A Catholic/Protestant Debate on Sola Scriptura

Between Patrick Madrid and Douglas Jones

This written debate on sola Scriptura between Patrick Madrid, editor of Envoy Magazine and
Douglas Jones, editor of Credenda/Agenda Magazine, a Reformed evangelical Protestant journal,
appeared recently in Credenda/Agenda (1996). It was agreed that Doug would select and frame
the debate theme, he would have the first and last comment in the exchange, and each response
would be limited to no more than 115 words.

DEBATE THEME (selected and framed by Doug Jones):

What is the relationship between Scripture and the Church?

Is Scripture or the Church the supreme and infallible judge of truth?

DJ: Many modern evangelicals and Roman Catholics haggle over the Anabaptistic notion
of solo rather than sola Scriptura. The classical Protestant notion of that doctrine was
never intended as a condemnation of tradition or a denigration of the authority of the
Church. Both Scripture and the Church are genuinely authoritative norms, not mere
advisory boards. Protestants maintain that Scripture is the ultimate authority, with the
Church serving as a subordinate, though real, authority. In practice, conservative Roman
Catholicism reverses this hierarchy, necessitating an infallible Church. The debate with

1 patrickmadrid.com
 Rome over sola Scriptura really turns on the question of Rome’s claim to infallibility. If it
can’t justify that claim, then sola Scriptura takes the day rather easily.

PM: Since you concede that the Church is “genuinely authoritative,” not a mere advisory
board, I have this debate already half won. The other half will be to demonstrate that this
means Scripture is not sufficient in se for all matters of doctrine. For if, to be correctly
interpreted, Scripture needs a magisterial Church (as I believe Christ intended), then sola
Scriptura, as promulgated by the Westminster Confession, is an erroneous concept.
“Geneva” asserts: “The only infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture
itself (WCF I,9).” Rome responds: “Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority
of the Church . . . are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the
others” (Dei Verbum 10).

DJ: Notice, though, what you do here. You have to treat the classical Protestant teaching
on the genuine authority of the Church (potestas ordinis) as though it were a modern
“concession.” But classical Protestants never held to such Anabaptistic views as you
suppose. Connected to this, your third sentence assumes that genuine spiritual authority
requires infallibility. This is clearly false, though. We would agree that parents have
genuine spiritual authority without being infallible. Isn’t it a non sequitur, then, for Rome
to insist the Church must be infallible to be authoritative? If you want to undermine the
classical view, you need to criticize, not sole sufficiency, but the claim that Scripture alone
is the ultimate and infallible norm.

PM: Stop flailing at the poor Anabaptists. It remains for you to make good the WCF’s claim
that “the only infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself.” Where
does Scripture teach that? Which pre-Reformation Church council or creed taught that?
Scripture doesn’t and the Church never did. (Historically, the “classical” view is Rome’s,
not Geneva’s.) The “parent/child” analogy doesn’t obtain. One needn’t assume the need
for an infallible Church. I recognize this as Christ’s intention (vis. the historical and
scriptural evidence). And you’ve just demonstrated why Scripture requires an infallible
Church, by claiming the Anabaptist view is “incorrect.” The Anabaptists sure think it’s

2 patrickmadrid.com
 what Scripture teaches. Who decides? Aren’t they just being consistent with the WCF
claim?

DJ: Flailing Anabaptists must remain an important hobby, especially since Rome tries to
force everyone into an individualistic mold. For example, you read your cite of the WCF as
claiming that only individuals can infallibly interpret Scripture, a position rejected by the
Westminster divines and the Reformers. The Church has genuine interpretive authority
like a supreme court, but Rome’s novelty is to insist that this authority must be infallible.
That runs contrary to Scriptural descriptions of an authoritative Church which in abnormal
times may teach falsehood (Jer. 6:13; 14:14; Is. 29:10; Ez. 22:25; 2 Pet. 2:2; Acts 20:29; 1
Tim. 4:1). You ask “who decides?” The answer does require authority, but how does it
require infallibility?

PM: I’m simply trying to force you to defend the WCF claim, but you seem unwilling to do
so. You haven’t explained how Scripture can be its own “infallible interpreter,” where
Scripture claims this, and when Scripture ever actually functioned as such. These elements
must be proven if you’re to vindicate the WCF version of sola Scriptura. I contend that you
can’t prove them since your position is epistemologically untenable. The “who decides?”
dilemma pivots on the a priori question: “which `church’ is the Church?” Under the WCF
rubric, you can’t even determine that with certitude; just as you can’t be completely
certain the Anabaptist or any view (Rome’s, for example) is incorrect. That certainty
requires infallibility, otherwise, you’re simply guessing.

DJ: Actually, I’ve defended that WCF claim in each of my previous paragraphs; it’s just
another aspect of the teaching that Scripture is the “supreme judge” (I, X). If Scripture
alone is ultimate and infallible, then it certainly doesn’t contradict itself (I, IX). So, for our
discussion, anything showing the infallibility of Scripture and the fallibility of the Church is
an argument for sola Scriptura. I’ve supplied passages pointing to the Church’s fallibility. I
now argue by challenge that Rome’s exegetical arguments for infallibility are simple non
sequiturs. Moreover, your epistemological argument for infallibility starts an infinite

3 patrickmadrid.com
 regress: if we need infallibility to interpret Scripture, then we’ll need it to interpret the
Church, and so on. What help is that?

PM: Please furnish even one example of Scripture interpreting itself. I reject your
interpretation of the verses you cited and your premise that “Scripture alone is . . .
infallible.” On the contrary, Christ’s Church is infallible (cf. Matt. 10:40, 16:18, 18:18,
28:20; Luke 10:16; John 14:25-26,16:13; 1 Thess. 2:13; Tim. 3:15). Your argument entails
the conclusion that the dogmas promulgated by Nicaea I, Ephesus, and Chalcedon were
merely fallible, as was the Church’s determination of the NT canon. (If this is true, we’re all
in big trouble!) Your syllogism is flawed, and it’s no non sequitur to claim that Scripture
requires an infallible Church (cf. 2 Pet. 1:20-21; 3:15-16). And this debate is your perfect
opportunity to prove otherwise: Please demonstrate how Scripture can “infallibly
interpret itself” so as to solve this particular standoff.

DJ: Your ongoing concern about self-

interpretation is really not particularly relevant to
sola Scriptura. “Interpreting itself” is just another
way of saying that clearer passages shed light
upon the less clear. Every ultimate norm,
including yours, does that (John 10:35). More to
the point are your proofs for Church infallibility.
First, regarding councils, you again assume that
fallibility entails falsehood. Must parents and
courts always judge falsely? Second, the passages
cited prove too much or too little. Those speaking
of leading the Church into “all truth” clearly go
beyond Rome’s very narrow subset of infallible
truths. Why preclude science and economics? Others cited speak of preserving the
Church, but something can be preserved without being infallible. Infallibility simply
doesn’t follow.

4 patrickmadrid.com
 PM: Actually, the claim that “the only infallible rule of
interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself” lies at the
very heart of this disputation. Can Scripture “decide” which
passages are clear and which are unclear? (Matthew 16:18-19
seems quite clear to me.) Of course not, but the Church can,
and before the Reformation the Church consistently taught
the Catholic model of authority, not sola Scriptura. Since
you’ve admitted the Church has real authority, why don’t you
adhere to its historic teaching? Or is this authority merely a
convenient prop? Finally, fallibility entails the possibility not
the necessity of error. Under your “fallible Church” rubric,
you can never be certain which scriptural interpretations are
erroneous and which aren’t.

DJ: Careful. Your challenge “can Scripture `decide’“? again works only against solo not sola
Scriptura. We both agree, along with classical Protestants and the WCF, that the Church
alone should decide authoritatively. She weighs passages for clarity, allowing one passage
to clarify another. This model is far more historic than Rome’s late novelties, and I gladly
adhere to it. And if an infallible Church provides the certainty you demand, why is Rome
still debating the meaning of Trent? Subjectivism can’t just stop with Scripture. You have
yet to show how my arguments against Roman infallibility fail. But can we at least agree
that if the Church is fallible, then only Scripture can be ultimate and infallible?

PM: We agree that the Church weighs passages, but notice that it has always done
considerably more than that. The aforementioned councils show that since apostolic
times the magisterium saw itself as teaching infallibly, imposing its interpretation of
Scripture as dogmatic (Acts 15:28, 1 Thess. 2:13). St. Athanasius explained in De Decretis
that First Nicaea’s definition of Christ as homoousious with the Father was not a merely
fallible interpretation. This is hardly a “Roman novelty,” as you allege. (The nascent
Catholic model is visible in Acts 15:15-35, 16:4.) And remember, Orthodoxy also rejects

5 patrickmadrid.com
 sola Scriptura. Like the Catholic Church, they have preserved the ancient Christian
teaching that the Church, at least in its ecumenical councils, teaches infallibly. Historically,
sola Scriptura is the novelty.

DJ: There is simply no such thing as the historic view on these matters. Several competing
views always existed side by side (though not the solo view). Even by the late medieval
period, the Church still struggled to clarify notions of tradition and Scripture. And
Athanasius’s De Decretis is a particularly weak buttress for Rome, since Athanasius
appeals to countless Scriptures to justify Nicaea’s language. Why not just cite the council
and cease all disputing, as Rome’s notion entails? And Eastern Orthodoxy openly rejects
Rome’s sweeping claims about definitive conciliar infallibility. But quite apart from these
concerns, you still haven’t provided any rebuttal to the arguments against Roman
infallibility. If that fails, then sola Scriptura follows
easily.

PM: Your dismissal of De Decretis as “weak” evidence

boggles the mind. Athanasius composed it precisely to
refute the Arian claim that the Church teaches fallibly
and erroneously. He did appeal “just to the council” to
quell the dispute (as Orthodoxy does): “The
Confession arrived at Nicaea was, we should say,
more sufficient and enough by itself for the
subversion of all religious heresies and for the security
and furtherance of the doctrine of the Church” (Ad
Afros). Earlier, you mentioned “Rome’s very narrow
subset of infallible truths.” Now you decry “Rome’s
sweeping claims about . . . infallibility.” You’re dodging here. Ultimately, to vindicate sola
Scriptura, you must explain how Scripture infallibly interprets itself. So far you haven’t.

DJ: You’ll find the explanation of self-interpretation in my fourth through sixth paragraphs.
My “Sweeping” and “narrow” describe different features. Interestingly, you don’t cite De

6 patrickmadrid.com
 Decretis itself. There’s nothing in it or Ad Afros contrary to a classical Protestant view.
Sufficiency is far from Roman infallibility. I suspect you’re still pursuing Anabaptist ghosts.
Elsewhere Athanasius actually understates conciliar authority more than I would, claiming,
“Vainly do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the
faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things” (C. of Arm. & Sel.). I’m
sincerely curious why you haven’t rebutted my criticism that your case proves too much
and too little. Without a response, doesn’t my syllogism stand uncontested?

PM: Remember, fallibility entails the possibility, not the inevitability, of teaching error.
This possibility creates your dilemma. Under sola Scriptura, you can’t know with certitude
if Scripture is being interpreted correctly. Agreeing with an interpretation is vastly
different from knowing it’s true. This is why your criticisms and syllogism fail. The passages
cited here cannot, in 115 words, be adequately analyzed, but I have indeed rebutted your
understanding of them repeatedly, showing that epistemologically, historically, and
practically, sola Scriptura is a paper tiger. It’s not taught in Scripture (you’ve provided no
direct evidence), it’s alien to historic Christian teaching and praxis, and it simply doesn’t
work. If it did, why doesn’t Scripture infallibly resolve this standoff?

DJ: Why doesn’t Roman infallibility resolve

this standoff? In the end, all your
epistemological and practical objections
apply equally against your own position.
Similarly, if fallibility always precluded
“certitude,” then unless we had infallible
civil courts, we could never have justice
with certitude. But that’s absurd (Ezek.
45:9). Throughout, my argument has
been: (P1) Either Scripture or the Church
alone is infallible and ultimate; (P2) It’s not the case that the Church alone is infallible and
ultimate (my paragraphs three and five); (C) Scripture alone is infallible and ultimate. With

7 patrickmadrid.com
 this, the Church is a genuinely authoritative, sufficient (as with Athanasius), anti-
individualistic, and reformable Court. Both Rome and modern evangelicalism join arms in
rejecting these ancient truths.

Well, Patrick, we have to stop somewhere. We both have more to say. I’ve wanted to have this little chat
for some time. And you have been, as always, a gentleman and an honorable opponent. I wish we could be
on the same side. You have my sincere thanks. — Douglas Jones, Credenda/Agenda

For more debates and presentations, please visit: patrickmadrid.com.

Twitter: @patrickmadrid

8 patrickmadrid.com