Demonstrating
that he is willing to misinterpret Reformed theology when it is suitable, one
apologist wrote:
Protestants are Prima Scriptura. Therefore,
any Patristic teachings that contradict, or exceed, the words of canonized
scripture are not authoritative, period.
From this
alone, one might get the impression that "prima scriptura" is a
synonym for sola scriptura, that is, the belief that, although there are
authorities other than "scripture" (exhausted by "the
Bible" in Reformed Confessions, such as Chapter 1
of the 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith), none of these authorities are
"God-breathed" or "inspired" (e.g., creeds; confessions;
traditions, etc). However, knowing that this is not the patristic witness to
such (cf. Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An
Historical and Theological Essay [London:
Burns & Oates, 1966] showing that, at best, the patristic authors held to material but not formal sufficiency of Scripture), we have this definition of
"prima scriptura":
“Prima scriptura is the Christian doctrine that canonized
scripture is “first” or “above all” other sources of divine
revelation. Implicitly, this view acknowledges that, besides canonical
scripture, there are other guides for what a believer should believe and how he
should live, such as the created order, traditions, charismatic
gifts, mystical insight, angelic visitations,
conscience, common sense, the views of experts, the spirit of the
times or something else. Prima scriptura suggests that
ways of knowing or understanding God and his will that do not
originate from canonized scripture are perhaps helpful in interpreting that
scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to
contradict the scriptures.” (see “Prima
Scriptura”, Wikipedia)
Did you
catch that? Unlike Sola Scriptura which accepts (non-inspired) authorities, prima scriptura acknowledges “other
sources of divine revelation.” This
is opposed to historic formulations of Sola Scriptura. Don’t take my word for
it. Here is Chapter 1 Paragraph 6 of the Westminster Confession of Faith:
The whole counsel of God, concerning all
things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either
expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be
deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether
by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.
Such
subordinate authorities cannot be “divine revelation.” Interestingly, prima scriptura is the position taken by
Roman Catholic opponents of Sola Scriptura, such as Patrick Madrid in the 1995 CURE Debate on Sola
Scriptura. As this critic enjoys “guilt by association,” perhaps one could
accuse him of being a secret Romanist and his criticisms of Vatican I and ex cathedra comments in footnote 8 to be
a smokescreen . . . ;-) Of course, the author believes in the continuation of various spiritual gifts, contra many of his fellow Reformed folk, but if he were to claim these are part of "divine revelation" it begs the question: would not this mean that, as many have the gift of the Spirit in his own theology, that there are hundreds upon thousands of subordinate authorities that are part of "divine revelation"? Being generous with his acceptance of the continuation of spiritual gifts to the modern era would still cause problems.
To see the overwhelming biblical case against Sola Scriptura itself, see:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura
