Sola Scriptura Still MattersThe Reformation doctrine of Sola Scriptura (according to Scripture alone) holds that the Bible is God’s infallible Word, that it does not err, that it was given by the Holy Spirit, and that it is the final authority for the Christian faith and the Christian life. It was originally articulated in the context of Romanist claims that the Roman communion had authority to revise Scripture (e.g., by denying the cup in the Lord’s Supper to the laity), or to add to Scripture, e.g., by imposing doctrines and practices not imposed by the Word itself. It was also formulated in the context of Anabaptist claims of continuing miracles and revelation.
With the rise of the Modern missions movement in the 18th century and with the rise of the modern Pentecostal movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura remains relevant. The history of Modern missions (since the 18th century) is replete with examples of unverified claims of apostolic-like direct revelation or other sorts of quasi-apostolic miracles and wonders. On this see B. B. Warfield, Counterfeit Miracles (1918). The patterns that he observed a century ago have only intensified with the growth of Pentecostalism and the Charismatic movements. The claim that Muslims are receiving dreams, visions, and apparitions of the risen Lord is a part of the culture of Modern missions and especially of Modern Charismatic and Pentecostal piety. We are not obligated to accept these claims, which are almost always second or third-hand accounts.
The Reformation insistence that Scripture alone is the Word of God and that direct revelation of Scripture has ended with the close of the canon is a great guardian against such claims, which always work against the unique and final authority of the Word of God.
The irony here is that Islam is predicated upon a claim by the prophet of direct revelation from Allah via an angel. Thus, this story seems a fairly transparent example of seeking to making Christianity credible in the context of a religious culture that is premised on a religion of direct revelation. Some of the prophets and apostles saw visions of God the Son but some were simply “carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet 1:21). Scripture, as Peter says, is not the product of the human will. It is always the product of the Holy Spirit but the Spirit operated through the language and media of the time. In short, the Christian understanding of inspiration and the Muslim understanding are rather different.
The credibility of the Word of God does not rest on claims of a direct revelation to contemporary “prophets” or persons. The credibility of the Word rests in the Word itself. In Westminster Confession 1.4, the Reformed said: “The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.”
Finally, under this heading, we should note that the article reporting these claims contained what the Reformed churches confess to be a violation of the second commandment. God’s Word says:
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments (Ex 20:4-6; ESV).
Since the 7th century (but not before), it has come to be widely assumed that since God the Son became incarnate we may represent him with images. That is not the teaching of the New Testament, which left us no images of Jesus. Nothing in the NT even hints that we may make representations of Jesus. God’s Word is plain that God may not be represented. God the Son incarnate, Jesus of Nazareth, is God. Therefore he may not be represented in images (icons) even for the most worthy of reasons (worship or instruction).
Further, the earliest Christian teachers explicitly rejected the use of images of Jesus as contrary to the Word of God. Here are some resources on this question. Here again, sola Scriptura helps us avoid a serious theological and moral error.https://www.agradio.org/god-does-not-help-those-who-help-themselves-or-why-the-reformation-still-matters.html
