Outside of blatantly heretical groups, you could walk into nearly any church today across the denominational spectrum, and they would all affirm the authority of the Bible. Yet it seems believing in the authority of the Bible isn’t always enough. Plenty of debates exist over plenty of topics, such as baptism, church leadership, spiritual gifts, or salvation itself. The question then isn’t whether we accept the Bible but who has the right to interpret it and how that interpretation is guided.
Sola Scriptura is one of the most recognizable slogans of the Reformation and the first of the Five Solas. It was a rallying cry against the abuses of church authority in medieval Catholicism. But like many slogans, its meaning has been radicalized and caricatured in equal parts.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
For those in the Restoration Movement, this conversation matters deeply. We have long championed the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice, but we also know that individualism, anti-intellectualism, and isolation from church history can distort that claim.
The Classical Reformation Definition
Sola Scriptura was never meant to suggest that Scripture exists in isolation from history, reason, or the Christian community. The Reformers did not believe that tradition was worthless or that the church had no role in interpreting the Bible. They insisted that Scripture alone is the final authority. Every other authority—whether it be a church council, a theological system, or a spiritual leader—must be tested by the Word of God.
Martin Luther’s confrontation with the Roman Church centered on this principle. In 1519, at the Leipzig Disputation, Luther denied the infallibility of Church councils and claimed that they had erred in the past. When pressed to recant at the Diet of Worms in 1521, he famously responded:
“Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason... I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.”
Luther had no desire to throw out tradition altogether. Throughout his writings, it’s clear that he valued church history; he often quoted church fathers and affirmed the early creeds. But he believed that tradition must be held accountable to Scripture, not placed above it or beside it with equal weight.
For Calvin, Scripture’s authority came not from the church’s endorsement but from the Spirit of God bearing witness to its truth. In Institutes of the Christian Religion, he wrote:
“The law and the prophets are not given to us to blur our understanding with uncertainty but to guide us aright, and with a sure and steady rule. We must, therefore, not only keep to its teaching but be armed against all deviations.” (Institutes 1.6.3)
Human teachers could help explain Scripture but could never bind the conscience. Only God’s Word had that power.
The Reformers did not promote nuda Scriptura, the idea that all tradition should be discarded and that Christians should read the Bible in a vacuum. They believed in the value of history, reason, and community. What they rejected was any source of authority that could override the clear teaching of Scripture.
In its classical form, Sola Scriptura is not a rejection of tradition. It is a conviction that Scripture stands above all other voices and that every claim—whether doctrinal, ethical, or institutional—must be tested by the revealed Word of God.
The Protestant-Catholic Divide
While the Reformers affirmed the authority of Scripture as supreme, the Catholic Church has historically held a fundamentally different view. The Catholic position is that the Church’s authority consists of three interconnected elements: Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church, embodied most visibly in the Pope). Catholics argue that these three form a single, unified source of truth. Scripture is essential, but it cannot be rightly understood apart from tradition and the authoritative interpretation of the Church.
In official Catholic teaching, only the Church’s Magisterium has the right to definitively interpret Scripture. This claim is rooted primarily in their interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19, where Jesus tells Peter:
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church... I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”
Catholics view this passage as establishing Peter as the first pope and granting his successors (the papacy) ongoing authority to define doctrine and interpret Scripture for the entire Church.
For the Reformers, the heart of the matter was simple: no church council, bishop, or Pope had the right to override Scripture. They believed the true church was the one that listened to and submitted to the Word of God. The claim that only the papal office could rightly interpret Scripture was rejected as an illegitimate concentration of power and a distortion of Christ’s teaching.
Prima Scriptura: A Biblical Alternative?
While Sola Scriptura affirms that Scripture alone holds final authority, some Christians—especially in the early church and among modern thinkers outside strict confessional traditions—have proposed a slightly different but related approach known as Prima Scriptura, or “Scripture first.”
This view maintains that Scripture is the supreme and primary authority, but it also acknowledges that other sources, such as tradition, reason, and the collective discernment of the Christian community, can help believers rightly interpret and apply God’s Word. These secondary sources are not equal to Scripture and must always be tested against it, but they are not to be completely dismissed.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
It’s important here to distinguish Prima Scriptura from what is often called Solo Scriptura. The difference is more than spelling. While the Reformers promoted Sola Scriptura as Scripture above all other authorities, many modern evangelicals and fundamentalists have shifted toward Solo Scriptura, the idea that the Bible is the only source of truth and that every individual is qualified to interpret it without reference to church history, tradition, or communal insight.
Solo Scriptura often results in theological isolation, doctrinal fragmentation, and anti-intellectualism. Everyone effectively becomes their own Pope. On the other hand, Prima Scriptura acknowledges that while Scripture must come first, it should be read within the context of the church, not in individualistic isolation. It values the work of those who have gone before us and labor with us not as binding but as instructive.
Restorationists must be cautious not to confuse our rejection of human creeds with a rejection of all historical insight. Prima Scriptura helps us maintain the primacy of Scripture while avoiding the extremes of both magisterial control and individualistic chaos.
Who Interprets Scripture?
The Catholic Church claims that only the papal office and Magisterium can rightly interpret Scripture. As we saw earlier, this is rooted in a specific interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16. This led to the dogma of papal infallibility at Vatican I, assuming that the church had always interpreted the passage as the establishment of the papacy.
However, historical interpretations reveal something very interesting. According to a letter to Pope Pius IX in 1870, Archbishop Peter Kenrich of St. Louis, Missouri, noted that only 17 of 85 church fathers thought that the rock was Peter. In fact, over half (44) understood Peter’s confession to be the rock. Even within the ranks of the Catholic Church, there was discomfort in the dogmatic declaration of papal infallibility leading up to and even after Vatican I. Yet, because it was dogmatically declared, that has been the official Catholic interpretation ever since, regardless of whether it is the historical interpretation or not.
Even more decisively, in Matthew 18:17–20, Jesus uses the same language of “binding and loosing” to describe the authority given to the church as a whole:
“If the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector... Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.”
This passage clearly demonstrates that spiritual authority is not vested in a single man or office but is shared by the body of believers who gather in Jesus’ name and seek His will together.
In John 16:13, Jesus tells His disciples: “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth.”
This promise was not made to a pope or a religious institution. It was made to His followers—those who walk with Him in faith. The early church interpreted Scripture together, not through a centralized figure, but through Spirit-led conversation and prayerful discernment. This pattern continues in Acts 15, where the apostles and elders gathered as a body to seek God’s guidance on doctrinal questions.
The Spirit did not just inspire the Word; He empowers the people of God to interpret and apply it rightly.
Prima Scriptura upholds Scripture as the only infallible authority while recognizing the importance of community, humility, and spiritual guidance in interpretation. It rightly affirms the priesthood of all believers, not as a license for theological anarchy but as a call to shared responsibility under the authority of God’s Word.
Prima Scriptura invites us to read the Bible in a way that avoids Rome’s rigid control and modern individualism’s reckless independence.
Restorationist Implications
The Restoration Plea has always been simple: return to the Bible and reject man-made creeds, denominational traditions, and ecclesiastical systems that go beyond what is written. In that sense, we share the Reformers’ instincts. We believe the Bible is sufficient, authoritative, and clear and that all people should read it, understand it, and submit to it.
But this commitment also brings a challenge. If we’re not careful, we can slide from Sola Scriptura into Solo Scriptura, where each individual becomes the final word on doctrine. When that happens, truth becomes subjective, and the unity Jesus prayed for dissolves into personal opinion.
This is where many Evangelicals fall short. You hear about “Bible-based” non-denominational churches all the time from groups that rarely have a clear understanding of what it actually means. A sermon that quotes a few verses or a church that uses Jesus in its branding doesn’t automatically reflect a Scriptural foundation. Too often, “Bible-based” means “Bible-flavored,” and decisions are driven more by pragmatism, personalities, or culture than by submission to the text.
The answer isn’t to elevate human tradition. The answer is to read the Bible together, as the body of Christ, with the Spirit as our guide and Scripture as our foundation. The early church did this, and it’s what we’re called to do today.
Understanding the distinctions between Sola, Solo, and Prima Scriptura equips us to better teach and evangelize those from other traditions. When someone says, “I believe in the Bible,” we can lovingly ask, “Who gets to interpret it? And how do you know you’re following it faithfully?” These questions shape how we approach different people while discussing truth, unity, and the gospel itself.
The Reformers were right to call the church back to Scripture. Their insistence that no pope, council, or tradition could override God’s Word was a bold and necessary stand. But the story does not end there. The question for us today isn’t simply whether we affirm the authority of Scripture but whether we’re willing to read it with humility, guided by the Spirit, and committed to seeking truth together.
In the end, while Sola Scriptura is a well-intentioned historical stance, it might be well past time to clarify and begin affirming Prima Scriptura. Regardless of slogans, we must always return to the Word—not as individuals above the church or people enslaved to tradition but as a body of disciples shaped by the Spirit and formed by the voice of God in Scripture.
Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
