![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/06\/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 Lucas\u2019 article, \u201cJustino pregava a Sola Scriptura?\u201d<\/a> [Did Justin preach Sola Scriptura?<\/em>] (6-5-13).<\/p>\n People who like to stir up controversy <\/span><\/p>\n I like to stir up biblical, theological, and historical truth<\/em>.<\/p>\n have claimed that Justin of Rome (AD 100-165) never taught Sola Scriptura . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n True.<\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n That is too often true. But of course it\u2019s also<\/em> true that many Protestants don\u2019t understand the proper definition of it, either. We\u2019ll see if Lucas does. I\u2019m glad that he is taking the time to define the term, since he didn\u2019t in his article about Origen and Tertullian, that I replied to yesterday<\/a>.<\/p>\n First, let\u2019s get to what Sola Scriptura does not mean: 1st Sola Scriptura does not mean that everything has to be in the Bible. <\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 It is not in the Bible that Barack Obama would be president of the USA or that S\u00e3o Paulo would be three-time world champion in 2005, and yet I believe that. What has to be in the Bible is not \u201ceverything\u201d, as some Catholics erroneously claim, but the doctrines that were taught by the apostles and Jesus Christ. We do not believe that \u201ceverything is in the Bible\u201d, but we believe that no biblical writer has \u201chidden\u201d any important doctrinal truth that was not written by any of them in the 66 books of Holy Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n Good and correct, so far. Catholics agree.<\/p>\n 2nd Sola Scriptura does not mean that we should reject all traditions. <\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 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. <\/span><\/p>\n So he claims. I have shown again and again that sola Scriptura itself is not taught in the Bible. It\u2019s 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\u2019ve done this myself<\/em> in my own work.<\/p>\n Now, let\u2019s show Catholics what Sola Scriptura means: <\/span><\/p>\n 1st Sola Scriptura means that we have in the Bible everything that is necessary for our salvation. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s material sufficiency, and we agree with it.<\/p>\n 2nd Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is totally sufficient in matters of faith and practice. <\/span><\/p>\n 3rd Sola Scriptura means that any doctrinal tradition that has no biblical basis must be rejected. <\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2019t mean, Catholics can stop arguing in a vacuum, refuting a scarecrow. <\/span><\/p>\n The standard definition of sola Scriptura<\/em> in use among Protestants is that the Bible is the only<\/em> infallible<\/em><\/strong> standard and norm for Christian theology, faith, and practice<\/em>. Lucas fails to note this, so his definition (while a \u201cfair\u201d one) is inadequate. I went through the definition at length in my paper, Reply to Lucas Banzoli: 2 Tim 3:16 & Sola Scriptura<\/a> (5-31-22).<\/p>\n It follows that the Church and tradition can never be infallible. Therefore, if\u00a0 Church father asserts one of the latter two scenarios, he does not believe in sola Scriptura<\/em>. I will demonstrate\u00a0 that this is the case for Justin Martyr.<\/p>\n And if you pay a little more attention to Justin\u2019s own works, you will see that he had exactly the same conception as evangelicals of what we really mean by Sola Scriptura:<\/span><\/p>\n Not at all, as I will prove. He asserts material sufficiency of Scripture, which is not the same as sola Scriptura<\/em>, and he also asserts the infallibility of Church and tradition, which expressly contradicts sola Scriptura<\/em> and proves that he didn\u2019t believe<\/em> in it.<\/p>\n 1st Justin believed that what was not said by the Scriptures was doubtful and suspect. <\/span><\/p>\n That is untrue, as I will document, as we proceed.<\/p>\n 2nd Justin tried to prove by the Scriptures everything he presented. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s great and true, but is not sola Scriptura<\/em>. Simply arguing from the Bible doesn\u2019t prove what one\u2019s 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<\/em> Scripture.<\/p>\n -Text: \u201cIf, 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Cap.32)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not what he was arguing. The point isn\u2019t that everything not in Scripture is \u201cdoubtful and suspect\u201d (\u201cdubious and obscure in the English translation from the Schaff set<\/a>). His point, rather, was that, since Trypho was a Jew, he fully accepted Old Testament revelation as \u201choly and prophetic\u201d). So Justin is saying, \u201cI\u2019m using your own<\/em> Scriptures to prove my point. If I didn\u2019t, you wouldn\u2019t believe me.\u201d He\u2019s engaging in good evangelistic method and strategy (utilize what the opponent respects).<\/p>\n Once correctly understood in this way, it\u2019s evident that it has nothing to do with the dispute about sola Scriptura<\/em>.<\/p>\n 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! <\/span><\/p>\n Yeah, because the Old Testament was what Jews and Christians heled in common. He\u2019s not even including the New Testament in this particular portion of his argument.<\/p>\n Catholics unfortunately cannot subscribe to Justin\u2019s words, for:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 They believe in doctrines outside the Bible as dogmas of faith, not as \u201cdoubtful and suspect.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n \u2022 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 \u201coral tradition\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n All Catholic doctrines must be in harmony with the Bible, and that\u2019s what we try to prove: almost always with massive use of Scripture.<\/p>\n So we see Justin contradicting the Catholic pillars of non-biblical oral tradition and reiterating the Christian principles of Sola Scriptura.<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense. This was taken out of context, as shown. Later, I will prove that Justin doesn\u2019t stick to the Bible Alone; hence, he held to a Catholic rule of faith, not a proto-Protestant one.<\/p>\n 3rd Justin believed that we cannot fail to constantly refer to the Scriptures.<\/span><\/p>\n -Text: \u201cIt is a ridiculous thing\u2026 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>) , Chapter 85)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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 \u201cit can provide something better than Scripture\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Justin was saying that if one claims to be making an argument from the Bible, they can\u2019t 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 \u201cbetter than Scripture.\u201d They say that both can be authoritative and also infallible, under the right conditions. That\u2019s not \u201cbetter, period\u201d; rather, it is \u201cequally authoritative and sometimes even infallible.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s Lucas who is warring against straw men so far. He first presented one of Justin\u2019s citations out of context, and now he doesn\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n 4th Justin demonstrated what he said in the Scriptures. <\/span><\/p>\n -Texts: \u201cHe 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\u2026 And that the rock symbolically proclaimed Christ, we also demonstrate by many Scriptures\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Cap.86) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAre 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Chap.29) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cFor 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Chap.34) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cReversing 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Chapter 56) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI could have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of these three is God, and is called an Angel\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Chap.56) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cBe 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Cap.69) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cIt 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Chapter 82)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Of course he did (but not exclusively so). So do we. It\u2019s the hallmark of my entire ministry: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism<\/em>\u00a0(my blog); A Biblical Defense of Catholicism<\/em> (my first book). But this is neither here nor there, with regard to proving that he supposedly believed in sola Scriptura<\/em>. It proves nothing whatsoever<\/em> about that. What\u2019s interesting, then, is why Lucas and so many Protestants equate<\/em> citing a lot of Bible in making theological arguments with sola Scriptura<\/em>. That would make me<\/em> one of the biggest supporters of sola Scriptura<\/em> on the planet earth, if so. But in fact, I have written three books expressly against<\/em> it.<\/p>\n 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 \u201csearch in tradition\u201d, but only in the Scriptures (=Sola Scriptura<\/em>), . . . <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cNever say never\u201d! Keep reading . . .<\/p>\n 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 \u201cprove something from the Scriptures\u201d 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 \u201cmany Scriptures\u201d would be useless, for Catholics themselves do not do that!<\/span><\/p>\n All Lucas\u2019 citations from Justin so far are from the Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>. Of course<\/em> he cites the Old Testament<\/em> Scripture because Trypho was Jewish, and this is what he accepts<\/em> (as Justin said, above). It\u2019s a basic misunderstanding to act as if this use of OT Scripture proves that he believed in sola Scriptura<\/em>. Why would he cite any Christian tradition to a Jewish person, who couldn\u2019t care less about that? He has to use a source that they both revere, which is the Old Testament.<\/p>\n 5th Justin believed that it was necessary to prove doctrines by the Scriptures. <\/span><\/p>\n Repeating<\/em> a falsehood over and over does not make it any less false.<\/p>\n -Texts: \u201cBut that this was not the Father, we must prove from the Scriptures\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Cap.86) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAnd that the stone symbolically proclaimed Christ, we must also prove by many Scriptures\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Cap.86) <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note the term: \u201cwe have to prove it\u201d, 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 \u201cinsufficiency\u201d 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\u2019t Justin just do like the Catholics, saying that nothing has to be in the Bible and that there\u2019s 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 \u201chave to prove\u201d 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: \u201cAnd 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\u2026\u201d 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!<\/span><\/p>\n Already dealt with. Lucas seems completely oblivious as to the background context<\/em> of the Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>. And of course he continues to caricature the Catholic rule of faith.<\/p>\n 6th Justin believed in the sufficiency of the Scriptures. <\/span><\/p>\n -Texts: \u201cNow 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Cap.39) <\/span><\/p>\n \u201cBut 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Cap.73) <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Scriptures are more than enough to prove the points in dispute! If that\u2019s not proof of the sufficiency of Scripture\u2014which is a principle of Sola Scriptura\u2014then I don\u2019t know what is!<\/span><\/p>\n So do we<\/em>; so this accomplishes nothing in this debate. Lucas correctly notes that [material] sufficiency is \u201c<\/span>a<\/strong><\/em> principle of Sola Scriptura\u201d:<\/span> but it is a principle or premise that is held in common with Catholics. So it doesn\u2019t 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\u2019d be rich.<\/span><\/p>\n 7th Justin believed in the inerrancy of Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n -Text: \u201cI 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Chap.65)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Interestingly, I\u2019ve seen many Catholics claiming that the Bible is not infallible or inerrant, some even say it\u2019s not the Word of God! Justin, however, was incisive in saying that in the Bible there are no contradictions, just as evangelicals do.<\/span><\/p>\n There are many individuals who call themselves Catholics but who do not fully accept the Catholic Church\u2019s teachings (theological liberals or nominal Catholics). That has no bearing on what the Church actually teaches<\/em>.<\/p>\n 8th Justin believed in the free examination of the Bible.<\/span><\/p>\n -Text:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cI 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.\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho, Chap.58)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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\u2019s 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 \u201cMagistery\u201d [magisterium<\/em>], 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!<\/span><\/p>\n Catholics don\u2019t 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 \u201ccheck\u201d those errors. Once again, this proves nothing<\/em> as to whether Justin held to the falsehood of sola Scriptura<\/em>. Lucas is fighting against air, or windmills, like Don Quixote.<\/p>\n 9th Justin believed that doctrinal security comes from attachment to the Scriptures. <\/span><\/p>\n -Text: \u201cI have commented to the lord, who is very anxious to be secure in all respects once you hold fast to the Scriptures\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Chap.80) <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n 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 \u201csome\u201d respects, as if the doctrinal aspect were left out and lacked the support of a tradition: extra-biblical oral.<\/span><\/p>\n Scripture is great and fantastic. That\u2019s why the Catholic Church authoritatively pronounced its canon and preserved it through all those fifteen centuries before Protestantism existed. Next question?<\/p>\n 10th Justin rejects human doctrines and asks to believe only if the Scriptures are frequently quoted. <\/span><\/p>\n -Text: \u201cIf 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\u201d (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, Chap.68) <\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is clear that the acceptance of the doctrine, in Justin\u2019s view, was conditional on its substantiation in the light of Scripture, and not on any other human argument that might be offered. <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, because Trypho was a Jew.<\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n This hasn\u2019t been proven to the slightest degree. Not one whit<\/em> of proof . . .<\/p>\n FINAL CONSIDERATIONS <\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n We don\u2019t have to deny anything that Lucas has presented from Justin, because we agree<\/em> with all of it. All this shows is that Lucas lacks an accurate understanding of 1) precisely<\/em> what sola Scriptura<\/em> means<\/em><\/strong>, and 2) the Catholic rule of faith<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p>\n \u2022 But what about the pagan authors that Justin quoted? Does that mean he doesn\u2019t believe in Sola Scriptura? <\/span><\/p>\n 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 \u2013 240 B.C.) , or from Cleantus (331 \u2013 233 B.C.) in his Hymn to Zeus, which has quotations from his works mentioned by the same apostle in Acts 17:28.<\/span><\/p>\n Very good. It\u2019s correctly noted that it proves nothing as to the present debate.<\/p>\n 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?<\/span><\/p>\n It proves nothing: just as Lucas\u2019 entire presentation above proves nothing (except that Justin loved the Bible<\/em>; so do I and so does the Catholic Church) and is one massive non sequitur<\/em>. Now I\u2019ll give my<\/em> complete argument, which is completely relevant<\/em> to the topic:<\/p>\n The algebraic \u201cx\u201d factor here is how Justin Martyr views Church and Tradition in relationship to<\/em> Holy Scripture. It doesn\u2019t logically follow that he has no opinion on those things. We can\u2019t 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\u2019t include them in the rule of faith, the anti-Catholics might have a valid point.<\/p>\n The data in this instance is fairly scarce, since Justin\u2019s 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\u2019s highly unlikely, prima facie<\/i>, 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<\/a> all over the place. Yet despite these difficulties, I believe there is enough information to be had, to reject a sola Scriptura<\/em> interpretation.<\/p>\n Justin doesn\u2019t always mention only Scripture<\/em> (as if he thinks it is the only source for truth):<\/p>\n . . . the Scriptures and the facts themselves . . . (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, ch. 23<\/a>)<\/p>\n I bring from the\u00a0Scriptures\u00a0and the facts themselves both the\u00a0proofs and the inculcation of them, . . . But you hesitate to confess that He is Christ, as the\u00a0Scriptures and the events witnessed and done in His name prove, . . . (Dialogue with Trypho<\/em>, ch. 39<\/a>)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n In Chapter 76 of the Dialogue with Trypho<\/i>, entitled \u201cFrom Other Passages the Same Majesty and Government of Christ are Proved,\u201d Justin referred to \u201can obscure prediction,\u201d and of prophecies \u201cproclaimed in mystery\u201d and \u201cdeclared obscurely,\u201d and which \u201ccould not be understood by any man\u201d until Jesus Himself expounded upon them. So much for \u201cperspicuity\u201d and the entirely self-interpreting nature of Scripture in the main. Catholics readily agree that Scripture often interprets itself. We simply deny that it\u00a0