This video is part of a series on Old Testament Textual Criticism. This video deals with changes that were made in the text by scribes for theological reasons. The example used in this video is the textual change Deuteronomy 32:8. In the Masoretic Tradition it reads “sons of Israel,” in the vast majority of the manuscripts of the LXX it reads “the angels of God, and in 4QDeut J (a fragment of Deuteronomy discovered at Qumran) it reads “the sons of God”. Enjoy!
I have just posted chapter 6 of my free online Classical Syriac Grammar. It covers Adjectives, Comparative ܡܸܢ, Partitive ܡܸܢ, Demonstratives, and Relative/Interrogative ܐܲܝܢܵܐ. It can be found at https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/syriac-grammar/.
Exercises will be added shortly. Enjoy!
This video deals with how we got the name Jesus in English with the pronunciation and spelling that we use today. Enjoy!
I have just posted chapter 5 of my Classical Syriac Grammar. It covers independent personal pronouns, enclitic independent personal pronouns, and pronominal suffixes on prepositions. It can be found at https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/syriac-grammar/.
Exercises will be added shortly. Enjoy!
I have just posted chapter 3 of my free online grammar of Classical Syriac in the Estrangela Script (https://markfrancois.wordpress.com/syriac-grammar/). This chapter covers some basic signs used in writing, nouns, possessive ܕ, prepositions, the conjunction ܘ, and verbless clauses.
Practice sheets for chapter 3 will be posted as they become available. Once again, feel free to download and print as many copies as you would like. However, please do not alter any of the material, post it to another website, or publish it in any other form. Thanks!
This is a post I’ve wanted to write for quite some time. But, as time wore on, it seemed like this was a topic that people weren’t really interested in talking about anymore. That is…until I listened to a recent message by David Platt at Together for the Gospel 2018. In his message, David Platt restated a historical claim that I think is completely historically untenable, namely, that George Liele, a former African-American slave, was America’s first missionary, predating Adoniram Judson by several decades.
The idea that Liele was America’s first missionary is an idea that has been repeated several times in various publications. More recently, it’s an idea that has gained some currency in Southern Baptist circles, most likely out of a desire to promote racial reconciliation due to their legacy of racism and support of slavery. This came out clearly in 2012 when a resolution was made at the Southern Baptist Annual Convention that mentioned Liele as someone “who many acknowledge as the first overseas missionary from the United States in 1782.”
The problem, though, is that the claim that Liele was America’s first overseas missionary is historically untrue – and this is something that is fairly easy to demonstrate. The purpose of this post is twofold: (1) To introduce George Liele to those who might be unfamiliar with him and (2) to show that, although Liele had a remarkable ministry, it is historically inaccurate to say that he was America’s first missionary.
Sources for the Life and Thought of George Liele
There are three main groups of sources available for understanding the life and thought of George Liele. The first and most important group of sources are found in The Baptist Annual Register for 1790, 1791, 1792, and Part of 1793 by John Rippon. John Rippon, a leading Baptist minister in Great Britain, became interested in learning more about the life and ministry of George Liele when he read a letter written by the Rev. Mr. Joseph Cook of South Carolina, which described, in the barest of details, the success Liele had in planting the first Baptist Church in Savannah, Georgia, and in planting another Baptist Church in Jamaica. Rippon, desiring to know more about his life and ministry, wrote letters to acquaintances of Liele in South Carolina, Georgia, and Jamaica to uncover more information. He also sent a list of fifty questions to Liele himself so that he could describe the work of his ministry in his own words. From these sources, Rippon was able to compile a brief biography that has served as the basis for virtually every account written about Liele since that time.
In addition to the biography contained in The Baptist Annual Register, Rippon also included a number of letters written by acquaintances of Liele and a number of letters written by Liele himself. The Baptist Annual Register also contains biographies of two of Liele’s colleagues in Georgia, Andrew Bryan and David George, both of whom were heavily influenced by Liele’s preaching. These biographies contain a great deal of first-hand information about the character of Liele’s ministry in Georgia. The secondary sources about Liele consist largely of a recapitulation of the material found in The Baptist Annual Register with little or no historical analysis.
The second group of sources comes from the Votes of the Honourable House of Assembly of Jamaica for October to March, 1791-2, and October to December, 1796. These sources contain records of payments given to Liele by the Crown for transporting military equipment by carriage from one military outpost to another in Jamaica. Liele himself refers this work in his response to the fifty questions sent to him by John Rippon, citing this as the reason why his response to Rippon’s letter was delayed. The amounts given in these records give some kind of idea of what Liele’s income was like during this part of his ministry in Jamaica.
The third group of sources consist of stories or anecdotes contained in secondary sources that do not provide information about where they got their information from. The most significant sources in this group include the History of the Baptist Missionary Society from 1792 to 1842 by F. A. Cox and The Voice of Jubilee: A Narrative of the Baptist Mission, Jamaica by John Clark, W. Dendy, and James M. Philippo. Since the authors of these sources were associated with English Baptist missions to Jamaica in the early nineteenth century, it seems likely that they heard these stories from first-hand witnesses. That being said, although oral history should be given its due weight, the sources outlined above provide more direct and reliable information about the life and ministry of George Liele.
Liele’s Life in Georgia
George Liele was born a slave in colonial Virginia sometime around 1751. At a very young age, Liele moved with his master, Henry Sharp, to the Province of Georgia, where slavery had only recently been introduced. According to his own account, Liele grew up living a moral life because he had a “natural fear of God” and his conscience was checked by the fear of death. However, as Liele would later realize, he was trusting in his own personal merit to save him, rather than in Christ. All of this changed in 1773, while Liele was sitting under the ministry of the Rev. Matthew Moore, a Baptist minister in Burke county, Georgia. One Sunday afternoon, while listening to Moore’s preaching, Liele came under deep conviction of sin. He realized that his good works were insufficient to save him and that his sin, which he saw unfolded before his eyes in Moore’s preaching, condemned him to hell.
Liele remained in a state of despair for nearly six months. During these six months, he became more and more despondent until he found peace in Christ:
“The more I heard or read, the more [I saw that I] was condemned as a sinner before God; till at length I was brought to perceive that my life hung by a slender thread, and if it was the will of God to cut me off at that time, I was sure I should be found in hell, as sure as God was in heaven. I saw my condemnation in my own heart, and I found no way wherein I could escape the damnation of hell, only through the merits of my dying Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ; which caused me to make intercession with Christ, for the salvation of my poor immortal soul….” 
As a result, Liele called upon Christ and found the peace with God that he was looking for. Liele spoke to his congregation about what had happened and he was soon baptized by Matthew Moore.
Immediately after his conversion, Liele prayed that God would somehow use him in the work of the ministry. He began to read hymns and explain the more significant parts to his fellow slaves on his plantation. As Liele wrote, “Desiring to prove [the sense I had of] my obligations to God, I endeavoured to instruct [the people of] my own colour in the word of God.” Liele’s desire to share the gospel sprung from a sense of gratitude and obligation to God for the salvation he had received in Christ. This sense of gratitude and obligation to God would play a key role in the manner in which he carried out his ministry toward his fellow slaves.
Liele’s gifts for ministry were soon recognized by the white members of his congregation and he was invited to preach before the congregation at a quarterly meeting. After he had finished preaching, the church unanimously affirmed Liele’s gifting for ministry and licensed him as a probationer. Liele was given his freedom by his master, George Sharp, who happened to be a deacon in Liele’s church, sometime afterward. Several writers suggest that this was done to give Liele greater freedom to preach the gospel. While this is a reasonable inference, there is no hard evidence suggesting that this might be the case.
Liele preached the gospel from plantation to plantation until the British evacuated Savannah in 1782. Some of the character of Liele’s ministry can be seen through the testimony of Andrew Bryan and David George. Andrew Bryan was converted when he heard Liele preach from John 3:7, which speaks of the necessity of being born again. Although Bryan and his fellow listeners were slaves, Liele clearly believed that what his audience needed to hear was not a message about how they could be freed from temporal slavery from human masters but about how they could be reconciled to God. Bryan would later become the minister of an African American church in Savannah and would suffer imprisonment and severe whipping under suspicion that his church had incited several slaves to escape from their masters. But, like Liele, his message was not a message about freedom from slavery but a message about freedom from condemnation and so Bryan viewed his sufferings as being suffering “for the cause of Jesus Christ”. This is an example of the kind of follower that Liele’s preaching produced.
David George likewise came under the influence of Liele during his ministry in Georgia. George was converted after a fellow African American told him that he would “never see the face of God in glory” if he continued to live as he did. After experiencing a struggle similar to Liele’s about the insufficiency of good works to save him and the condemnation that his sin deserved, George came to trust in God’s mercy as it was displayed in Christ. Not long afterward, he heard George Liele preach on Matthew 11:28, which says, “Come unto me all ye that labour, and are heavy leaden, and I will give you rest.” George felt that the entire message was directed toward him and the struggle over sin and condemnation he had just recently experienced. Although the details of Liele’s message have not been preserved, much can be learned about the character of Liele’s preaching by paying attention to George’s response. This passage would have been relevant to Liele’s hearers on a strictly literal level because most, if not all, of his hearers were slaves. However, it seems clear from George’s response that Liele’s focus was on spiritual labour and spiritual rest rather than temporal rest, a spiritual rest which both Liele and George saw as being far more important.
Liele’s Move to Jamaica
After Liele’s former master, Henry Sharp, was killed fighting for the Crown in the American Revolution, Sharp’s heirs, who did not approve of Liele being set free, had the authorities arrest him and throw him into prison. Liele was released when an acquaintance named Colonel Kirkland helped him obtain the proper papers to prove that he was free. When Savannah was evacuated by the British in 1792, Liele and his family sailed to Jamaica with Colonel Kirkland as indentured servants because of money that he owed to him back in Georgia. Liele worked for Colonel Kirkland for two years in Jamaica before being granted his freedom.
At this point we can consider the main issue that prompted this post in the first place, namely, was George Liele America’s first missionary? (We will answer this question without taking into consideration what counts as America at this point.) The answer is clearly no. The reason Liele moved to Jamaica was because of a debt that he owed to Colonel Kirkland. He, along with Colonel Kirkland, were evacuated from Savannah as refugees, not as missionaries. There was no church in Georgia that sent Liele to Jamaica for the specific purpose of carrying out missionary work. Liele himself clearly did not go to Jamaica for the purpose of carrying out missionary work. The reason why Liele went to Jamaica was because of the British evacuation of Savannah and a debt he owed to Colonel Kirkland. The fact that Liele’s reason for moving to Jamaica has been so often overlooked can only be accounted for by a lack of familiarity with the primary sources or a very poor reading of the primary sources.
That being said, the fact that Liele did not move to Jamaica as a missionary does not mean that his work in Jamaica has any less value. In fact, the ministry he carried out as a refugee in Jamaica was quite remarkable.
Liele’s Work in Jamaica
In 1784, Liele began to preach in Kingston, Jamaica, and, along with four other refugees from America, formed a small church. Within a short period of time, Liele’s ministry began to see success, especially among the slaves and the poor. By the time he wrote to John Rippon in 1791, he had baptized nearly four hundred people. All in all, there were about fifteen hundred people on the island that were being ministered to by Liele. In addition to his regular ministry, Liele established a free school to teach slave children and free children how to read and write.
Liele carried out all of this ministry while supporting himself through farming and through transporting goods from one part of the island to another. Liele would not accept money from the slaves who attended his church because they only received a very small amount of money from their masters to buy food with and he believed that it would bring “scandal to religion” if he were to accept money from them. The free people in his congregation gave what they could but they had little money as well. The fact that Liele worked so hard to support himself and took no financial compensation for his ministry demonstrates once again how he valued the gospel above all things.
Liele would not accept slaves as members of his church unless they had letters from their masters stating that they behaved decently toward them and that they had shown evidence that they were truly converted. In other words, before Liele would accept a slave as a member of his church, he wanted proof from the slave’s master that he was obeying the New Testament injunctions for slaves to obey their masters. One of the reasons why this was so important was because slave owners were fearful that Christian ministry among their slaves would lead to unrest or even rebellion among their slaves. Indeed, Liele’s meetings were interrupted on many occasions by whites who feared that Liele’s preaching would lead their slaves to revolt. This continued throughout the early part of Liele’s ministry until he received special permission from the Jamaican House of Assembly sanctioning their freedom to worship.
Although the problems lessened, there continued to be resistance to the idea of evangelizing slaves. Stephen Cooke, a member of the Jamaican House of Assembly, noted that it was this fear of revolt that kept Liele’s work from having more success:
“The idea that too much prevails here amongst the masters of slaves is, that if their minds are considerably enlightened by religion or otherwise, that it would be attended with the most dangerous consequences; and this has been the only cause why the Methodist ministers and Mr. Liele have not made a greater progress in the ministry amongst the slaves. Alas! how much is it to be lamented, that a full QUARTER OF A MILLION of poor souls should so long remain in a state of nature; and that masters should be so blind to their own interest as not to know the difference between obedience inforced [sic] by the lash of the whip and that which flows from religious principles.”
But, as Cooke noted further on, Liele gained the goodwill of many slave owners by not permitting any slave to become a member of his congregation without their master’s permission. In addition, Liele made sure that the church covenant was read to the members of his congregation once a month so that the illiterate slaves in his congregation would know what duties they were to perform in keeping the commandments of God. Liele showed this covenant to the Jamaican House of Assembly when he petitioned for freedom for his church to gather for worship and he showed it to the owners of slaves who had applied for membership at his church and both groups came away satisfied. Although the text of this covenant is not available, it must have included an injunction for slaves to obey their masters, otherwise it would be difficult to explain why it met with such approval by the Jamaican House of Assembly and the owners of slaves who wanted to become members of Liele’s church.
Liele also sought to gain the goodwill of slave owners by putting a bell in the church steeple so that the slave owners might know when their services started and know that their slaves had returned home at the right time. Liele did all of this because he knew that the progress of the gospel would be hindered if he did not gain the goodwill of slave owners by exhorting the slaves in his congregation to be obedient to their masters. The progress of the gospel was so important to him because he knew from experience that freedom from condemnation and sin was much more important and was of a much greater value than freedom from human slavery. The result was thousands of slaves and free people who came to faith in Christ.
While it is clearly historically inaccurate to say that Liele was America’s first missionary, Liele lived an incredible life as a minister of the gospel and left behind an incredible legacy. During his time in Georgia, Liele showed what it meant to put the gospel above all things despite his circumstances and the evil he saw all around him. The influence he had in Georgia and beyond (including in Canada through David George) was profound. During his time in Jamaica, he made the most of the circumstances he found himself in as a refugee and poured out his life and energy out of love and compassion for those he considered to be his fellow people. Once again, the results were profound.
Liele’s legacy, at least as far as it concerned Jamaica, can be aptly summarized through the words found in a letter written by Thomas Swigle, one of Liele’s co-workers, to John Rippon:
“We have great reason in this island to praise and glorify the Lord, for his goodness and loving kindness in sending his blessed Gospel amongst us, by our well-beloved minister, Brother Liele. We were living in slavery to sin and Satan, and the Lord hath redeemed our souls to a state of happiness to praise his glorious and ever blessed name; and we hope to enjoy everlasting peace by the promise of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ. The blessed Gospel is spreading wonderfully in this island; believers are daily coming into the church, and we hope, in a little time, to see Jamaica become a Christian country.”
I remain respectfully, Rev. and Dear Sir,
Your Brother in Christ,
Thomas Nicholas Swigle.
Mark Steven Francois
 The message can be found at http://t4g.org/media/2018/04/let-justice-roll-like-waters-racism-need-repentance/.
 See, for example, David Killingray, “The Black Atlantic Missionary Movement and Africa, 1780s-1920s,” Journal of Religion in Africa 33 (2003), 6; E. A. Holmes, “George Liele: Negro Slavery’s Prophet of Deliverance,” Baptist Annual Quarterly 20 (1964), 350; Timothy C. Tennent, Invitation to World Missions: A Trinitarian Missiology for the Twenty-first Century (Grand Rapids: Kregal, 2010), 258; and Maya Jasanoff, Liberty’s Exiles: American Loyalists in the Revolutionary World (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011), 266.
 The Baptist Annual Register, for 1790, 1791, 1792, and Part of 1793. Including Sketches of the State of Religion Among Different Denominations of Good Men at Home and Abroad (London: Dilly, Button, and Thomas, 1793).
 Ibid., 332.
 See, for example, David Benedict, A General History of the Baptist Denomination in America, and Other Parts of the World (Boston: Manning & Loring, 1813), which simply reproduces the material found in The Baptist Annual Register. For some examples from early twentieth century see John W. Davis, “George Liele and Andrew Bryan, Pioneer Negro Baptist Preachers,” The Journal of Negro History 3 (1918), 119-27, and George Liele, Stephen Cooke, Abraham Marshall, Johnathan Clarke, Thomas Nichols Swigle, “Letters Showing the Rise and Progress of the Early Negro Churches of Georgia and the West Indies,” The Journal of Negro History 1 (1916), 69-92.
 Votes of the Honourable House of Assembly of Jamaica, In a Session begun the 25th of October, and ended the 22d of November, 1791; A Session begun the 23d of November, 1791, and ended the 10th of March, 1792; and A Session begun the 13th, and ended the 15th of March, 1792. Being the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Sessions of the Present Assembly. Saint Jago de la Vega: Alexander Aikman, 1792.
 Votes of the Honourable House of Assembly of Jamaica, In a Session begun October 28, and ended December 21, 1796. Being the Fifth Session of the present Assembly. Saint Jago de la Vega: Alexander Aikman, 1796.
 Rippon, The Baptist Annual Register, 337.
 F. A. Cox, History of the Baptist Missionary Society from 1792 to 1842, Vol. 2 (London: T. Ward & Co., and G. & J. Dyer, 1842). Cox suggests that Liele’s teaching was likely “very imperfect and intermingled with many false and superstitious notions” (12). This seems unjustified on the basis of the information given about Liele in The Baptist Annual Register. It seems as though this judgment was made on the basis of experience with other Christians in Jamaica.
 John Clark, W. Dendy, and James M. Phillippo, The Voice of Jubilee: A Narrative of the Baptist Mission, Jamaica, From its Commencement; with Biographical Notices of its Fathers and Founders (London: John Snow, Paternoster Row, 1865).
 The situation might be somewhat different if these authors gave some indication of who passed on these stories and when.
 The Baptist Annual Register, 335. The date of Liele’s birth is not certain but in 1791 he estimated that he was about forty years old.
 While no date is given, Liele must have moved at a very young age because he knew nothing about his parents except that their names were Liele and Nancy (The Baptist Annual Register, 335). Liele knew that his father was known as one of the few genuine African Christians in that part of Virginia but he received this information second-hand.
 Slavery was introduced into Georgia in 1750. For the historical background of the introduction of slavery into the Province of Georgia see Darold D. Wax, “Georgia and the Negro Before the American Revolution,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly 51 (1967), 63-77. For the role played by George Whitefield, the great revivalist, in the introduction of slavery into Georgia see Stephen J. Stein, “George Whitefield on Slavery: Some New Evidence,” Church History 42 (1973), 243-56.
 The Baptist Annual Register, 332.
 The Baptist Annual Register, 332. Liele says that his conversion experience began “two years before the late war”, i.e. the American Revolution.
 Ibid., 333. The words in square brackets were added by John Rippon. In The Baptist Annual Register itself, Liele’s words are in quotation marks and the words that were added are found outside of those quotation marks. It is interesting to note from this quotation that Liele was able to read. For the significance of Liele’s ability to read in the context of African-American literacy during the First Great Awakening see Frank Lambert, “‘I Saw the Book Talk’: Slave Readings of the First Great Awakening,” The Journal of Negro History 77 (1992), 194-95.
 The Baptist Annual Register, 333.
 Ibid., 334. Probationers were ministers who were in preparation for being ordained.
 Andrew Bryan’s story is found on pages 339 to 343 of The Baptist Annual Register and David George’s on pages 473 to 484.
 The Baptist Annual Register, 475.
 Ibid., 475.
 This was not the only encounter that George had with Liele. One day he heard Liele preach in a cornfield and he wanted to join with the people who were gathered there in prayer. However, he felt ashamed and went to a swamp to pray by himself. He eventually went to Liele and Liele’s advice proved a great help to him and helped him on his path toward Christian ministry. George ministered together with Liele for a short time in Savannah before moving to Charleston where he was eventually evacuated to Halifax, Nova Scotia, with the British. George would go on to have a profound ministry in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Sierra Leone.
 Ibid., 334.
 See Votes of the Honourable House of Assembly of Jamaica (1791-2), 250, and Votes of the Honourable House of Assembly of Jamaica (1796), 132, 160.
 The Baptist Annual Register, 336. Stephen Cooke, a member of the Jamaican house of assembly and an acquaintance of Liele, wrote the following about Liele’s refusal to take money from slaves: “I am led to believe that it has been of essential service to the cause of GOD, for his industry has set a good example to his flock, and has put it out of the power of enemies to religion to say, that he has been eating the bread of idleness, or lived upon the poor slaves” (Ibid., 338).
 Ibid., 335.
 John H. Davis, “George Liele and Andrew Bryan, Pioneer Negro Baptist Preachers,” 122.
 The Baptist Annual Register, 338.
 Ibid. 343-44.
 The Baptist Annual Register, 542.
This past week I listened to two lectures on the doctrine of sola scriptura (Latin for “scripture alone”): one by a Protestant scholar and the other by a Roman Catholic apologist. One of the things that stood out in the lecture given by the Protestant was his insistence that the doctrine of sola scriptura is something that can actually be found in scripture. The person who spoke from a Roman Catholic perspective, on the other hand, argued quite strongly that the doctrine of sola scriptura cannot be found in scripture. Now it might come as a surprise to some people but in this case I would say that I actually agree with the person who was speaking from a Roman Catholic perspective: I don’t think that the doctrine of sola scriptura can actually be found in scripture. But, unlike the Roman Catholic apologist, I don’t think that makes the doctrine of sola scriptura wrong.
What is Sola Scriptura?
According to many Roman Catholic apologists, it would be inconsistent for a Protestant to believe in sola scriptura if the doctrine of sola scriptura can’t actually be found in scripture. While this argument might sound fairly strong on first examination, the reality is that it is based, at least in part, on a misunderstanding of what the doctrine of sola scriptura actually is. Unlike what so many people think– both on the Roman Catholic and on the Protestant side – the doctrine of sola scriptura does not mean that scripture is our only authority when it comes to what we believe and what we do as Christians; the doctrine of sola scriptura means that the Bible is our ultimate authority, under God, for what we should believe and do as Christians. As Protestants, scripture is not our only authority – but it is the authority by which all other authorities need to be measured. This is how it is worded in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
|Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter 1.10)
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 can rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
The Belgic Confession says something similar:
|Belgic Confession (Article 7)
Therefore we must not consider human writings – no matter how holy their authors may have been – equal to the divine writings; nor may we put custom, nor the majority, nor age, nor the passage of time or persons, nor councils, decrees, or official decisions above the truth of God, for truth is above everything else.
So sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is our only authority when it comes to what we believe and do as Christians – but it is our highest authority, the authority by which every other authority is to be judged.
Why We Should Believe in Sola Scriptura
So the question that we need to ask now is this: why should we believe in the doctrine of sola scriptura?
There are basically two reasons why we should believe in sola scriptura – and we need both, otherwise the argument isn’t very strong.
1. The first reason why we should believe in sola scriptura is because we believe that scripture is inspired by God and that it is completely trustworthy when it comes to what we should believe and do as Christians. Of course we could get into a debate about whether or not scripture actually is inspired by God, whether or not scripture actually is trustworthy, or how do we really know which books should be in the Bible. But none of those points are really at issue here. During the Protestant Reformation, both sides were in agreement on this point. Of course, there eventually would be debate about the scope of the Old Testament (i.e. do the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books belong to the Old Testament) but even that isn’t really fundamental to this debate: during the Protestant Reformation both sides believed in the inspiration and trustworthiness of scripture.
But the inspiration and trustworthiness of scripture isn’t really enough to bring a person all of the way to the doctrine of sola scriptura – there is one more ingredient that is needed.
2. The second reason why we should believe in sola scriptura is because we don’t believe that any other source of authority is inspired by God and is completely trustworthy for what we should believe and do as Christians. As Protestants we don’t believe that the Pope is infallible, even when he speaks ex cathedra. (As a side note, Luther’s opponents in the sixteenth century clearly had a higher view of papal infallibility than the Catechism of the Catholic Church does today and certainly more than Roman Catholic apologists do today. I wonder if this is because, from our perspective today, it is all too clear that popes can and do make serious theological mistakes). As Protestants, we respect the ecumenical and other councils of the church, but we don’t believe they are infallible. And as Protestants – at least the early Protestants like Luther, Melanchthon, Zwingli, Bucer, Calvin, etc. and those who follow closely behind them – we read and respect the accumulated wisdom of the church fathers, but it is pretty easy to show that they were not infallible. No matter how close they might come to the truth, as Protestants we can never be sure that they are completely trustworthy because in too many instances they have shown themselves not to be trustworthy. That was the point that Martin Luther was trying to make at the Diet of Worms:
Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason – for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves – I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one’s conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me. Amen.
Notice that Luther didn’t base his belief in sola scriptura on the fact that sola scriptura is found in the Bible. Luther’s belief in sola scriptura is based on his view of the inspiration of scripture and the fact that two of the highest authorities for the Roman Catholic Church – popes and councils – are not completely trustworthy because they have often made mistakes and contradicted each other. And because Luther believed these two things, that meant that every other authority needed to be judged on the basis of scripture because scripture is the only authority that can be considered to be completely trustworthy for what we believe and do as Christians.
But Whose Interpretation Should We Follow?
The person who was arguing from the Roman Catholic perspective also brought out one other point that needs to be considered: he said that the doctrine of sola scriptura assumed an infallible interpreter. The Roman Catholic Church, he said, has the teaching authority of the church, the magisterium, to give them an authoritative interpretation of scripture. Protestants, on the other hand, have simply transferred the authority to interpret scripture from the church to the individual – which is a recipe for chaos.
What should we say in response to this? There are three quick things we can say in response to this:
a) First, it is fairly easy to show on the basis of individual examples that the teaching authority of the church is not infallible. They can make mistakes and they have made mistakes. So when the teaching authority of the church makes mistakes, scripture trumps the teaching authority of the church.
b) Second, Protestants traditionally do believe that the church and tradition have the ability to guide believers in the right interpretation of scripture. We would be fools to think that we as individuals are capable of getting everything right while everyone else is wrong. That is one reason why we need to have pastors and teachers and scholars to help God’s people understand scripture. That is one reason why we need to read church history and get as much wisdom as we can from Christians who came before us. And that is one reason why we need to be accountable to a larger church body so that it’s not just me or my small group and the Bible. If we think that sola scriptura means me plus the Bible and that’s it, that is a complete misunderstanding of how the early reformers understood the doctrine of sola scriptura. So we would be fools not to gain wisdom from the teaching authority of the church and tradition.
But with all of this in mind, we still need to recognize that the teaching authority of the church and tradition still need to be placed under the authority of scripture because they are not infallible. If the teaching authority of the church and tradition contradict scripture, scripture trumps them both.
c) Third, some people might think that I’m too much a child of the enlightenment but I actually do believe that there is objective meaning in the text and that that objective meaning is publically available. With the right training and the right presuppositions, Christian leaders should be able to come to a fairly good consensus on what scripture teaches in most cases. That is one reason why I think biblical theology is so important: it’s because I firmly believe that a more careful reading of scripture and how scripture fits together will bring us closer to what God actually wants us to believe and do as Christians. While I don’t think that Christians will ultimately agree on every issue (there are a lot of factors that go into how we form our theology!), I do think that a more careful reading of scripture will bring us closer together on many points. But even if everyone is not as optimistic as I am, I still think that scripture is clear enough that we can say that some teachings are definitely wrong and that some teachings are definitely right on the basis of what scripture has to say.
Again, I don’t think that sola scriptura is found in scripture. But that was never the point. The point is that both sides during the Reformation believed in the inspiration and trustworthiness of scripture – the difference is that the Reformers didn’t believe that other sources of authority were infallible. This meant that scripture needed to be the authority by which every other authority needed to be judged because only scripture is completely infallible. And that is the doctrine of sola scriptura – not the only authority but the highest authority for what we believe and do as Christians.
 Heiko A. Oberman, Luther: Man Between God and the Devil (trans. Eileen Walliser-Schwarzbart; New York: Image Books, 1992), 39.