Many Protestant apologists (e.g., James White) claim that Athanasius(297-373)
held a view of Scripture similar to that of Reformed Protestants (i.e., it
being formally sufficient and the ultimate authority, with all other authorities
[e.g., creeds; traditions] being subordinated to such). On the topic of Sola
Scriptura itself, see:
I have a brief discussion of Athanasius therein. Interestingly,
Athanasius made comments about the Apocrypha (“Deuterocanonical books”) in a way
that would “trigger” John Calvin et al. As Gary Michuta, a Catholic apologist,
noted:
He not only
explicitly calls the deuterocanonical books “Scripture” [198], but he uses them
to confirm doctrine both in defense of the Faith against pagans and against his
most vociferous opponents, the Arians. For example, Athanasius quotes Wisdom
6:18 as a proof that knowledge of God leads to immortality [199]. In his work, Concerning the Opinion of Dionysius, 9,
Athanasius defends the orthodoxy of Dionysius by using Wisdom 7:25 [200]. In
his work, Defense of the Nicene
Definition, 5, 20, Athanasius explains that the fathers of the Council of
Nicaea wished to define the relationship of the Son to the Father using images
from Wisdom 7;26 [201]. He even uses Baruch and Wisdom to explain the
consubstantiality of the Father and Son [202]!
Notes for the Above
[198] For example,
Athanasius in his work Against the
Heathen, 1, 17, 3, cites Wisdom 14:21 as “Scripture” and later in the same
work (Against the Heathen, 2, 44), he
places the words of Wisdom 13:5 on the lips of the Son in On the Opinion of Dionysius, 9, Wisdom 7:25 coming “from the
Scripture.” He also quotes the deuterocanon explicitly as “Scripture” in the
anti-Arian work, Four Discourses Against
the Arians, 2, 32, which seems to quote Wisdom 13:5 as Scripture in our Discourses Against the Arians, 2,
35, he quotes Judith 8:16 as “Scripture.” And in Four Discourses Against the Arians, 2, 45, he cites Wisdom 9:2
within a series of citations from “divine scriptures.” Even more telling is his
use of the deuterocanon in the Letter of
the Council of Egypt, 3, that quoted Wisdom 1:11 as “holy Scripture” and
later in the same chapter quotes Psalms 49:16 and Sirach 15:9 as the words of
the Holy Spirit. Also, in his letter to Alexander of Thessalonica (284-305)
Athanasius cites Sirach 30:4 as “holy Scripture.”
[199] Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word, 4.
[200] Athanasius
writes, “And Dionysius accordingly acted as he learned from the apostles. For
as the heresy of Sabellius was creeping on, he was compelled as I said before,
to write the aforesaid latter, and to hurl as them what is said of the Savior
in reference to his manhood and his humiliation, so as to bar them by reason of
his human attributes from saying that the Father was a son, and so render
easier for them the teaching concerning the Godhead of the Son, when in his
other letters he calls him from the scriptures the word [John 1:1], wisdom [1
Cor. 1:24, 30], power [1 Cor. 1:24], breath [Wis. 7:25], and brightness of the
Father [Wis. 7:26; Heb. 1:3].”
[201] Athanasius
wrote, “Again, when the bishops said that the Word must be described as the true
power and image of the Father, in all things exact and like the Father, and as
unalterable, and as always, and as in him without division (for never was the
Word not, but he was always, existing everlastingly with the Father, as the
radiance of light.” Compare this with Wisdom 7:26: “For she [God’s wisdom] is a
reflection of eternal light, a spotless mirror of the working of God, and an
image of his goodness.”
[202] “Thus they have
called the Father the Fount of Wisdom (Bar. 3:12) and Life (Ps. 36:9; Prov.
13:14), and the Son the Radiance of the Eternal Light (Wis. 7:26), and the
Offspring from the Fountain, as he says, ‘I am the life,’ and, ‘I wisdom dwell
with prudence’ (Prov. 8:12; John 14:6). But the Radiance from the Light, and
Offspring from Fountain, and Son from Father, how can these be so fitly
expressed as by ‘coessential’ [homoioousios]?
And is there any cause of fear, lest, because the offspring from men are
coessential, the Son, by being called coessential, be himself considered as a human
offspring too? Perish the thought! Not so; but the explanation is easy. For the
Son is the Father’s word and wisdom; whence we learn the impassibility and indivisibility
of such a generation from the Father . . . [Athanasius concludes later in the
next paragraph] . . .though we know God to be a Father, we entertain no
material ideas concerning him, but while we listen to these illustrations and
terms, we think suitably of God, for he is not as man, so in lie manner, when
we hear of ‘coessential’, we ought to transcend all sense, and, according to
the proverb, ‘understand by the understanding what is set before us’ (Prov.
23:1); so as to now, that not by will, but in truth, is he genuine from the
Father, as Life from Fountain, and Radiance from Light.” (Gary Michuta, Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger [2d ed.;
El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2017], 122, 345-47)
