What is the Difference Between Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura?

The majority of Protestants who have some measure of theological education would know the Latin phrase Sola Scriptura, but make a funny face when they hear the term Prima Scriptura, the doctrine to which we as Judeo-Christians hold. Prima Scriptura was coined by pre-Anglican theologian John Hooker, who postulated that the Christian experience is founded on the ‘three-legged stool’ of revelation (Scripture), tradition, and reason. Later, when John Wesley rose to prominence, he added a fourth pillar, experience, as an answer to the cessationist claims of Calvinists.

The difference between Sola Scriptura and Prima Scriptura is best understood by comparing the extreme positions of either view, which necessitated the creation of the latter term in the first place. Sola Scriptura (‘Only Scripture’) means that Scripture alone is capable of speaking God’s truth to us. According to the strict position of this view, the Holy Spirit does not speak to us either directly or in dreams or visions, we do not hear from God through other people, angels do not speak to us, truth is not confirmed through supernatural experiences, creation does not testify to God’s truth, reason and natural laws play no role in truth, Church tradition in the community of the Spirit does not have any bearing on God’s truth—only the Bible speaks God’s words.

In contrast, Prima Scriptura (‘Scripture First’) believes that God continues to speak truth through all of these ways, but may be corrected by Scripture if they contradict the Scripture’s message. The extreme fringe of this view is the belief that these methods of receiving truth are apart from Scripture—meaning they can have nothing to do with the Scriptural message, and can even add to the Scripture or be equal in authority.

However, the less extreme versions of both terms are closer to meeting in the middle. When Martin Luther coined the term Sola Scriptura, he was using the term in relationship to the abuses that the Roman Catholic Church had made of abrogating Scripture by means of tradition to approve things like indulgences, worship of Mary, papal infallibility, etc. He was not saying that creation no longer speaks of the glory of God; he was saying that the Bible is what defines our doctrine, not the pope. It was the later Reformed theologians who posited the extremes of this term.

Similarly, the very definition of Prima Scriptura means that the Bible is our final rule of faith and practice—so any valid supernatural visitations or experiences, counsel, traditions, etc. must be checked with Scripture and must testify to its truth; even human reasoning and natural laws are secondary to Scripture, because the reasoning of imperfect human beings is fallible, and we believe the God who created natural laws can bend them to His will. Anything that goes against the teaching of Scripture is struck down as inauthentic or invalid. John Hooker and John Wesley weren’t saying that extra-Biblical experiences can challenge the words of the Bible or add to them; they were countering the cessationist message that God no longer speaks through anything except the very pages of the Bible; He meets us in everyday experience.

So in practicality, both views simply teach that the Bible is our source of doctrinal authority as the final rule of our faith and practice. The only real difference is that those who hold to Sola Scriptura tend to be cessationist, while those who hold to Prima Scriptura tend to be continuationist. We believe the Bible teaches the latter, so as Judeo-Christians, we hold to a Prima Scriptura view.