. (Against Marcion<\/em>, Book IV<\/a>, ch. 5)<\/p>\n We have it on the\u00a0true\u00a0tradition of the\u00a0Church, that this epistle was sent to the Ephesians, not to the Laodiceans. (Against Marcion<\/em>, Book V<\/a>, ch. 17)<\/p>\n For if, even at that time, the tradition of the gospel had spread everywhere, how much more now! Now, if it is our gospel which has spread everywhere, rather than any\u00a0heretical\u00a0gospel, much less\u00a0Marcion\u2019s, which only dates from the reign of\u00a0Antoninus, then ours will be the gospel of the\u00a0apostles. (Against Marcion<\/em>, Book V<\/a>, ch. 19)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Apostolic Succession<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n [E]ven if a discussion from the Scriptures\u00a0should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss:\u00a0 They [the Apostles] then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of\u00a0apostolic churches. . . . Therefore the\u00a0churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the\u00a0apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all\u00a0proved\u00a0to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality \u2014 privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame\u00a0mystery. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 20)<\/p>\n From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the\u00a0Lord Jesus Christ\u00a0sent the\u00a0apostles\u00a0to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for\u00a0 [N]or can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 22)<\/p>\n But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the\u00a0apostolic\u00a0age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the\u00a0apostles, because they\u00a0existed\u00a0in the time of the\u00a0apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their\u00a0bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first\u00a0bishop\u00a0of theirs ]\u00a0bishop\u00a0shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the\u00a0apostles\u00a0or of apostolic men, \u2014 a\u00a0man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the\u00a0apostles. For this is the manner in which the\u00a0apostolic churches\u00a0transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that\u00a0Polycarp\u00a0was placed therein by John; as also the\u00a0church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by\u00a0apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the\u00a0heretics\u00a0contrive something of the same kind. For after their\u00a0blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the\u00a0apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the\u00a0apostles\u00a0would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the\u00a0apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the\u00a0apostles\u00a0went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for\u00a0proof\u00a0by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from\u00a0apostles\u00a0or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same\u00a0faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the\u00a0heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their\u00a0proof\u00a0of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in\u00a0truth\u00a0they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with\u00a0apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the\u00a0mysteries\u00a0of the\u00a0faith. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 32)<\/p>\n Since this is the case, in order that the\u00a0truth\u00a0may be adjudged to belong to us,\u00a0 No\u00a0doubt, after the time of the\u00a0apostles, the\u00a0truth\u00a0respecting the belief of God suffered corruption, but it is equally certain that during the life of the\u00a0apostles\u00a0their teaching on this great article did not suffer at all; so that no other teaching will have the\u00a0right\u00a0of being received as apostolic than that which is at the present day proclaimed in the churches of apostolic foundation. You will, however, find no church of apostolic origin but such as reposes its\u00a0Christian\u00a0faith in the Creator. But if the churches shall prove to have been corrupt from the beginning, where shall the pure ones be found? Will it be among the adversaries of the Creator? Show us, then, one of your churches, tracing its descent from an\u00a0apostle, and you will have gained the day.\u00a0(Against Marcion<\/em>, Book I<\/a>, ch. 21)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Petrine Primacy \/ Papacy<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Was anything withheld from the\u00a0knowledge\u00a0of Peter, who is called\u00a0 Afterwards, as he himself [St. Paul] narrates, he\u00a0 [T]hey at first were believers\u00a0in the doctrine of the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0Church, in the\u00a0church of Rome\u00a0under the\u00a0episcopate\u00a0of the blessed\u00a0Eleutherus, . . . (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 30)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n *****<\/p>\n Lucas then moves onto Origen, where he commits the same misguided error again and again:<\/p>\n Like the others, Origen reinforced the fact of the sufficiency of Scripture. He declared that \u201cwhat we have taken from the authority of Scripture must be sufficient to refute the arguments of heretics\u201d [De Principiis, Livro II<\/em>, 5:3]. When he entered into theological debates, he made a point of saying that the discussion at hand should be resolved on the basis of the Bible. <\/span><\/p>\n This is pure material sufficiency. Most Catholics agree, so it is a non-issue.<\/p>\n He said:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThirdly, the apostles manifested to us the Holy Spirit, associated in honor and dignity with the Father and the Son. In this, however, it is no longer clearly distinguished whether the Holy Spirit is begotten or unbegotten, or whether he must also be considered the Son of God or not. It is these things that must be investigated to the best of our ability through a careful search from the Holy Scriptures.\u201d [De Principiis<\/em>, Cap.4]<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIt is important, therefore, that he use these things as elements and foundations, according to the commandment that says: \u2018Illuminate yourselves by the light of science\u2019, anyone who wishes to construct a series and a body of reasons for all these things, to investigate by means of manifest and necessary affirmations what there is of truth in each of them, and to build up a body of examples and affirmations from what I have found in the Holy Scriptures\u201d [De Principiis<\/em>, Cap.10]<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cNow all this, as we have underlined, was done by the Holy Spirit that, seeing that those events which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be guided to the investigation of that truth which is most deeply hidden, and to the affirmation of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which we believe to have been inspired by Him.\u201d [De Principii<\/em>, 4:15]<\/span><\/p>\n Yeah, we should<\/em> check all doctrines by Scripture. I did that today<\/em>, in my previous reply to Lucas, showing that sola Scriptura<\/em> can\u2019t be found in Holy Scripture. Nothing proving sola Scriptura<\/em> here . . .<\/p>\n He also made a point of analyzing in the Bible the veracity of each doctrine or theory elaborated. When something was not confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture, he rejected it, to make way for what was biblical: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI do not observe that this is greatly confirmed by the authority of Holy Scripture; whereas, in relation to the other two, a considerable number of passages are found in the Holy Scriptures which seem capable of being applied to them\u201d [De Principii<\/em>, 4] <\/span><\/p>\n The proof of the doctrines which he asserted he took not from tradition, but from Scripture: \u201cTo deal with so many and such things, it is not enough to entrust the sum of this subject to human senses and common intelligence, speaking, so to speak, visibly about invisible things. We must also take, for the demonstration of the things of which we speak, the testimonies of the Divine Scriptures\u201d [De Principiis<\/em>, Livro IV, Cap.1] <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cExhorted thus briefly by the very logic and coherence of the subject, though we have extended ourselves a little, what we have said is sufficient to show that there are some things whose significance cannot be explained by any discourse of human language, but which are declared by an intelligence, simpler than the properties of any words. The understanding of the divine letters must also adhere to this rule, and what is said must be considered not for the baseness of the word, but for the divinity of the Holy Spirit who inspired the one who wrote them.\u201d [De Principiis<\/em>, Livro IV, Cap.27]<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly right. Catholics totally agree! Go to the Bible to back up all of your doctrines. If we agree with this, then obviously it\u2019s not an argument against us. It\u2019s not even on-topic<\/em>.<\/p>\n The reverse was also true. If the reason a doctrine was accepted was because of its conformity to Holy Scripture \u2013 not tradition \u2013 the reason why some erred was not because they ignored tradition, but because they ignored the Scriptures or did not read them correctly: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cHaving made this brief comment on the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, it now seems necessary to explain why some, ignoring the way by which the understanding of the divine letters is reached, not reading them correctly, have fallen into so many errors\u201d [De Principiis<\/em>, Livro IV, Cap.8]<\/span><\/p>\n Scripture as the basis of all doctrines becomes even clearer when we see Origen saying that both the simplest and the most advanced would have to be built up by Scripture, not to mention tradition either for one or the other: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cHe must do this, first, that the simplest may be edified by the very body of Scripture, as it were. This is what we call common and historical understanding. If, however, they already begin to advance a little, so that they can understand something more deeply, let them also be edified by the very soul of the Scriptures\u201d [De Principiis<\/em>, Livro IV, Cap.11] <\/span><\/p>\n His entire search for true doctrine was grounded in Scripture: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAll this, as we have said, the Holy Spirit sought so that, insofar as what is on the surface could not be true or useful, we would speedily be called to seek a higher truth, and search the Scriptures, which we believe to be inspired by God, a sense worthy of God\u201d [De Principiis<\/em>, Livro IV, Cap.15]<\/span><\/p>\n If one doesn\u2019t study and understand the Bible, they leave themselves open to serious errors. The Catholic says \u201camen!\u201d This all has to do with material sufficiency.<\/p>\n The same Scripture, which the Papists hold to be insufficient for salvation, <\/span><\/p>\n But we don\u2019t do<\/em> that . . .<\/p>\n Origen said was given just for our salvation! <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cJust as man is said to be made up of body, soul and spirit, so is Holy Scripture, which by divine liberality was given for the salvation of men.\u201d [De Principiis<\/em>, Livro IV, Cap.11]<\/span><\/p>\n Of course<\/strong><\/em> it was. DUH!<\/p>\n He also advocated free examination. Instead of saying that the meaning of the passages could only be examined and discovered by the Roman magisterium, he asserted that any intelligent person who studied the Scriptures could discover the meaning for himself: <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cPeople of intelligence who wish to study Scripture can also discover its meaning for themselves.\u201d [Contra Celso<\/em>, Livro VII, 11] <\/span><\/p>\n The Catholic Church (Council of Trent) required<\/em> one interpretation only for all of seven verses in the Bible<\/em><\/strong>. That\u2019s it! The rest can be interpreted as one wishes. Nor was it true historically that the Catholic Church tried to suppress the Bible, as the common myth would have it:<\/p>\n Were Vernacular Bibles Unknown Before Luther?<\/a>\u00a0(Luther\u2019s Dubious Claims About the Supposed Utter Obscurity of the Bible Before His Translation)<\/a>\u00a0[6-15-11]<\/p>\n Dialogue: \u201cObscure\u201d Bible Before Luther\u2019s Translation?<\/a>\u00a0[7-24-14]<\/p>\n Catholic Church: Historic \u201cEnemy\u201d of the Bible?<\/a>\u00a0[9-11-15]<\/p>\n Did Pope Innocent III Forbid the Bible in 1199? (+ Does the Bible Itself Teach That it Should be Read Without Need of Any Authoritative Interpretation?)<\/a>\u00a0[5-11-21]<\/p>\n Did Medieval Catholicism Forbid All Vernacular Bibles?<\/a>\u00a0[5-11-21]<\/p>\n Council of Trent: Anti-Bible or Anti-Bad Bible Translations?<\/a>\u00a0[5-12-21]<\/p>\nLet your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is more than this comes of\u00a0evil;<\/q>\u00a0[Matthew 5:37]<\/span>\u00a0so that they were not to handle the gospel in a diversity of treatment. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 26)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
With whom lies that very\u00a0faith\u00a0to which the\u00a0Scriptures\u00a0belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become\u00a0Christians?<\/q>\u00a0For wherever it shall be manifest that the\u00a0true\u00a0Christian\u00a0rule and\u00a0faith\u00a0shall be,\u00a0there<\/em>\u00a0will likewise be the\u00a0true\u00a0Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the\u00a0Christian traditions. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 19)<\/p>\n
no man\u00a0knows\u00a0the Father save the\u00a0Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal Him.<\/q>\u00a0Matthew\u00a011:27<\/span>\u00a0Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the\u00a0apostles, whom He sent forth to preach \u2014 that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached \u2014 in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them \u2014 can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be\u00a0proved\u00a0in no other way than by those very churches which the\u00a0apostles\u00a0founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both\u00a0viv\u00e2 voce<\/em>, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the\u00a0apostolic churches\u2014 those moulds and original sources of the\u00a0faith\u00a0must be reckoned for\u00a0truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the\u00a0apostles, the\u00a0apostles\u00a0from Christ, Christ from\u00a0God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the\u00a0truth\u00a0of the churches and\u00a0apostles\u00a0of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the\u00a0apostles, and whether all other\u00a0doctrines<\/em>\u00a0do not\u00a0ipso facto<\/em>\u00a0proceed from\u00a0falsehood. We hold communion with the\u00a0apostolic churches\u00a0because our doctrine is in no respect different\u00a0from theirs<\/em>. This is\u00a0our<\/em>\u00a0witness\u00a0of\u00a0truth. (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 21)<\/p>\n
as many as walk according to the rule,<\/q>\u00a0which the church has handed down from the\u00a0apostles, the\u00a0apostles\u00a0from Christ,\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0Christ from\u00a0God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that\u00a0heretics\u00a0ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the\u00a0Scriptures, since we, without the\u00a0Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the\u00a0Scriptures. . . . But on what ground are\u00a0heretics\u00a0strangers and enemies to the\u00a0apostles, if it be not from the difference of their teaching, which each individual of his own mere will has either advanced or received in opposition to the\u00a0apostles? (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 37)<\/p>\n
the rock on which the church should be built,<\/q>\u00a0who also obtained\u00a0
the keys of the\u00a0kingdom of heaven,<\/q>\u00a0with the power of\u00a0
loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?<\/q>\u00a0(Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 22)<\/p>\n
went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of seeing Peter,<\/q>\u00a0[Galatians 1:18]<\/span>\u00a0because of his office, no\u00a0doubt,\u00a0 . . . (Prescription against Heretics<\/em><\/a>, ch. 23)<\/p>\n