Prima scriptura is a Christian theological doctrine that holds that Scripture is the primary source of divine revelation and authority for the Christian faith, but that “secondary” or supplementary sources may also have a role in developing Christian doctrine. Prima scriptura suggests that besides the Bible, church traditions, reason and experience can be valid authorities, but only when they build upon, and do not contradict, the primary authority of Scripture.
The key distinction between prima scriptura and sola scriptura (Scripture alone) is that under sola scriptura, the Bible is the sole infallible source of doctrine and practice, while under prima scriptura, the Bible is the primary source, but not the sole source. Under sola scriptura, if there seems to be conflict between Scripture and another authority, Scripture is always presumed correct. Under prima scriptura, while Scripture is primary, other authorities are considered fallible and open to correction in light of Biblical study.
Prima scriptura asserts that while the Bible is the foremost authority, insights from other sources (like church tradition, reason, and experience) may help illuminate, complement, or apply the teachings of Scripture. However, when push comes to shove, the Bible takes precedence over these other authorities. If there seems to be conflict between Scripture and another source, Scripture trumps the other source.
Some key Bible passages that support prima scriptura include:
- 2 Timothy 3:16-17 – Scripture is “God-breathed” and useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training in righteousness.
- Matthew 15:3-6 – Jesus rebukes those who let traditions nullify the Word of God. This shows Scripture takes precedence over tradition.
- Acts 17:11 – The Bereans are praised for searching the Scriptures to see if Paul’s teaching aligned with it. This upholds the priority of Scripture over even apostles.
- 1 Corinthians 14:29 – Paul says prophecies should be tested against the Scriptures. This shows even purported divine revelation is subject to Biblical scrutiny.
At the same time, prima scriptura acknowledges Biblical passages that also lend authority in some manner to tradition, reason and experience, for example:
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15 – Paul commands Christians to hold to apostolic traditions, though traditions are still subject to Scripture.
- Acts 8:30-31 – The Ethiopian eunuch needed Philip to explain Scripture to him. This affirms a role for reason in understanding Scripture.
- 1 John 1:1-3 – John emphasizes Christ was heard, seen and touched, affirming the role of experience in knowing truth.
In summary, prima scriptura holds that:
- The Bible is the foremost authority and standard for Christian faith and practice.
- The Bible takes precedence whenever apparent conflicts arise with other authorities.
- However, church tradition, human reason, and personal experience can complement Scripture or help apply it to different contexts.
- These secondary authorities must always build upon and remain faithful to the primary authority of the Bible.
History of Prima Scriptura
The basic concept of prima scriptura can be seen early in Christian history. The early Church Fathers frequently affirmed the authority of apostolic tradition passed down from the apostles. However, they still maintained that even these traditions were subordinate to Scripture.
Later, Thomas Aquinas and other medieval theologians developed the concept of “sacred theology,” which combined Scripture, tradition, and Aristotelian philosophy to construct Christian doctrine. Yet Scripture still held priority, with philosophy and tradition used to expound upon it.
At the Reformation, Reformers like John Calvin, while upholding sola scriptura, still saw value in tradition and other authorities. Calvin said Scripture was like spectacles helping us see God, and was the sole infallible rule of faith. But tradition could help illuminate Scripture.
In the 20th century, Karl Barth argued that while the Bible was the highest authority, additional voices (like reason and tradition) may be used in theology. Contemporary theologians like Stanley Grenz have appealed to prima scriptura over sola scriptura as a mediating position between Protestantism and Catholicism.
Most denominations today could be described as prima scriptura rather than “pure” sola scriptura, even while upholding the priority of Scripture. Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy teach Scripture plus sacred tradition. Most Protestants adhere to Scripture plus reason, experience, and perhaps limited tradition, with Scripture retaining priority.
Differences from Sola Scriptura
Sola scriptura and prima scriptura are similar in their emphasis on the authority of the Bible. But there are key differences:
- Sola Scriptura says the Bible is the sole infallible source of doctrine and practice. Nothing else can rival Scripture.
- Prima Scriptura says the Bible is the primary authority, but allows supplementary roles for tradition, reason and experience in expounding upon it.
Another difference is how apparent “conflicts” between the Bible and other authorities are resolved:
- Under sola scriptura, the Bible always trumps if there is disagreement. Scripture alone is presumed correct.
- Under prima scriptura, the Bible still has priority, but other authorities are tested and corrected by the lens of Scripture, not automatically rejected.
Sola scriptura is a “Bible only” view. Prima scriptura acknowledges the primary role of the Bible, but with supplementary roles for tradition, reason and experience that are always subordinate to Scripture.
Prima Scriptura vs. Scripture Plus
“Scripture plus” approaches suggest the Bible needs supplementation by other authorities in order to be sufficient. But prima scriptura says the Bible is already sufficient on its own.
Under prima scriptura, tradition, reason and experience play supplementary roles in applying, illuminating and expounding Scripture. But they are not necessary for establishing doctrine. Scripture retains its own adequacy and priority.
So prima scriptura maintains the Bible’s sufficiency while acknowledging supplementary roles for other voices. “Scripture plus” approaches can risk allowing other authorities to rival Scripture rather than remaining subordinate to it.
Objections to Prima Scriptura
Critics raise the following objections to prima scriptura:
- Unbiblical: They say terms like “prima scriptura” and “secondary authorities” have no direct Biblical basis.
- Subjective: They argue it relies too much on subjective personal interpretation for deciding which non-Biblical authorities to accept.
- Unworkable: They say in practice it is impossible to truly hold Scripture as the primary authority while accepting conflicting secondary ones.
Defenders of prima scriptura reply:
- While the exact term is not in Scripture, the concept aligns with how the Bible describes itself and other authorities.
- The priority of Scripture provides an objective standard for evaluating other authorities.
- Apparent conflicts with other sources are resolved by prima scriptura’s stance of Scripture’s priority.
Overall, prima scriptura tries to acknowledge Biblical statements that lend authority in some manner to tradition, reason and experience, while retaining Scripture’s own adequacy, clarity and priority.
How Prima Scriptura Plays Out
Defenders of prima scriptura argue it is a “common sense” approach that acknowledges the primary authority of Scripture while appreciating supplementary roles for other voices in expounding upon the Bible.
For example, church tradition plays a supplementary role for doctrines not explicitly stated in Scripture, like the Trinity. Reason helps construct doctrinal formulations and draw out implications of Biblical teachings. And Christian experience of the Spirit can bring subjective conviction of Biblical truths.
At the same time, prima scriptura subjects these secondary authorities to the lens of Scripture. Teachings must remain consistent with the overarching witness of the Bible. Scripture remains the standard for testing and evaluating insights from other sources.
In practice, prima scriptura shows up in theological method that begins with studying Scripture, but also:
- Draws broadly from church history and tradition
- Uses reason to synthesize and apply Biblical truths
- Values Christian experience of the Holy Spirit
- Yet maintains Scripture as the presupposed authority and lens for evaluating other sources
This approach affirms Biblical priority while welcoming multiple voices to enrich and apply the Bible’s message. The goal is a reasoned, historically-grounded and Spirit-filled reading of Scripture.
Examples of Prima Scriptura
Most Christian theology exhibits aspects of prima scriptura, with examples including:
- Early Church Councils: Affirmed Biblical teaching on Christ’s divinity, used philosophical terms to expound it.
- Thomas Aquinas: Built theological syntheses with Scripture as the foundation, plus Aristotelian philosophy.
- Reformers: Luther, Calvin – Upheld Scripture while appreciating tradition’s value in expounding it.
- Wesleyan Quadrilateral: Scripture as primary authority, plus tradition, reason and experience to enrich it.
- Vatican II: Affirmed Scripture as having supreme authority, but with importance of tradition in interpreting it.
While prima scriptura allows multiple voices in conversation, Scripture retains priority as the touchstone for testing and evaluating doctrine and practice.
Strengths of Prima Scriptura
Proponents argue prima scriptura as a theological method has strengths including:
- Upholds primary authority of Scripture
- Acknowledges Scripture’s own statements about additional authorities
- Appreciates insightful contributions from tradition, reason, experience
- More holistic approach than sola scriptura
- Allows fuller picture by various voices in “trialogue”
- More modest/humble approach than claiming exclusive Biblical sufficiency
- Mediating position between Protestant and Catholic/Orthodox views
In short, prima scriptura tries to affirm the priority of the Bible while welcoming diverse voices that enrich our understanding and application of Scripture.
Cautions for Prima Scriptura
At the same time, proponents stress cautions for prima scriptura including:
- Scripture must retain absolute functional priority, the “final say”
- Secondary sources remain clearly subordinate authorities
- Guard against secondary sources “creeping” to rival Scripture
- Test insights from tradition, reason, experience against the Bible
- Beware contradicting clear Biblical teaching
- Does not support relativizing Biblical commands as culturally-bound
For prima scriptura to function properly, Scripture must remain the presupposed authority and lens for critically evaluating other sources, not just one voice among many.
Conclusion
In conclusion, prima scriptura upholds the priority and adequacy of the Bible while appreciating supplementary roles for tradition, reason and experience under the authority of Scripture. It tries to acknowledge the full breadth of Biblical teaching on various authorities at work in Christian theology. The goal is a reasoned, Spirit-filled, historically-informed reading of God’s Word.
Proponents argue prima scriptura captures a “best of both worlds” approach. It retains Scripture as the supreme doctrinal authority while also valuing the enrichment offered by other voices. It provides a mediating theological method between Protestant and Catholic views. Critics argue it risks allowing rival authorities to compete with or contradict the Bible.
Overall, prima scriptura tries to hold Scripture as the first and foremost authority while welcoming other supplementary authorities. The Bible remains the presupposed foundation and lens for evaluating the rest. This method seeks a Biblically-faithful and holistic approach to Christian theology.