Sola Scriptura and the Confusion of “Prima Scriptura”

There are Anglicans today who describe their approach to biblical authority using the phrase “prima Scriptura.” The wording often sounds like this: “Scripture is first and primary, interpreted through the lens of the historic Church—its creeds, councils, and Fathers. We avoid private interpretation, because the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.”

At first hearing, this may appear close to the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura. But as Keith Mathison shows in his article, “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes,” “prima Scriptura” and sola Scriptura are not simply stylistic differences. They represent genuinely different doctrines—one that keeps Scripture as the final authority, and one that subtly moves that final authority into the hands of tradition.

Seeing the difference is crucial for every Christian—especially Anglican believers who love the creeds, honor the Fathers, and desire to remain faithful to the Reformation heritage that helped shape our tradition.

What the Reformers Actually Meant by Sola Scriptura

Sola Scriptura does not mean “me and my Bible alone”—that is, solo Scriptura, the radical version Mathison labels Tradition 0, in which there is no real sense in which tradition has any authority and the individual believer requires nothing more than his Bible and the Holy Spirit. That individualistic distortion is not the Reformation doctrine. It is the view the Reformers explicitly rejected.

Sola Scriptura means something entirely different:

Holy Scripture alone is God’s inspired, infallible, and supreme authority in the Church—the only final rule of faith and life.

The Reformers taught that God has given His Church many gifts to help us understand Scripture: pastors and teachers, creeds and confessions, the wisdom of the Fathers, and the deliberations of councils. These are all good gifts and carry real, though ministerial, authority. Their authority is genuine but subordinate, always normed by the Word of God, which alone functions as the church’s magisterial authority.

Carl Trueman, in his book, The Creedal Imperative, helps us grasp two realities that make this Reformation position both honest and unavoidable.

First, tradition is inescapable. No pastor who reads the Bible in English, consults a lexicon, uses a commentary, or studies church history is avoiding tradition. Every sermon ever preached relies on the grammatical, historical, and theological work of others. The choice of translation, the meaning of words, the understanding of grammar—none of this comes from a vacuum. As Trueman puts it, all Christians live and think within a tradition, whether they admit it or not. The real question is not whether we use tradition, but which tradition we use and how it is related to Scripture.

"tradition is inescapable. . . creeds and confessions are public and reformable."

Second, creeds and confessions are public and reformable. Trueman emphasizes that the great creeds—the Nicene Creed, for example—are not private impressions or hidden knowledge. They are public, examinable summaries of what the Bible teaches. Because they are public, they can be tested by Scripture. Because they are summaries, they can be corrected, refined, clarified, or even rejected if they contradict Scripture. Their very public nature invites scrutiny. That is precisely why they are so important: creeds anchor us in shared, testable doctrine rather than the unstable whims of private interpretation.

These two insights—tradition’s inevitability and the public nature of creeds—fit perfectly with Mathison’s description of the ancient Christian view, which he calls Tradition 1: Scripture as the single divine source of revelation, interpreted in and by the Church, within the rule of faith, with tradition functioning as a normed norm, always judged by the norming norm, Holy Scripture.

This is the doctrine the Reformers reclaimed.

What “Prima Scriptura” Usually Communicates

When churches use the phrase “prima Scriptura,” they often mean that tradition forms the lens through which Scripture should be interpreted. Scripture is “first,” they say, but then its meaning is filtered through the Fathers, the creeds, and historical consensus.

Whatever controls the lens controls the meaning. And when that happens, tradition—not Scripture—becomes the real authority.

The intention is noble: to avoid individualism, to honor the Church’s past, and to remain connected to Christian history. But as soon as tradition becomes the controlling filter, its function subtly shifts.

Whatever controls the lens controls the meaning. And when that happens, tradition—not Scripture—becomes the real authority.

Trueman’s point about creeds being public proposals subject to Scripture highlights why this inversion is so damaging. Creeds are not spectacles through which Scripture must always be viewed. They are summaries standing open for evaluation under Scripture, not above Scripture. When a church treats tradition as a fixed interpretive lens, Scripture’s authority becomes ministerial and tradition becomes magisterial—the very structure the Reformation resisted.

Creeds are not spectacles through which Scripture must always be viewed. They are summaries standing open for evaluation under Scripture, not above Scripture.

The “Pillar and Ground” Argument in Perspective

Those who hold a prima Scriptura model often quote Paul’s words that the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth.” But pillars do not create truth; pillars hold up truth. They display and protect what is already there.

pillars do not create truth; pillars hold up truth.

The Church upholds the truth precisely because it stands under the Word of God. It is a steward, not a source. Mathison’s and Trueman’s frameworks converge here: the Church serves the Word publicly and faithfully—not as an independent authority, and never as the final court of appeal.

Why the Reformation Approach Is Healthier and More Biblical

Sola Scriptura maintains the delicate biblical balance.

It honors the Church but refuses to give the Church the last word.
It honors the Fathers but does not canonize them.
It honors the creeds as faithful summaries but insists they remain testable.
It honors councils but acknowledges they can err.

Article XIX of the Thirty-Nine Articles affirms this plainly:

XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same.
As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

It honors teachers as gifts to the Church but places all teachers under Scripture.

Trueman expresses this beautifully: creeds are norma normata (a “normed norm”), while Scripture is norma normans (the “norming norm”). The Church’s confessions have authority, but only a derived, accountable authority. Scripture alone has original, supreme, binding authority.

"creeds are norma normata (a “normed norm”), while Scripture is norma normans (the “norming norm”)."

Article VIII of the Thirty-Nine Articles confirms this relationship between Scripture and the creeds:

VIII. Of the Creeds.
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.

This structure guards the Church from Rome’s error—what Mathison identifies as Tradition 2, where tradition is treated as a second, co-equal source of revelation—and from radical individualism on the other side, which Mathison identifies as Tradition 0. And standing between these two errors is the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, which Mathison calls Tradition 1.

It also preserves the freedom of the gospel and ensures that the voice governing the Church is not that of any human system, but the living voice of God in Holy Scripture.

Why “Prima Scriptura” Ultimately Fails

Prima Scriptura desires to be faithful, but its structure inevitably gives tradition a controlling voice over Scripture. When tradition becomes the lens, Scripture becomes the object tradition interprets and limits. Tradition decides; Scripture complies.

"Prima Scriptura desires to be faithful, but its structure inevitably gives tradition a controlling voice over Scripture."

But the Reformers insisted, and Trueman echoes, that creeds are public and reformable precisely because Scripture stands above them. A confession is only valid insofar as it faithfully echoes the Word of God (see Article VIII. Of the Creeds, “for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.”).

The moment a creed or tradition becomes unquestionable, Scripture has been dethroned.

Sola Scriptura is thus vital in guarding the Spirit’s creation and confirmation of saving faith.

Sola Scriptura alone preserves the Church’s capacity to reform, repent, and renew herself according to God’s Word—because the gospel, which is the Word of God, is the seed of regeneration (1 Peter 1:23–25), and the Spirit’s ministry is to use that gospel to create faith in our hearts (2 Corinthians 3:8). As the Heidelberg Catechism teaches in Q.65, the Holy Spirit creates this faith “in our hearts by the preaching of the Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the Holy Sacraments.” Sola Scriptura is thus vital in guarding the Spirit’s creation and confirmation of saving faith.

Why This Matters for Us Today

Sola Scriptura protects us from two equal and opposite dangers: the authoritarianism of “Scripture plus a controlling tradition,” (Tradition 2) and the chaos of “me and my Bible alone" (Tradition 0).

"When the Church stands under the Word, Christ rules His Church. When the Church stands over the Word, something or someone else rules instead."

It calls us to read Scripture together, as the family of God.
It invites us to receive the creeds and Fathers humbly, as public, testable summaries of the faith.
It teaches us to confess nothing as essential except what Scripture clearly teaches.
It reminds us that all human authorities—pastors, theologians, councils, confessions—must remain beneath the Word of God.

When the Church stands under the Word, Christ rules His Church. When the Church stands over the Word, something or someone else rules instead.

Sola Scriptura is not a slogan. It is the lifeline of a faithful and reformed Church.

Sources

Keith A. Mathison, “Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes” (Modern Reformation, 2007).

Carl R. Trueman, The Creedal Imperative (especially on the inevitability of tradition, the public and reformable nature of creeds, and the distinction between Scripture as norma normans and creeds as norma normata).