Athanasius' Use of the Apocrypha/Deuterocanon: Proof Athanasius Did Not Hold to Sola Scriptura

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:

Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura

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)

Sirach Listed as part of the "Writings" in the Talmud (Baba Kamma 92b)

In Baba (alt. Bava) Kamma 92b, a text in the Babylonian Talmud, we read the following:

Rabba bar Mari explains each of the sources. It is written in the Torah, as it is written: “And so Esau went to Ishmael” (Genesis 28:9). It is repeated in the Prophets, as it is written: “And there were gathered vain fellows to Yiftah, and they went out with him” (Judges 11:3). And it is triplicated in the Writings, as it is written: All fowl will live with its kind, and men with those like him (Book of Ben Sira 13:17). We learned it in a mishna (Kelim 12:2): All that is attached to that which is ritually impure is ritually impure; all that is attached to that which is ritually pure is ritually pure. And we learned it in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: Not for naught did the starling go to the raven but because it is its kind, as it too is a non-kosher bird. (source)

What is interesting about this text is that the book of Sirach, part of the Apocrypha is among the “Writings,” one of the three divisions of the Old Testament (the other two being the Law and the Prophets).

Ryan Larsen, Multiple Versions Of CES Letter History

Ryan Larsen has a new post showing that Jeremy Runnells is not acting in good faith in his attacks on the Church:

Multiple Versions Of CES Letter History

A while ago, Ryan wrote some good responses to some of Runnells' "arguments"; one can find them at:

Answers to CES Letter Questions and Concerns, Part I

Epiphany Christology in the Book of Mormon

The KJV of 1 Tim 3:16 reads:

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on the world, received up into glory.

Modern translations read slightly differently; instead of "God" many modern translations read "he [who]" such as:

Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is great: He was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed in throughout the world, taken up in glory. (NRSV)

By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on the world, Taken up in glory. (NASB)

The reason for this variation is due to the earliest manuscripts of this verse reads ΟΣ “he who,” not ΘΣ, an abbreviation (nomina sacra) of θεος, the Greek word for “God,” something that even conservative New Testament scholars admit (e.g. Philip Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary [Tyndale House Publishers, 2008]). Notwithstanding, one should not have a knee-jerk reaction and use this as “proof” that “modern translations” downplay the divinity of Jesus (an attitude one, sadly, has encountered among LDS, not just some non-LDS, too). Even with “he [who]” the author affirms the personal pre-existence of Jesus as this is part-and-parcel of the “Epiphany Christology” of the Pastoral Epistles. As one scholar noted:

the subject of the construction is clearly not God or any of his qualities or attributes, but Jesus Christ, who was revealed/appeared ἐν σαρκί, in a human body. Seen in the language of revelation this dative construction contains a profound christological implication... while ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί is not a categorical assertion of Christ's pre-existence and his incarnational ministry and does not explicitly tell us of the mystery's hiddenness and subsequent revelation, the language and thought of line 1 echo that used elsewhere in the NT to depict how the Son of God had entered history, incarnated at a particular moment in time (cf. 'came into the world' - 1 Tim. 1.15; cf. 2.5-6); ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί indeed can be understood in terms of the revelation and the execution of God's salvation-plan in the historical (incarnate) appearing of Christ on earth. (Andrew Y. Lau, Manifest in the Flesh: The Epiphany Christology of the Pastoral Epistles [Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1996], 98-99)

Interesting, this is found in the Book of Mormon:

And he said unto me: Because of thy faith in Christ, whom thou hast never before heard nor seen. And many years pass away before he shall manifest himself in the flesh; wherefore, go to, thy faith hath made thee whole. (Enos 1:8; Other texts that speak of the then-future Messiah being manifested "in the flesh" include 2 Nephi 6:9; 25:12; 32:6; Jacob 4:11)

What is interesting is that this verse does not say “God shall manifest himself” but “he [Christ] will manifest himself” in the flesh as the earliest texts of 1 Tim 3:16 does (note: I am not arguing that the Book of Mormon is dependent upon this verse, just found it interesting). Notwithstanding personally pre-existing, Jesus manifested himself “in the flesh” in the Christology of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, showing that being truly human and personally pre-existent is not incompatible with one another, especially in light of how LDS theology holds to “universal pre-existence” (for more, see: The Christological Necessity of Universal Pre-Existence)

Incidentally, 1 Tim 3:16 is a strong refutation of the forensic model of justification as understood by Protestants (esp. Calvinists). See, for e.g.:

Critique of John Calvin on 1 Timothy 3:16 and Forensic Justification

Two Popular Catholic Apologists Address Theodicy

Latter-day Saints have addressed the issue of “theodicy” (explanation of the problem of evil). The most notable LDS to have done such in recent years is that of Blake Ostler. See, for e.g.:

Sin, Suffering, and Soul-Making: Joseph Smith on the Problem of Evil (with David L. Paulsen)

See also these two episodes from his (excellent) Exploring Mormon Thought podcast series:

EP60-WHAT WE LEARN FROM THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (PT 1)

EP61-WHAT WE LEARN FROM THE PROBLEM OF EVIL (PT 2)

LDS readers of this blog might be interested in the following which presents a Roman Catholic (mixed with some presuppositionalism) response to the problem of evil:

You know how the argument goes: If an all-good and all-powerful God existed, then he would not allow evil to exist. Because evil does exist, an all-good and all-powerful God must not exist . . .this classic argument for atheism . .. can be dismantled on two levels.

First, this assertion is an unsound deductive argument. It’s unsound because it assumes the truth of a premise that cannot be known. It takes for granted that an all-good and all-powerful God could not or would not allow evil to exist even for a limited time. And since evil does exist, the God Christians and others believe in cannot exist. Well, if it’s true that an all-good and all-powerful God could not or would not allow evil to exist even for a limited period of time, then, of course, the argument works.

But how does the atheist know that an all-good and all-powerful God could not no possible reason for allowing evil to exist for a time? Of course, he cannot know this. In fact, a good, loving, and all-powerful God might conceivably have a number of reasons for allowing evil to exist for a time—and, apparently, He does.

It may be hard for us to understand why God allows evil, but the existence of evil does not prove the non-existence of God.

But on a deeper, more profound level, the so-called “problem of evil” becomes a problem not for the believer but for the atheist. The argument twists and turns to fall on the head of the one attempting to make it by actually arguing strongly for the existence of God. Ironically, it’s only on the basis of a theistic worldview, in which God exists and provides an objective moral standard, that we can call anything objectively “evil.”

Richard Dawkins . . . presents the “problem of evil” in traditional fashion to disprove the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God, But for all his attempts, neither he nor any atheist can really speak about “good” and “evil,” if they are to be consistent. For if there is no supreme standard of “good,” which would be God, then nothing can be rightly called “good” or “evil.” Everything just is. And, therefore, any given human act, such as murdering an old woman for the money in her purse, or starving homosexuals, amputees, or mentally ill people to death because they are inconvenient to have around, cannot really be classified as “evil.” You may not like those actions—but if God does exist, you have no basis higher than your own private preferences for labeling them as “evil” or demanding that other people not do those things. (Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley, The Godless Delusion: A Catholic Challenge to Modern Atheism [Huntington, Ind.: Our Sunday Visitor, 2010], 89-91)

Phil Porvaznik vs. Presuppositionalist Apologetics

Catholic apologist Phil Porvaznik, in his review of Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley’s The Godless Delusion (2010), has a very cogent critique of presuppositionalist apologetics:

In chapter two ("A Solution to the Delusion"), we find a version of "presuppositional" apologetics used, what you normally see in the hardcore anti-Catholic Reformed writers (e.g. Greg Bahnsen):

"This book is an exercise in what is called the presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics...When Christian apologists argue 'presuppositionally,' we seek to compare and contrast the theistic and naturalist worldviews, in order to show our atheist friend that while our worldview makes sense of human experience, his does not." (p. 38-39).

Unfortunately, this is basically the only argument in the book, and presuppositionalism itself has been very well critiqued (by even fellow Christian apologists) as being circular and invalid (the logical fallacy of petitio principii, "assuming the initial point" or "begging the question"). Presuppositional apologists themselves admit their brand of "apologetics" is indeed "circular" (but still valid?, see Van Til quotes below). Although I don't want to misrepresent the book. The authors don't quote or seem to rely on Cornelius van Til (the "father" of presuppositionalism) or Greg Bahnsen (the best modern defender of presuppositionalism) or Reformed writers at all. The Godless Delusion is mainly a "comparison of worldviews" (naturalism vs. Christian theism) with a reductio ad absurdum (or "reduction to the absurd") tossed in against the atheist. That is just part of the presuppositional case they are using in their arguments against atheism, and those parts need not be circular.

While they do call their main argument "presuppositional" apologetics, they don't go as far as Van Til or the following statements from The Portable Presuppositionalist. For example, their moral argument basically comes from C.S. Lewis, not van Til. They also do a good job showing how a purely "evolutionary" or "naturalistic" origin of humanity (or a "naturalistic worldview") makes it difficult to explain free will, love, the mind/soul, consciousness, truth, knowledge, ethics, etc while a "theistic Christian worldview" makes better sense of these phenomena. It doesn't "prove" Christian theism in my opinion, but does make atheism implausible (or much less plausible).

What exactly is presuppositionalism, according to the presuppositionalists themselves? Here are some choice quotes from The Portable Presuppositionalist, which summarizes leading presuppositional apologists as Cornelius van Til, Greg Bahnsen, John Frame, and others:

"...Van Til said that the Christian God and the truth of Scripture is the only possible explanation for anything at all...in order to argue against Christianity, you have to first assume that it is true....the Christian must...assume Christianity is true before and while arguing that it is true...." (The Portable Presuppositionalist, page 32, 33); "If Jesus Christ is really Lord over all, Van Til argued, then the human mind (or consciousness) is not the ultimate and permanent starting point in reasoning; God is....Notice the sheer weight of Van Til's thought at this point. If his philosophy...is correct, then the entire method of Thomas Aquinas, the evidentialism of Warfield, and the majority of their modern day followers...are defective. They are fundamentally flawed." (TPP, page 37-38); "....the transcendental argument is in fact, the most powerful argument ever known -- for it reveals the necessary basis for any and all arguments, human predication, and intelligible human experience....Van Til's argument is not irrational or contrary to logic -- it is the very foundation for rationality, logic, and in fact, everything else that can be interpreted and experienced by the human being." (TPP, page 64, 65); "God as the Creator is Himself and His Word the ultimate starting point." (TPP, page 68); "...the presuppositionalist insists that God first be called the 'universal presupposition necessary for life and for the ordering of knowledge,' and that God be called 'the foundation upon which all rationality is established,' and the 'necessary precondition for any and all science.' Why? Because logic is not the self-existent Creator of all things, God is!" (TPP, page 77, emphasis in original); "The traditionalist wants to assert that the laws of logic are the superior starting point for knowledge, science, and apologetic discourse...We cannot have knowledge of God without logic. However, we can have God without the laws of logic, or at least our formal understanding of those laws....God is inherently more ultimate than logic." (TPP, page 77, emphasis in original); "The presuppositionalist maintains that we should presuppose the authority and divinity of Christ and His Word just like Paul does in Colossians 2. God is self-existent and self-validating because of who He is (his nature). God's Word is self-attesting and self-verifying because of what It is (the nature of God's Word); there is no higher standard by which to make truth claims. That is what is meant by a presuppositionalist, 'circular argument.' The beginning and end of the presuppositionalist argument is the same. It starts where it ends." (TPP, page 85-86); "To simply believe in God's Word because it is God's Word is to reason presuppositionally....The presupposition that the Bible is the Word of God is not arbitrary; it is A.) morally demanded by God, and B.) the only assumption that is philosophically sufficient to provide a worldview that can explain logic, ethics, science, human predication and the possibility of any and all knowledge." (TPP, page 94, 95)

Let's summarize the supposed "case for God" based on the "presuppositional" method outlined above:

o   God is assumed or presupposed to exist; the Christian God and the truth of Scripture is the "only possible explanation for anything at all";

o   To argue FOR or AGAINST "Christianity" you must assume it is true;

o   We don't start with the self, the mind, logic or reason; we start with God as the "ultimate and permanent starting point";

o   All evidential and classical argumentation, the entire method of Thomas Aquinas, the majority of modern proponents and their reasoning is defective, it is fundamentally flawed;

o   The "transcendental argument for God" (TAG) is the most powerful argument ever known; it is the basis for any and all arguments and intelligible human experience;

o   We can't begin with logic since logic is not the Creator of all things, God is; in fact, we can have God without any laws of logic;

o   We should presuppose the authority and divinity of Christ and His Word; God and God's Word (the Bible) is self-validating, self-attesting, self-verifying;

o   The presuppositional argument is indeed a "circular argument" since the beginning and end of the argument is the same;

o   Believe in God's Word because it is God's Word is to "reason presuppositionally";

o   this is not arbitrary since this is "morally demanded by God" (where? in the Bible, of course);

o   the presuppositional approach is philosophically sufficient to provide a worldview that explains logic, ethics, science, human predication, and all knowledge;

I maintain there cannot be such a "Catholic presuppositionalist" given the statements above. It is inherently a Reformed and anti-Catholic method (Van Til spoke often of the "Romanists" and Arminians) of "Christian apologetics." It is subjective; it is circular; it is based on mere assertions; it is not an argument; it denigrates and confuses logic and reason with God; it rejects Thomas Aquinas; and it rejects the First Vatican Council which says that "God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason." The traditional Catholic approach is to start with logic, common sense, and reason, and end with God. These are linear arguments (not circular). God has indeed given us our reason since God is the God of truth and reason (Isaiah 1:18; 65:16), but we don't start with "God" as that would be circular and invalidate any argument for God.

Matthew B. Brown on JS-H 1:28

In JS-H 1:28, we read:

During the space of time which intervened between the time I had the vision and the year eighteen hundred and twenty-three having been forbidden to join any of the religious sects of the day, and being of very tender years, and persecuted by those who ought to have been my friends and to have treated me kindly, and if they supposed me to be deluded to have endeavored in a proper and affectionate manner to have reclaimed me I was left to all kinds of temptations; and, mingling with all kinds of society, I frequently fell into many foolish errors, and displayed the weakness of youth, and the foibles of human nature; which, I am sorry to say, led me into divers temptations, offensive in the sight of God. In making this confession, no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins. A disposition to commit such was never in my nature. But I was guilty of levity, and sometimes associated with jovial company, etc., not consistent with that character which ought to be maintained by one who was called of God as I had been. But this will not seem very strange to any one who recollects my youth, and is acquainted with my native cheery temperament.

Commenting on this and various issues raised by critics, Matthew B. Brown in Historical or Hysterical: Anti-Mormons and Documentary Sources wrote:

Next, there is the anti-Mormon accusation that Joseph Smith’s behavior was so scandalous during his youth that Church leaders changed his official history after he died in order to cover up his misdeeds and ‘purify’ his character. The evidence offered in support of this claim is the history that is now published in the Pearl of Great Price, which can be seen on the left-hand portion of this slide. It is claimed that the words highlighted in red were fraudulently added to the text. These words, as the critics are eager to point out, were not in the 1842 version of the Church history as printed in the Times and Seasons.[9] But what they fail to mention is that the portion in red was written on 2 December 1842 (while Joseph Smith was still alive and kicking and just months after his official history had been printed). In addition, they fail to acknowledge that these words are in the handwriting of Willard Richards, who served as the Prophet’s private clerk and scribe. It should also be noted that this material is written in the first person, which means that Joseph Smith is most likely the source of these words.

But critics take the charge of tampering with this text even further. They point out that the word “foibles” was inserted into the original manuscript as a replacement for the word “corruption” and the phrase “to the gratification of many appetites”–though present in the original manuscript–has been completely deleted in the Pearl of Great Price. I would respond that if these editorial adjustments were really meant to cover up embarrassing facts about the Prophet’s youth then the perpetrators did a very poor job of it since the original manuscript version was, in fact, published before the world in 1842 (both in the United States and in England) and reprinted in various pro-Mormon publications in 1878, 1882, 1883, and 1909.[10] Tampering? Not hardly. Cover-up? The evidence refutes such an idea.

Some anti-Mormons have gone so far as to interpret some wording that is found in the 1842 published history to mean that when Joseph Smith was between ten and twenty-one years of age he “abandoned himself freely to a variety of youthful vices.”[11] But this view is directly challenged by a letter that was published by Joseph Smith in December 1834. In this document–which is reproduced here on this slide–the Prophet acknowledges that between the ages of ten and twenty-one he “fell into many vices and follies.” But he refutes accusations of engaging in “gross and outrageous violations of the peace and good order of the community.” He also denies charges of “wrongdoing” and declares himself innocent of “injuring any man or society of men.” So what exactly were his “vices and follies”? He states quite clearly in this letter that he had a “light and too often vain mind,” an “uncircumspect walk,” and participated in “foolish and trifling conversation.”[12] This doesn’t exactly sound like young Joseph was the appalling reprobate that anti-Mormons make him out to be. It sounds much more like a typical teenage boy who doesn’t take heed to the consequences of his actions or to the appropriateness of some of his verbal expressions.

Notes for the Above

⁹ Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality? (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, 1987), chapter 7.

¹⁰ See Times and Seasons, vol. 3, no. 11, 1 April 1842, 749; Millennial Star, vol. 3, no. 2, June 1842, 22-23; Edward W. Tullidge, Life of Joseph the Prophet (New York: Tullidge and Crandall, 1878), 7-8; Juvenile Instructor, vol. 17, no. 19, 1 October 1882, 300 (by George Reynolds); George Reynolds, The Myth of the Manuscript Found (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1883), 55-56; Brigham H. Roberts, New Witnesses for God (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1909), 1:181.

¹¹ Frazer’s Magazine, February 1873.

¹² Messenger and Advocate, vol. 1, no. 3, December 1834, 40.