[0:00]Recently, Redeem Zomer hosted a debate between myself and the Protestant apologist Anglican aesthetics on the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Most of the audience, while impressed with the scholastic rhetoric, came away confused, especially since the argument I used is relatively unheard of, unless one has read the polemics of the Jesuits in the 19th century known as the Scola Romana. In today's video, I am going to be systematically presenting in my opinion the strongest argument against Sola Scriptura. This argument is known as the argument from authenticity. This video will provide an in-depth framework for this argument that is not possible in a limited debate setting. However, before the argument can be officially presented, some preambles need to be laid out. These preambles include what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is, what authenticity is, and the self-evident axiom this argument hinges on, that all agents act for an end. Before I proceed into the topic of this video, I would humbly ask if you enjoyed the video, to please leave a like and subscribe. Also, follow me on Twitter at Door-Tomist. Thank you and God bless. First, the definition for the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that scripture alone is the rule of faith. This is the clear formulation utilized by classical Protestant authors. Here is a small sample size. The Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhardt writes, "From these statements of David, Isaiah, and Paul, it is evident that the name 'canon' has been given to Scripture not by human decision but by God Himself and, hence, that God Himself has presented and committed Scripture to us as the only rule of faith and life." The Anglican theologian James Todd writes, "Therefore, seeing that the Holy Scriptures are unquestionably and admittedly God's Word, we maintain that they are the rule of faith, and as they contain all God's Word, which we have, or which can be proved to be such, we say that they are the only rule of faith." Another Anglican theologian by the name of William Goode writes, "When speaking of the Holy Scripture as the only certain depository or teacher of divine revelation, and the sole rule of Faith, we apply the words in the strictest sense of the terms, as implying that which binds the conscience to the reception of whatever it may deliver, not as signifying that it is the only guide to the truth." The Reformation polemicist William Whitaker writes in his response to Stapleton, "For it is to be held undoubtingly, as we shall hereafter prove most largely, that the revealed and written word of God is the sole rule of faith...If he feign another rule of faith besides the written word of God, we reject, repudiate, and refuse to acknowledge any such, and reduce the whole rule of the catholic faith to the scripture alone." Lastly, the reformed theologian, Louis Le Blanc, "But the difference is in this, that we contend that all things which are necessary to faith and religion, can be so sought and proved from Scripture, that there is no need of another principle of faith, to which Scripture remits us to be more fully instructed. Nor also do we acknowledge any principle and rule of faith outside of Scripture." To put it simply, a rule of faith is that which can bind the conscience in of itself before God and demand the assent of faith irrevocably. So, the dispute between Protestants and Catholics really stems from which authorities qua their own authority can demand the assent of faith. This should be relatively easy to understand given that on the temporal plane, rightful authorities can command and prohibit certain external acts. Therefore, on the spiritual plane, the state of the question concerns what authorities can command qua their own authority certain internal acts, namely the assent of faith. Protestants believe that scripture alone can bind the conscience in of itself, while Catholics affirm that along with scripture, tradition and the Magisterium can bind the conscience qua their own authority. This does not mean, however, that Protestants deny that tradition and the church have conscience binding authority. Rather, it is only in virtue of scripture. Next, the charism of authenticity must be defined. Father Shaban explains this charism as such, "Proclamation is called official insofar as it proceeds from someone to whom it is entrusted habitually with the commission to carry it out, as it does in a human situation from heralds.
[3:53]It is called authentic insofar as a public dignity or a public prestige is conferred with the commission, by dint of which the holder is habitually enabled to vouch independently for the truth of his proclamation and to produce and to demand faith in it in a larger or smaller circle, as is the case in a human situation with public witnesses, e.g., notaries.
[4:14]Finally, it is called authoritative insofar as the one responsible for it also formally represents God's magisterial power over the creation subject to Him, and as God's real representative participates in it in such a way that he can imperatively demand faith, and at the same time oblige others to carry it out, as is the case in a human situation with a judge." The charism of authenticity denotes a certain endowment bestowed on divine legates to witness to the truth as God's rightful magistrates, and demand the assent of faith irrevocably, qua their own authority as a rule of faith. Protestants deny that this charism exists beyond the apostolic age, as opposed to Catholics who affirm it as a perpetual charism for the church. Hence, to prove that this charism was intended by Christ to be perpetual is to disprove Sola Scriptura, which posits scripture alone as the rule of faith. Lastly, a brief overview of first principles and the particular one that this argument hinges on, that all agents act for an end. In philosophy there are self-evident axioms known as first principles, which cannot be demonstrated, however, to deny these first principles, is to fall under a reductio ad absurdum.
[5:18]The most commonly known among first principles is the law of non-contradiction, namely that being is not non-being. While this proposition cannot be demonstrated, to deny this first principle is to render one unable to make truth claims. For example, if one denies the law of non-contradiction, to say Christian B. Wagner exists, cannot be true because the proposition that Christian B. Wagner does not exist is equally true. For the argument of authenticity, it operates off of the self-evident axiom that all agents act for an end. To deny this is absurd because it renders one unable to specify the purpose of any act. For instance, one would be unable to explain why the eye's purpose is for sight as opposed to hearing or tasting. The self-evident axiom applies to each and every decision we make in our daily lives. For example, when a man goes to the store to pick up medicine, he must drive his car to reach the store. The end is picking up the medicine from the store, and driving the car to the store is the means to achieve the end. In the order of intention, the end is willed prior to the means, but in the order of execution, the means is willed prior to the end. The self-evident axiom also applies to God's intention for his divine economy as the primary agent. As creatures, we are only considered secondary agents. Keep in mind this is due to the fact that the intellect and will follow from being, and our being as creatures is merely contingent, as opposed to God who alone is necessary being. Catholics and Protestants agree that God intended certain ends for his church in accordance with the divine economy. However, the dispute arises over the means to attain these certain ends. One only needs to exegete the endings of the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles to illustrate the framework our Lord intended for his church. Our Lord proclaims in the ending of St. Matthew's gospel, "All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going, therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world." In the ending of St. Matthew's gospel, Christ the Lord sends out the apostles as his authentic envoys that are to teach authoritatively as his magistrates and to present his revelation to all the nations. The sending out of the apostles parallels God the Father sending his only begotten son to establish the kingdom of God here on earth. This is why St. Peter in the book of Acts did not tell Ananias that he lied to men, but to God himself, because Ananias withheld his money from those envoys of Christ who have been entrusted to act with the authority of God himself. "Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God." The authority that Christ the Lord bestows on the apostolate is identical to the authority our Lord proclaims for himself throughout the Gospels as having been sent by his heavenly Father. "He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you." The First Truth has guaranteed the success of the apostolate's mission because the First Truth cannot promise that which will not be accomplished. In order to accomplish the commands Christ has left for his authentic envoys, he has promised certain endowments to fulfill those commands. The endowments are the means to the end, and the fulfillment of the command is to achieve the proper end. Hence, we can distinguish those endowments that are transient and those that are perpetual based on the following principle. If the command has not been fulfilled, then the endowment remains because it is the means to a particular end. Likewise, if the command has been fulfilled, then the endowment is transient. The threefold endowment for the apostolate is thus: infallibility to preserve the formal object of faith, motives of credibility to give all men a rational certitude of the Apostles' authenticity, and divine sanction that all men are to submit to Christ's revelation under pain of eternal damnation. The first endowment is demonstrated from Christ's promises given during the Last Supper. "And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you." "Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world." From the Last Supper discourse, it can be concluded that from authenticity flows forth infallibility. This infallibility isn't based on some logical or intrinsic necessity. Rather, it is the necessary conclusion that follows from the First Truth sending out men to act as his magistrates. The First Truth as the author of truth cannot be deemed an author of lies. Hence those men sent to act as his representatives, cannot err when they teach authentically and authoritatively in his name. As stated earlier, our Lord confirms in the Last Supper discourse, as well that the apostles are sent out to preach his revelation in the same authoritative manner as Christ the Lord was sent by his everlasting Father. Keep in mind that the authenticity and infallibility of Christ's envoys is grounded in the fact that revelation is ordinarily received mediately. Thus, Father Marine Sola writes, "But in revelation there is not only the object revealed, but also the person to whom the revelation is made. This person can receive the divine revelation in two ways: first, directly from God without any interposition of other men; secondly, not directly from God, but through other men to whom the revelation was made by God, or perhaps through other men who by successive generations have been receiving it from those to whom the revelation was first and directly made by God. In the first case the revelation is immediate because there is no man in between God who reveals and the man to whom He reveals. The contrary happens in the second case, and thus the revelation is mediate. Obviously, this distinction of revelation into immediate and mediate is made from the viewpoint of the person, not from the viewpoint of the object. What matters in this case is not whether the object has been revealed in itself or in another; what matters is whether the person has received the revelation immediately from God, or through other men." The second and third endowments are demonstrated from the ending to St. Mark's Gospel. "And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned. And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed." In the ending of St. Mark's Gospel, Christ the Lord bestows the second endowment by listing various miracles his legates will perform to authenticate their message. These are the motives of credibility so that men are without excuse for a lack of submission to his revelation. The third endowment, which is divine sanction, is obvious because all men who failed to submit to Christ's revelation and are incorporated into Christ's mystical body through baptism are condemned to eternal damnation. Now that the threefold endowment has been demonstrated, the perpetuity of authenticity can be proven by the following. From the ending of St. Matthew's Gospel, our Lord endowed the apostles with authenticity as a means to fulfill the end he has commanded, namely the promulgation of divine revelation to all the nations. The proper end has not been attained, therefore, the means to attain that end remain. We can draw out the perpetuity of authenticity as well from the following passages. "But you shall receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you, and you shall be witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and even to the uttermost part of the earth." "How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent...Faith then cometh by hearing; and hearing by the word of Christ." In the beginning of Acts, our Lord promises his apostles with the Holy Spirit on high to empower them as his witnesses to all the nations. However, since revelation has not been presented to all the nations with the death of the apostles, this particular end has not been achieved, therefore the endowment remains. In his letter to the Romans, St. Paul argues via a reductio ad absurdum that individuals cannot come to confess faith in Christ without preachers being sent. Hence those envoys sent to preach Christ's revelation authentically are perpetual, as it is the ordinary means the doctrine of Christ is to be presented again and again in a suitable manner for all the nations and in all ages, so that all men may have the sufficient means to come to faith in Christ. This mode of promulgation for the apostolic deposit did not cease with the death of the apostles. This is already been sufficiently demonstrated from St. Paul's letter to the Romans, and further proven from the fact that the apostles appointed successors to guard the apostolic deposit entrusted to them. "I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming, and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine." Here we see St. Paul's command to St. Timothy is practically identical to the commands Christ gives to his apostles at the end of the Gospels. Therefore, since Christ's commandment was not fulfilled with the death of the apostles, the endowment to fulfill that command remains. St. Paul has rightfully commanded his successor, acting as God's magistrate. Hence, the endowment which is authenticity for the fulfillment of that command remains. This rightful passing on of authority can be practically demonstrated from the earliest apostolic fathers, such as St. Clement of Rome. "The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry." Furthermore, St. Ignatius of Antioch attests that the faithful are to submit to their bishop as they were to submit to Christ himself, mirroring how the apostles were sent out in the same manner as Christ was sent by his Father, and thus act authoritatively in the same manner as Christ by being sent his magistrates. "But inasmuch as love suffers me not to be silent in regard to you, I have therefore taken upon me first to exhort you that you would all run together in accordance with the will of God. For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ. Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, Matthew 24:45 as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself." Now we can contrast the perpetuity of authenticity with certain transient endowments, for example, inspiration. "For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time: but the holy men of God spoke, inspired by the Holy Ghost." The charism of inspiration was an endowment to fulfill a particular command, namely the completion of public revelation. Therefore, it is obvious why this endowment was transient, as it was a means to a particular end that was accomplished in the apostolic age. However, the completion of public revelation is not the same as the promulgation of revelation to all the nations, in order that the proper end of revelation is attained. The proper end of revelation is the incorporation of all men into Christ's supernatural society through baptism and their submission to his rightful authorities for the greater glory of God. This end was not attained with the death of the apostles, therefore, the endowment for the fulfillment of that end remains. Hence, we can provide the following dilemma to the Protestants. If Christ endowed His Apostles with authenticity to promulgate divine revelation to all the nations, and this commandment has not been fulfilled with their death, does the endowment remain? If the endowment remains, then the Protestant has abandoned Sola Scriptura. If the Protestant denies the perpetuity of the endowment then they violate the self-evident axiom that all agents act for an end by removing the means to a particular end. The Protestant is forced to deny this axiom to uphold Sola Scriptura because divine revelation only attests to one particular means (authentic preaching) to attain the proper end of divine revelation (promulgation of divine revelation). If the Protestant wishes to suggest a different means to fulfill the proper end of divine revelation, they must argue for this means from the text of sacred scripture itself, which can be presumed as authoritative from both sides. This is because sacred scripture does not attest to any other means to attain the proper end of divine revelation. Therefore, to merely suggest the possibility of other means to attain that end, in order to deny the perpetuity of authenticity, is to affirm a theological paradigm that is not even built on revealed premises. To argue for Sola Scriptura because it is a possible means for the proper end of divine revelation, without arguing from divine revelation, is merely ad hoc to avoid the conclusion that Sola Scriptura is false. Theology as a science is built off of conclusions derived from revealed premises. Therefore, if the revealed datum only posits one particular means to a particular end, that means must remain for the fulfillment of that particular end. Furthermore, the perpetuity of authenticity can be drawn out implicitly from St. Augustine. St. Augustine affirms the perpetuity of the endowments promised the apostles in the ending of St. Matthew's Gospel, by affirming that the promises were not only for the apostles, but extend to the church in all ages for the suitable presentation of divine revelation, accommodated for all the nations.
[18:42]"And truly this is rather to be understood; for it follows and shows that it is here said to the preachers, 'distribute her houses: that you may tell it to the generation following:' that is, that even to us, who were to come after them, their dispensation of the Gospel should reach: For not for those only they laboured, with whom they lived in the earth; nor the Lord for those Apostles only to whom He deigned to show Himself alive after His Resurrection, but for us also. For to them He spoke, and signified us when He spoke, 'Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the world.' Matthew 28:20 Were they then to be here always, even to the end of the world? Also He said, 'Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe in Me through their word.' John 17:20 Therefore He considers us, because He suffered on account of us. Justly then it is said, 'That ye may tell it to the generation following.'" "How, then, was this preaching completed by the apostles since there are still nations-and this is completely certain for us-in which it is now beginning and in which it has not yet begun to be completed? And so it was not said to the apostles, You will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all of Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth (Acts 1:8), as if they alone to whom he was then speaking were going to complete so great a task. Rather, who can fail to understand that, just as he seems to have said to them alone, See, I am with you up to the end of the world (Mt 28:20), he nonetheless promised it to the whole Church, which as some die and others are born, will last here until the end of the world. In the same way he said to them what does not at all pertain to them, and yet it was said to them as if it even pertained to them alone, When you see all these things, know that he is near, right at the door (Mt 24:33; Mk 1 3:29). For to whom does this pertain but to those who will be living in the body when all these things will be accomplished? How much more does that hold for what was largely to be done by them, though the same action was continued also by their successors?"
