> *Prima scriptura* is the Christian doctrine that **canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" other sources of divine revelation**. **Implicitly, this view suggests that, besides canonical scripture, there can be other guides for what a believer should believe and how they should live**, such as the Holy Spirit, 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. > **Contrast with sola scriptura** > > Prima scriptura is sometimes contrasted to sola scriptura, which literally translates "by the scripture alone". The former doctrine as understood by many Protestants—particularly Evangelicals—is that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice, but that the Scriptures' meaning can be mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, antiquity, the councils of the Christian Church, reason, and experience. > > However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach. ([source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura)) What is the biblical basis for *Prima scriptura*? ____ Closely related: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/1332/50422

The doctrine of *Sola Scriptura* is generally defined as the belief that, while tradition, reason, and experience may be sources of spiritual knowledge for the Christian, the scriptures are the only infallible source, or the supreme spiritual authority. For example: > [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura) : Sola Scriptura (by scripture alone in English) is a theological doctrine held by some Protestant Christian denominations that the Christian scriptures are the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice. > > [Marty Foord writing at the Gospel Coalition Australia site](https://au.thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-real-meaning-of-sola-scriptura/) : Firstly, sola scriptura meant Scripture was the supreme authority over the church. It did not mean Scripture was the only authority. Luther, Calvin, and the other reformers used other authorities like reason and tradition. > > [Mark D. Thompson writing at crossway.org](https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-sola-scriptura-really-means/) : But, critically, both an appeal to the fathers and the application of reason could be questioned on the basis of the plain reading of the text of Scripture. Scripture alone must reign. Our consciences are not captive to any other authority than the Word of God. > > [Wayne Grudem](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7255865-but-this-means-that-the-teachings-of-the-new-testament) : In order to guard against making our authority something other than the Bible, major confessions of faith have insisted that the words of God in Scripture are our authority, not some position arrived at after the Bible was finished. This is the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura, or “the Bible alone,” as our ultimate authority for doctrine and life. This doctrine was defined in the Westminster Confession (though without the phrase *sola scriptura*): > [WCF 1.10](https://www.presbyterian.org.au/index.php/index-for-wcf/chapter-1-holy-scripture) : The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture. Unfortunately there is a real lack of clarify over these definitions, and many other people give contrary definitions. Keith Mathison in his book [*The Shape of Sola Scriptura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Sola_Scriptura) says that many evangelical, fundamentalist, or non-denominational Christians say they believe in *Sola Scriptura* but reject the ancient creeds and any concept of tradition. On the other hand, there are proponents of [*Prima Scriptura*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura) a doctrine which seems at least on the surface to be essentially the same as *Sola Scriptura* is defined above, but is upheld by its supporters in explicit contrast to *Sola Scriptura*. I would like to ask who are the *self-professed proponents* of *Sola Scriptura*, who would define it differently to the above definitions, or differently to *Prima Scriptura*? Who are the people who say they believe in *Sola Scriptura*, but mean something else by it than what I believe is the general consensus definition above? To be clear: I am not asking about opponents to *Sola Scriptura* who might define it differently, either out of ignorance or for polemic reasons, or about proponents of *Prima Scriptura*. To make this into an [overview question](https://christianity.meta.stackexchange.com/a/871/6071) rather than an unbounded list question, it would be good if answers can explain the shape and history of these Christians: do they come from one denomination, or stem from one important teacher or group of Christians in the past? Is there a creed or confession which defines it differently? Is there an important systematic theology textbook or course which defines their doctrine? Is there a theological college which teaches "Sol**o** Scriptura"? In short, is there an organised group of Protestant Christians promoting an alternative definition of *Sola Scriptura*, or is it just isolated Christians and Churches which may not be aware that they are not teaching either the historical or commonly agreed upon doctrine?

[Prima Scriptura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_scriptura) is the 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. (Wikipedia) It is said to be in contrast to Sola Scriptura, but it has the same meaning as all the explanations of Sola Scriptura I've ever heard (see [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/77910/6071) for a brief summary), so I'm not sure why it's portrayed as being in contrast. It also seems to be used both by Methodists and Catholics. What is the origin of Prima Scriptura? Who first developed it: Methodists, Catholics, or someone else? Was it defined in contrast to Sola Scriptura, and if so, how was Sola Scriptura understood by those who defined Prima Scriptura? Or was it coined as a clearer alternative to Sola Scriptura in the hope it would be misunderstood less (like Definite Atonement instead of Limited Atonement), and only afterwards came to be thought of as different to Sola Scriptura?

While the concept may have existed far prior, a recent discussion has left me wondering - What is the earliest documented usage of the term "Prima Scriptura" in Christian writings. I am not interested in articulation of the concept, but instead of the first documented usage of this specific and actual phrase in reference to the doctrine (not just coincidental usage) - so please be sure to include a quote in your answer.