In a recent debate between Catholic Answers’ Trent Horn and Protestant apologist and Presbyterian teaching elder Anthony Rogers, the latter argued in favor of the Protestant principle of “Scripture interprets Scripture.” Rogers references my discussion of the topic in my 2023 book The Obscurity of Scripture. “According to Chalk,” he said, “early Fathers like Augustine most certainly did believe that Scripture interprets Scripture.”
In the cross-examination, Rogers pressed Trent on the matter: “Did Augustine actually teach that Scripture interprets Scripture, not just an isolated passage here or there, but as a rule, Scripture interprets itself?”
By citing a quotation from Augustine from my book, Rogers seemed to think he had achieved a coup against Trent (and, by extension, the Catholic Church), because, in his view, one of the most influential early Christians is articulating a belief contrary to Catholic teaching. Unfortunately for Rogers, the reality is exactly the opposite.
In one sense, the idea that “Scripture interprets Scripture” is obvious and uncontroversial. The principle that certain parts of the Bible are made more intelligible by other parts of the Bible is found within the Bible itself. We see the germ of this principle in St. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, in which he cites a variety of Old Testament verses (e.g. Joel 2:28-32; Ps. 16:8-11, 110:1, 132:11) to explain the soteriological significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection. We read in Acts that the Jews of Berea examined the scriptures to evaluate if the Gospel message was accurate. And Paul’s epistles are flooded with analysis of various parts of the Old Testament—such as his extended discussion in Romans 3-11 of salvation—often interpreting the ancient texts to inform debates in the first-century Church over the meaning of Scripture.
Thus, unsurprisingly, we find Patristic sources affirming the principle that certain parts of Scripture help the reader interpret other, more difficult-to-understand passages. To quote the passage cited by Rogers in the debate, Augustine in On Christian Doctrine explains,
From the places where the sense in which they are used is more manifest we must gather the sense in which they are to be understood in obscure passages. . . . When, again, not some one interpretation, but two or more interpretations are put upon the same words of Scripture, even though the meaning the writer intended remain undiscovered, there is no danger if it can be shown from other passages of Scripture that any of the interpretations put on the words is in harmony with the truth.
In the same text, Augustine similarly argues that the Holy Spirit “so arranged the Holy Scriptures as by the plainer passages to satisfy our hunger. . . . For almost nothing is dug out of those obscure passages which may not be found set forth in the plainest language elsewhere.”
The issue vis-à-vis the Horn-Rogers debate is whether what Augustine means by Scripture interpreting Scripture is what Rogers and other Protestants mean. At least from the debate, Rogers seems to define Scripture interpreting Scripture as meaning that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for Christians. Certainly that is what Martin Luther and the other Reformers meant, based on a doctrine that has come to be called the “perspicuity of Scripture,” which, though debated among Protestant traditions, generally means that what is necessary for salvation is clearly taught in the Bible. Thus, in the Protestant view, the Christian does not require recourse to an infallible ecclesial authority to define what is necessary for salvation, or to resolve disagreements among self-described Christians over essential matters of faith.
Augustine certainly didn’t believe that. In the same On Christian Doctrine, he writes, “If, when attention is given to the passage, it shall appear to be uncertain in what way it ought to be punctuated or pronounced, let the reader consult the rule of faith which he has gathered from the plainer passages of Scripture, and from the authority of the Church.” Elsewhere the bishop of Hippo declared, “The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the apostle, Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present episcopate.” Many similar affirmations of Tradition and the authority of the Church can be found in his corpus.
However much Augustine thought Scripture can interpret Scripture, he also believed that an institutional Church serves as the interpretive authority of the Bible, capable of resolving theological disputes. These ideas can coexist, as they have throughout Church history; the council fathers at Nicea and Chalcedon, for example, leveraged certain verses of Scripture to address contested interpretations of the Bible and theological propositions, affirming the idea that some verses can illuminate others. They then decreed their biblical interpretations regarding the nature of God and the person of Christ to be true and authoritative, which all Christians must accept. This principle has continued to be applied at every ecumenical council since.
Moreover, as Trent noted in the debate, Augustine thought Scripture teaches all manner of doctrines that Protestants believe to be unbiblical and erroneous, among them the authority of Apostolic Tradition, papal primacy, apostolic succession, baptismal regeneration, Marian veneration, the propitiatory character of the Eucharist, and purgatory. Presumably Rogers simply thinks Augustine got all of these wrong, based in part on erroneous reasoning regarding Scripture. If that’s the case, what kind of authority does Augustine even hold for Rogers, besides serving as an ad hoc source for an ill-advised attempt at a rhetorical “gotcha”?
Indeed, Rogers’s entire argument regarding Scripture interpreting Scripture rests on simply presupposing that Patristic sources define that phrase in the same way he does. It requires very little research to recognize that they do not, but rather articulate a role for both Tradition and magisterial authority alongside Holy Scripture in defining Christian doctrine.
Yes, there is a real sense in which Scripture interprets Scripture. But that process still involves a human person trying to make sense of literary sources. And without recourse to an infallible interpretive authority, errors and unresolvable disagreements are inescapable, and bound to multiply.