![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/10\/Cover-337x498-1.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n[book and purchase information<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Bruno Lima<\/a>\u00a0is a Brazilian Calvinist (and anti-Catholic) writer and apologist.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n I am replying to his article, \u201cAtan\u00e1sio e a Sola Scriptura\u201d<\/a> [Athanasius and Sola Scriptura<\/em>] (1-16-18). His words will be in blue<\/span>. I use the standard Schaff 38-volume collection of the Church fathers<\/a>, including for Bruno\u2019s own citations. St. Athanasius\u2019 words will be indented. I cite RSV for Bible passages.<\/p>\n The\u00a0knowledge\u00a0of our religion and of the\u00a0truth\u00a0of things is independently manifest rather than in need of\u00a0human\u00a0teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of\u00a0Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith\u00a0of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient to declare the\u00a0truth\u00a0\u2014 while there are other works of our blessed teachers compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some\u00a0knowledge\u00a0of the interpretation of the\u00a0Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to\u00a0know\u00a0\u2014 still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them \u2014 the\u00a0faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; . . . (Against the Heathen<\/em><\/a>, Part 1, 1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This quotation is one of the strongest statements in favor of the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n It teaches the material<\/em> sufficiency of Scripture for salvation: a doctrine where Catholics and Protestants are in full agreement: and so irrelevant<\/em> to the debate about sola Scriptura<\/em>. It does not<\/em>, however, teach the formal<\/em> sufficiency of Scripture, which means sola Scriptura<\/em> (Scripture is the only infallible norm and standard of Christian doctrine). That\u2019s simply wrongly read into the quote, which is perfectly harmonious with Catholicism. The fact that Bruno doesn\u2019t grasp<\/em> this is part and parcel of the problem with Protestant interpretation and citation of the Church fathers. I just wrote a few minutes ago in a Facebook announcement of this very article:<\/p>\n Bruno is starting out with textbook, playbook, classic Protestant methodology in arguing about the Church fathers and maintaining the pretense that their teachings are closer to theirs than ours. I can already see how this will go, with his first citation and sentence in commentary. It\u2019s the same old same old.<\/p>\n Athanasius is communicating with Macarius. He wanted to know more about Christian doctrines. First, he asserts that knowledge of religion and truth manifests independently, without the need for human teachers. This obviously contradicts the idea that Scripture does not speak for itself, but needs an authorized magisterium to speak for it.<\/span><\/p>\n Catholics agree that Scripture speaks for itself. But the Catholic Church also<\/em> wisely understands (in its \u201cboth\/and\u201d thinking) that human beings have misinterpreted Scripture in hundreds of different ways; therefore, authoritative Church guidance is necessary to maintain orthodoxy. This is, of course, the same view that Scripture teaches about itself:<\/p>\n Nehemiah 8:7-8<\/strong>\u00a0Also Jesh\u2019ua, Bani, Sherebi\u2019ah, Jamin, Akkub, Shab\u2019bethai, Hodi\u2019ah, Ma-asei\u2019ah, Keli\u2019ta, Azari\u2019ah, Jo\u2019zabad, Hanan, Pelai\u2019ah, the Levites,\u00a0helped the people to understand the law<\/em><\/span>, while the people remained in their places. [8] And they read from the book, from the law of God, clearly;\u00a0and they gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading<\/em><\/span>.\u00a0(cf. 8:12)<\/p>\n Luke 24:25-27<\/strong>\u00a0. .\u00a0.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong>\u201cO foolish men, and slow of heart to believe\u00a0all that the prophets have spoken!\u00a0[26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?\u201d [27] And beginning with Moses and all the prophets,\u00a0he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n Luke 24:45<\/strong>\u00a0Then\u00a0he opened their minds to understand the scriptures<\/em>,<\/span><\/p>\n Acts 8:30-31<\/strong>\u00a0So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, \u201cDo you understand what you are reading?<\/em>\u201d<\/span> [31] And he said, \u201cHow can I, unless some one guides me?<\/em>\u201d<\/span> . . .<\/p>\n 2 Peter 1:20<\/strong>\u00a0First of all you must understand this, that\u00a0no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one\u2019s own interpretation<\/em>,<\/span><\/p>\n 2 Peter 3:15-16<\/strong>\u00a0. . . So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, [16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters.\u00a0There are some things in them hard to understand<\/span><\/em>, which\u00a0the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction<\/em><\/span>, as they do the other scriptures.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Therefore, the person who claims to be going by Scripture alone (i.e., the Protestant) must necessarily include the abundant biblical teaching on the necessity of authoritative teachers and interpretation of the same Bible. One is either \u201cbiblical\u201d or not, and the above six passages are in the inspired Bible, after all. Catholics take them to heart. Protestants either don\u2019t at all, or only partially do.<\/p>\n He then places side by side the inspired Scriptures (sufficient to declare the truth) and other works of the Christian teachers. The message is simple \u2013 Scripture is sufficient to declare Christian knowledge, but there are also teachers who are useful and desirable.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s again perfectly harmonious with Catholicism. But where we part is in the notion of infallible teachers. Protestants deny infallibility to anything but Scripture. Catholics allow it for specific teachers (bishops in an ecumenical council, in union with popes, or in popes alone) in particular, highly specified conditions. Athanasius doesn\u2019t deny<\/em> the possibility of infallibility of such teachers in this quotation. Again, Bruno simply reads into it what he wants to (wrongly) believe is present there. We know that elsewhere, St. Athanasius did<\/em> affirm infallible Church and conciliar pronouncements, the Catholic rule of faith, and the binding, infallible nature of doctrines received through apostolic succession and apostolic tradition (all expressly contrary to sola Scriptura<\/em><\/span>):<\/span><\/p>\n But the word of the Lord which came through the\u00a0ecumenical Synod at Nicea, abides forever.\u00a0(Ad Afros <\/i><\/a><\/span><\/span>Epistola Synodica<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>2; in NPNF2, IV:489) But let the Faith confessed by the\u00a0Fathers\u00a0at Nic\u00e6a alone hold good among you, at which all the fathers, including those of the men who now are fighting against it, were present, as we said above, and signed: in order that of us too the Apostle may say, \u2018Now I praise you that you remember me in all things, and as I handed the\u00a0traditions\u00a0to you, so hold them fast\u00a01\u00a0Corinthians\u00a011:2<\/span>.\u2019<\/span> (Ad Afros <\/i><\/a><\/span><\/span>Epistola Synodica<\/a> <\/em>10)<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n For had they believed aright, they would have been satisfied with the confession put forth at Nic\u00e6a by the whole Ecumenical Council; . . . Observe how entirely they disregard the truth, and how everything they say and do is for the sake of the Arian heresy. For in that they dare to question those sound definitions of the faith, and take upon themselves to produce others contrary to them, what else do they but accuse the Fathers, and stand up in defense of that heresy which they opposed and protested against?<\/span> (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae<\/em><\/a>, 5)<\/p>\n Who, then, that has any real regard for\u00a0truth, will be willing to suffer these men any longer? Who will not\u00a0justly reject their writing? Who will not denounce their audacity, that being but few in number, they would have their decisions to prevail over everything, and as desiring the supremacy of their own meetings, held in corners and suspicious in their circumstances, would forcibly cancel the decrees of an uncorrupt, pure, and Ecumenical Council?<\/span> (Ad Episcopos Aegypti et Libyae<\/em><\/a>, 7)<\/p>\n It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0Church, nor did the fathers hold this.<\/span> (Letter No. 59 to Epictetus<\/a>, 3)<\/p>\n What defect of teaching was there for religious\u00a0truth\u00a0in the\u00a0Catholic\u00a0Church . . .?<\/span> (De Synodis<\/em><\/a>, I, 3)<\/p>\n But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, . . .<\/span> (Fragment from Letter No. 29<\/a> [Migne,\u00a0xxvi,<\/i> p. 1189] )<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n It is obvious that these teachers (Athanasius himself was one of them) were fallible teachers.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not obvious to Athanasius (as just shown) that all<\/em> of them are fallible or that no one is ever infallible. Thus, as he thought, the bishops of the Council of Nicaea in 325 made infallible proclamations.<\/span><\/p>\n When we discuss sola scriptura<\/em> and the Church fathers, Catholic apologists fail in one simple respect. It would be easy to demonstrate that a church father did not uphold sola scriptura.<\/span><\/p>\n It sure is<\/em>! Glad to agree on something!<\/p>\n It suffices to demonstrate that Athanasius appealed to an infallible magisterium. He repeatedly appealed to the Scriptures as inspired and infallible, but he never appealed to the supposedly infallible magisterium.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s a false statement, as just demonstrated. Accordingly, \u00a0J. N. D. Kelly, the Anglican patristic scholar, wrote about Athanasius\u2019 views:<\/span><\/p>\n Athanasius, disputing with the Arians, claimed that his own doctrine had been handed down from father to father, whereas they could not produce a single respectable witness to theirs. The Nicene faith embodied the truth which had been believed from the beginning. The fathers of Nicaea, he declared, had merely ratified and passed on the teaching which Christ bestowed and tghe apostles proclaimed; anyone who deviated from it could not count as a Christian. . . .\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n [T]he ancient idea that the Church alone, in virtue of being the home of the Spirit and having preserved the authentic apostolic testimony in her rule of faith, liturgical action and general witness, possesses the indispensable key to Scripture, continued to operate as powerfully as in the days of Irenaeus and Tertullian . . . Athanasius himself, after dwelling on the entire adequacy of Scripture, went on to emphasize the desirability of having sound teachers to expound it. Against the Arians he flung the charge that they would never have made shipwreck of the faith had they held fast as a sheet-anchor to the . . . Church\u2019s peculiar and traditionally handed down grasp of the purport of revelation.\u00a0(Early Christian Doctrines<\/i>, San Francisco: HarperCollins, revised edition, 1978, 45, 47)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Protestant principle never denied the magisterial function of the Church and the usefulness of teachers, theologians, scribes and many others. What we claim is that Scripture is the only unquestioned authority. Church authority is fallible, and in case of conflict with the teaching of Scripture, we are left with the latter.<\/span><\/p>\n Yeah, I know. Athanasius and virtually all of the Church fathers disagree<\/em> with the sola Scriptura<\/em> view. I proved this about Athanasius above beyond all doubt and argument (which is why Bruno will likely not ever reply<\/em> to this paper). It was a novelty introduced by Martin Luther in his 18-day<\/span> Leipzig Disputation<\/a> with Johann Eck in July 1519. I have proven it about most of the most well-known Church fathers in manty articles collected on my Fathers of the Church web page<\/a> (search \u201cBible\/Tradition\u201d).<\/span><\/p>\n Athanasius grounds all of his teachings from Scripture in the 47 chapters of this work.<\/span><\/p>\n This is untrue also. In Against the Heathen<\/em><\/a> 1, 6, 3 he refers to \u201cthe sectaries, who have fallen away from the teaching of the Church, and made shipwreck concerning the Faith.\u201d In 2, 33, 1 he states that \u201cthe soul is made immortal is a further point in the Church\u2019s teaching which you must know, . . .\u201d. He never cites Scripture to establish this in the entire long chapter. He appealed to Church teaching and made various philosophical arguments. I provide another example of his appealing to extrabiblical sources below.<\/span><\/p>\n On the other hand, Athanasius or any other father could write a treatise wholly based on biblical evidences and proofs, just as I have done several hundred times myself. It doesn\u2019t follow from that, that the writer denies the Catholic rule of faith. He\u2019s simply producing biblical argumentation. Protestants \u2014 believe it or not! \u2014 don\u2019t have a monopoly on either love of the Bible or its interpretation.<\/p>\n In another famous work \u2013 \u201cThe Incarnation of the Word\u201d, he says: <\/span><\/p>\n For\u00a0Jews\u00a0in their incredulity may be refuted from the\u00a0Scriptures, which even themselves read; for this text and that, and, in a word, the whole inspired Scripture, cries aloud concerning these things, as even its express words abundantly show. For prophets\u00a0proclaimed beforehand concerning the wonder of the Virgin and the birth from her, saying:\u00a0 Of course, merely mentioning or arguing from the Scriptures does nothing whatsoever to prove that a writer believes in sola Scriptur<\/em>a. Bruno simply assumes that this is the case, but (with just a moment\u2019s reflection) it clearly is not. The totality of a father\u2019s work must be considered. My citations of St. Athanasius are all far<\/em> more relevant to the debate than what he<\/em> is coming up with (two non sequiturs<\/em> thus far).<\/span><\/p>\n See how Athanasius argues that the Hebrew Scriptures (OT) were enough to refute the Jews\u2019 unbelief. From the very Scriptures they read, it would already be possible to believe that Jesus was God. <\/span><\/p>\n Yes; oftentimes this is the case, It proves nothing with regard to whether Athanasius\u2019 believed in sola Scriptura<\/em>. I have already proven that he did not, in showing that he accepted tents directly contrary to sola Scriptura.<\/em><\/p>\n This kind of argument only makes sense if you assume the formal sufficiency of Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n That doesn\u2019t follow at all. It\u2019s undeniably the case that one doesn\u2019t have<\/em> to (logically) believe that only Scripture is infallible<\/em> in order to utilize Scripture in theological argument. A Catholic could make the argument that Athanasius made above, in perfect conformity with his \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d rule of faith (Scripture-tradition-Church). I\u2019ve done it myself, many many times, and I have written more about sola Scriptura<\/em> (denying it) than any other of the hundreds of topics I address as a Catholic apologist.<\/p>\n Someone like Athanasius could (and did) make many arguments from Scripture alone. But he also made arguments of the authority of tradition or councils alone, or from an appeal to apostolic succession alone. And that\u2019s because he believed any of those things could be infallible, just as Scripture is. In his statements about the Council of Nicaea (above), clearly he doesn\u2019t think that it erred at all in its pronouncements, or (so it seems to me) even that it could<\/em> possibly err.<\/p>\n There are other quotes along the same lines: <\/span><\/p>\n For if they do not think these\u00a0proofs\u00a0sufficient, let them be persuaded at any rate by other reasons, drawn from the oracles they themselves possess. (On the Incarnation of the Word<\/em><\/a>, 38, 1)<\/p>\n Or if not even this is sufficient for them, let them at least be silenced by another\u00a0proof, seeing how clear its demonstrative force is. For the\u00a0Scripture\u00a0says: . . . (On the Incarnation of the Word<\/em><\/a>, 38, 3)<\/p>\n [T]hen it must be plain, even to those who are exceedingly obstinate, that the Christ has come, and that He has illumined absolutely all with His light, and given them the true and divine teaching concerning His Father. So one can fairly refute the\u00a0Jews\u00a0by these and by other arguments from the\u00a0Divine Scriptures. (On the Incarnation of the Word<\/em><\/a>, 40,7-8)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He cited Scripture. Great! But (for the billionth time in these foolish discussions) nothing here proves that he held to sola Scriptura<\/em>. They\u2019re consistent<\/em> with sola Scriptura<\/em>, but we don\u2019t have enough information here to conclude that he holds<\/em> that view. Such utterances are also perfectly consistent with the Catholic rule of faith.<\/p>\n Throughout the work Athanasius quotes Scripture abundantly.<\/span><\/span> Tradition and the Church are never cited as independent authorities.<\/span><\/span> All allusions to them are connected with some teaching clearly expounded in Scripture.<\/span><\/span> In the same work he says:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0Who then is he of whom the\u00a0Divine Scriptures\u00a0say this? Or who is so great that even the\u00a0prophets\u00a0predict of him such great things? None else, now, is found in the\u00a0Scriptures\u00a0but the common Saviour of all, the\u00a0Word of God,\u00a0our Lord Jesus Christ. (On the Incarnation of the Word<\/em><\/a>, 37, 3)<\/p>\n Since then nothing is said in the\u00a0Scriptures, it is evident that these things had never taken place before. (On the Incarnation of the Word<\/em><\/a>, 38, 5)<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n All this proves is that in this particular work he made only scriptural arguments; nothing more than that. In others he uses a different methodology: and one that proves that he doesn\u2019t hold to sola Scriptura<\/em>. Bruno simply ignores those<\/em>. I don\u2019t, because I present the whole<\/em> truth. Bruno\u2019s approach is \u201cout of sight, out of mind . . .\u201d (whenever a patristic citation contradicts Protestantism\u2019s traditions of men). That won\u2019t do when I\u2019m<\/em> around: scrutinizing arguments to see if they can withstand close examination.<\/p>\n Note that the presupposition is that if Scripture was silent, nothing could be said. <\/span><\/p>\n That goes far beyond the point he was making, which was simply that Scripture would have plausibly recorded certain things if indeed they had happened. He was commenting on prophecies having to do with the coming of the Messiah, Christ. Since prophecies were in the Bible, obviously a discussion of them would also remain within the text of the Bible. Here is the larger passage, which provides the full context:<\/p>\n [T]he prophecy\u00a0not only indicates that God is to sojourn here, but it announces the signs and the time of His coming. For they connect the blind recovering their sight, and the lame walking, and the deaf hearing, and the tongue of the stammerers being made plain, with the Divine Coming which is to take place. Let them say, then, when such signs have come to pass in\u00a0Israel, or where in Jewry anything of the sort has occurred. 5. Naaman, a\u00a0leper, was cleansed, but no deaf man heard nor lame walked. Elias raised a dead man; so did Eliseus; but none blind from birth regained his sight. For in good\u00a0truth, to raise a dead man is a great thing, but it is not like the wonder wrought by the Saviour. Only, if Scripture has not passed over the case of the\u00a0leper, and of the dead son of the\u00a0widow, certainly, had it come to pass that a lame man also had walked and a blind man recovered his sight, the narrative would not have omitted to mention this also. Since then nothing is said in the\u00a0Scriptures, it is evident that these things had never taken place before. 6. When, then, have they taken place, save when the\u00a0Word of God Himself came in the body? Or when did He come, if not when lame men walked, and stammerers were made to speak plain, and deaf men heard, and men blind from birth regained their sight? (On the Incarnation of the Word<\/em><\/a>, 38, 4-6)<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now compare this to Catholic apologists who say that Scripture is an incomplete record, that there are several other records that we must obey independently of Scripture.<\/span><\/p>\n We believe that Scripture is incomplete because Scripture itself<\/em> teaches it:<\/p>\n Mark 4:33<\/strong> With many such parables he spoke the word to them, . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n By implication, many parables are not recorded in Scripture.<\/p>\n Mark 6:34<\/strong> . . . he began to teach them many things.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n None of these \u201cmany things\u201d are recorded in the immediate context.<\/p>\n John 20:30<\/strong> Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;<\/p>\n John 21:25<\/strong> But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.<\/p>\n Acts 1:2-3<\/strong> . . . to the apostles . . . [3] . . . he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing to them during forty days, and speaking of the kingdom of God.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Only very few of these appearances are recorded. In just one appearance, if Jesus had talked to the disciples for an entire evening, the amount of words might possibly have been more than those in the entire New Testament. And He appeared for forty days.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n<\/span><\/span><\/p>\nLo, the Matthew\u00a01:23;\u00a0Isaiah\u00a07:14<\/span>\u00a0Virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a Son, and they shall call his name\u00a0Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us.<\/q> (On the Incarnation of the Word<\/em><\/a>, 33, 3)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n