Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[BBAS 64]

Good Day, Jal

I would just like to assist by giving a clear definition of what the historical doctrine is:


First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

I hope that helps in your understanding...

In Him,

Bill

 

[JAL]

Good Day, Jal

I would just like to assist by giving a clear definition of what the historical doctrine is:


First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures. The "Sola" refers to its status as the only infallible authority, not the only authority.

I hope that helps in your understanding...

In Him,

Bill

No help at all. I don't see anything there new to me. See post 308 first, and then 314, to get an idea of why the facts of life contradict Sola Scriptura. Your key statement is this:

"Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures."

Which means those other authorities aren't real authorities! In the final analysis, Sola Scriptura implies that exegesis alone dictates all religious decisions for both doctrine and practice. Which is contrary to fact (see the 2 posts above for a start).

I'll make it even more clear. What maxim DICTATED your decision to accept Scripture as true? Consider the words, "I came to accept Scripture as true because I already knew that Scripture is my authority so I acquiesced to its claim to be the truth."

That circularity doesn't make sense, right? You couldn't have relied on exegesis because at that point you were not yet sure that Scripture is true. Something had to convince you that it's true - and that something, whether Reason, Conscience, Inward Witness, or whatever was, is thus for you a higher authority than Scripture because it did - and still does - DICTATE your allegiance to Scripture. Suppose for instance it was Reason. If tomorrow your Reason persuades you that the Koran is the truth, you will abandon Scripture. Thus Reason would be, for you, the highest authority.

To summarize, Scripture cannot be your highest authority. I propose 'conscience' defined as this maxim (and I argue that the Inward Witness operates by capitalizing on this maxim):

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

Please see 308 and 314 for a little more clarity on this.

 

[JAL]

Not just the Inward Witness - but in fact all cases of Direct Revelation both past, present, and future - must capitalize on said maxim. God reveals things to us by causing us to feel certain about them.

 

[BBAS 64]

No help at all. I don't see anything there new to me. See post 308 first, and then 314, to get an idea of why the facts of life contradict Sola Scriptura. Your key statement is this:

"Sola Scriptura doesn't deny the presence of other authorities subordinate to the Scriptures."

Which means those other authorities aren't real authorities! In the final analysis, Sola Scriptura implies that exegesis alone dictates all religious decisions for both doctrine and practice. Which is contrary to fact (see the 2 posts above for a start).

I'll make it even more clear. What maxim DICTATED your decision to accept Scripture as true? Consider the words, "I came to accept Scripture as true because I already knew that Scripture is my authority so I acquiesced to its claim to be the truth."

That circularity doesn't make sense, right? You couldn't have relied on exegesis because at that point you were not yet sure that Scripture is true. Something had to convince you that it's true - and that something, whether Reason, Conscience, Inward Witness, or whatever was, is thus for you a higher authority than Scripture because it did - and still does - DICTATE your allegiance to Scripture. Suppose for instance it was Reason. If tomorrow your Reason persuades you that the Koran is the truth, you will abandon Scripture. Thus Reason would be, for you, the highest authority.

To summarize, Scripture cannot be your highest authority. I propose 'conscience' defined as this maxim (and I argue that the Inward Witness operates by capitalizing on this maxim):

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

Please see 308 and 314 for a little more clarity on this.

Good Day, JAL

I will go back and read your posts.

Just to be clear Subordinate does not mean "not real" as you have contended:

But rather

adjective
placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.
of less importance; secondary.
subject to or under the authority of a superior.

One's understanding or interruption has nothing to do with the objective reality God breathed out nature of Scripture. Being the only thing we have of that nature has the same authority of it's origin in this case the creator of the all that is created.

Often see this error with in the Roman Church as they see them self's has they define it as equal in authority. In much the same manner you have your own subjective Inward Witness, with little regard for the objective truth that God is, and has made knoiwn to us.

Remind me a bit of an old saying: God said it that settles it, He does not need, nor depend on you to make His truth... true.

He is therefore defacto it is.

IN Him,

Bill

 

[JAL]

Good Day, JAL

I will go back and read your posts.

One's understanding or interruption has nothing to do with the objective reality God breathed out nature of Scripture. Being the only thing we have of that nature has the same authority of it's origin in this case the creator of the all that is created.

Often see this error with in the Roman Church as they see them self's has they define it as equal in authority. In much the same manner you have your own subjective Inward Witness, with little regard for the objective truth that God is, and has made knoiwn to us.

Remind me a bit of an old saying: God said it that settles it, He does not need, nor depend on you to make His truth... true.

He is therefore defacto it is.

IN Him,

Bill

Not relevant sir. I'm not questioning the objective veracity of Scripture. As subjects, however, our subjectivity raises the issue of epistemology, that is, by what authority do we come to know/believe in the objective veracity of Scripture? On the authority of Scripture? That would be circular.

 

[swordsman1]

Semantic-dancing. Now you're back on the word 'conscience' so that you can debate with me what the word 'conscience' means. At the moment I care little what you think that word means. All I'm interested in right now is whether you know of any clear and cogent exceptions to the following maxim:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

See? The maxim never uses the word 'conscience'. Enough already with the semantic-dancing.

We are discussing conscience because that is what you have insisted on calling your rule. Only as recently as yesterday you were calling it the rule of conscience.

Just removing the word "conscience" from the title of your rule is not enough. You are still using the terms "evil" and "good". That implies a decision of the conscience. Murder for instance would be thought of as evil, giving to the poor would be good.

To make it universal you need to change the wording to:

"If I feel certain that action-A is wrong, and B is right, I should opt for B".

In which case I have already provided 3 examples that are exceptions to your rule in post #316. And I can give you hundreds more.

 

[Loversofjesus_2018]

Are you postulating an exception to the rule of conscience?

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil and B is good, I should opt for B".

There are simply no exceptions to this rule, regardless of whether, as you say, "another believer disagree with you based on where the spirit has led them in their search?"

People don’t come to the same conclusions all the time is all I’m saying.

 

[JAL]

And what do you think "my voice" is? A feeling of certainty? I challenge you to find one verse in scripture that describes God's metaphorical "voice" as a feeling. However there are numerous verses that tell us exactly what God's metaphorical voice is. And it is......guess what?........Scripture!

How many times have we been over this? How is this not dishonest debating? For the millionth time, my position is that feelings of certainty are the MAJOR COMPONENT of Direct Revelation (not the ONLY component). For the millionth time, what good would His voice be - or even the words of Scripture - if we do not feel certain of their authenticity?

Again, I cannot write, in every post, with the precision possible in a 15-volume systematic theology. I've begged you read between the lines a little. Instead you opportunistically utilize the inevitable imprecisions to distort what I'm trying to say. For example I wasn't trying to say that God's Voice is NOTHING MORE than a feeling of certainty.

However there are numerous verses that tell us exactly what God's metaphorical voice is. And it is......guess what?........Scripture!

Let's be reasonable here. You cannot expect me to embrace a conclusion beset with so many implausibilities that it appears to be irrational. How can I rationally accept the theory that Scripture is the Voice of God? You seem to be confusing the written Word with the divine Word (again, see Gen 15:1). God didn't drop a Bible on Abraham's head. Rather, Abraham received an outpouring of the Spirit/Word and heard the Voice speaking promises. God's Voice is Him fellowshipping with us - IN REAL TIME. Consider this conversation between two men:

"Hey friend! I'm really excited about my new girfriend. We have a really intimate relationship. Indeed we're in love."
"Really? Glad to hear it. Tell me about it. Is she beautiful?"
"Well, I've never actually seen her face."
"Sorry to hear that, but I'll bet she has a lovely voice."
"Well, I've never actually heard her voice."
"How do you know her, then?"
"Well, actually she died 2,000 years ago nailed to a cross, but she left behind a book of laws and rules to follow."
"Wait a minute, I thought you claimed to have intimate fellowship with her!"
"I did. It's a 'spiritual' relationship.' "

Baloney. Reading an old book is NOT what it means to fellowship with someone in real time. Fellowship is a real-time exchange of sensations more or less distinct ("loud and clear").

And if that still fails to clarify the distinction between the written Law and the Voice, consider the Hebrew text. The word used for 'Voice' in the OT is qowl which appears 500 times in sonic context (about 50 of those cases refer to obeying the Voice of God). Thus we have 450 objective cases as the precedent. With no exceptions, those are 450 sonic references that NEVER imply written text. It's true that the Voice dictated the Law to Moses and thus there tends to inevitably be (in a remote sense) some law-nuances in some of the biblical references to the Voice. But that's hardly grounds for equating the book with the Voice.

And if that isn't enough to clarify the difference between the written Word and divine Word, consider this. Imagine a history professor who writes a perfectly accurate history book on World War II. No errors. He accomplishes this by sticking to the most well-known facts. He brings the text into his classroom and holds it up for the students to see. Immediately all the students run out the classroom screaming, "Run for your lives! It's a bomb!" See the absurdity? The textbook is not the explosive power of WWII bombs - it is a written DESCRIPTION of those bombs. In the same way, the written Word is just a written description of the divine Word. Thus when Heb tells us that "His voice shook the earth" (referring to how God's voice sonically shook Mt. Sinai), it's clearly a reference to the divine Word, not the written law.

 

[JAL]

People don’t come to the same conclusions all the time is all I’m saying.

And?

 

[JAL]

We are discussing conscience because that is what you have insisted on calling your rule. Only as recently as yesterday you were calling it the rule of conscience.

Just removing the word "conscience" from the title of your rule is not enough. You are still using the terms "evil" and "good". That implies a decision of the conscience. Murder for instance would be thought of as evil, giving to the poor would be good.

To make it universal you need to change the wording to:

"If I feel certain that action-A is wrong, and B is right, I should opt for B".

In which case I have already provided 3 examples that are exceptions to your rule in post #316. And I can give you hundreds more.

Semantic-dancing. Ignored. All you're doing is proving that you can find no cogent exceptions to the maxim.

 

[JAL]

You even went so far as to CHANGE THE WORDS OF THE MAXIM, in an effort to disprove MY maxim !!! That's crazy! You formulated a DIFFERENT maxim,and then claimed to disprove MINE !!!!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

How many times have we been over this? How is this not dishonest debating? For the millionth time, my position is that feelings of certainty are the MAJOR COMPONENT of Direct Revelation (not the ONLY component). For the millionth time, what good would His voice be - or even the words of Scripture - if we do not feel certain of their authenticity?

Again, I cannot write, in every post, with the precision possible in a 15-volume systematic theology. I've begged you read between the lines a little. Instead you opportunistically utilize the inevitable imprecisions to distort what I'm trying to say. For example I wasn't trying to say that God's Voice is NOTHING MORE than a feeling of certainty.


Let's be reasonable here. You cannot expect me to embrace a conclusion beset with so many implausibilities that it appears to be irrational. How can I rationally accept the theory that Scripture is the Voice of God? You seem to be confusing the written Word with the divine Word (again, see Gen 15:1). God didn't drop a Bible on Abraham's head. Rather, Abraham received an outpouring of the Spirit/Word and heard the Voice speaking promises. God's Voice is Him fellowshipping with us - IN REAL TIME. Consider this conversation between two men:

"Hey friend! I'm really excited about my new girfriend. We have a really intimate relationship. Indeed we're in love."
"Really? Glad to hear it. Tell me about it. Is she beautiful?"
"Well, I've never actually seen her face."
"Sorry to hear that, but I'll bet she has a lovely voice."
"Well, I've never actually heard her voice."
"How do you know her, then?"
"Well, actually she died 2,000 years ago nailed to a cross, but she left behind a book of laws and rules to follow."
"Wait a minute, I thought you claimed to have intimate fellowship with her!"
"I did. It's a 'spiritual' relationship.' "

Baloney. Reading an old book is NOT what it means to fellowship with someone in real time. Fellowship is a real-time exchange of sensations more or less distinct ("loud and clear").

And if that still fails to clarify the distinction between the written Law and the Voice, consider the Hebrew text. The word used for 'Voice' in the OT is qowl which appears 500 times in sonic context (about 50 of those cases refer to obeying the Voice of God). Thus we have 450 objective cases as the precedent. With no exceptions, those are 450 sonic references that NEVER imply written text. It's true that the Voice dictated the Law to Moses and thus there tends to inevitably be (in a remote sense) some law-nuances in some of the biblical references to the Voice. But that's hardly grounds for equating the book with the Voice.

And if that isn't enough to clarify the difference between the written Word and divine Word, consider this. Imagine a history professor who writes a perfectly accurate history book on World War II. No errors. He accomplishes this by sticking to the most well-known facts. He brings the text into his classroom and holds it up for the students to see. Immediately all the students run out the classroom screaming, "Run for your lives! It's a bomb!" See the absurdity? The textbook is not the explosive power of WWII bombs - it is a written DESCRIPTION of those bombs. In the same way, the written Word is just a written description of the divine Word. Thus when Heb tells us that "His voice shook the earth" (referring to how God's voice sonically shook Mt. Sinai), it's clearly a reference to the divine Word, not the written law.

Do you believe people have false near death experiences?
Do you think they feel that their conscience (or what they feel is right) plays a factor in the accepting of these visions that they had when they died and came back?
What is their spiritual authority?
A voice? What they feel is right?

In other words, conscience is not going to help a person in this case always.
They need a higher authority like the Word of God (the Bible). That is why I am Sola Scriptura. The Bible protects me from all that false junk out there that deceives other people (who play with the Bible in a more liberal way).

 

[swordsman1]

How many times have we been over this? How is this not dishonest debating? For the millionth time, my position is that feelings of certainty are the MAJOR COMPONENT of Direct Revelation (not the ONLY component). For the millionth time, what good would His voice be - or even the words of Scripture - if we do not feel certain of their authenticity?

Then why don't you tell us exactly what you understand God's metaphorical "voice" to be. I've already proved to you that it is Scripture. I challenge you to show me where it is described as something else.

Let's be reasonable here. You cannot expect me to embrace a conclusion beset with so many implausibilities that it appears to be irrational. How can I rationally accept the theory that Scripture is the Voice of God? You seem to be confusing the written Word with the divine Word (again, see Gen 15:1). God didn't drop a Bible on Abraham's head. Rather, Abraham received an outpouring of the Spirit/Word and heard the Voice speaking promises.

That was the LITERAL voice of God that Abraham heard, not a metaphorical voice. You don't think we should all be literally hearing Jesus's audible voice, do you? So what is his metaphoric voice in John 10:37, if not his words in scripture as I've already proved? Is it a feeling? Is it a thought? Is it extra-sensory perception? What? Show us from scripture what it is. We've been waiting for over 300 posts.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

@JAL

Basically this thread is over if you believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in what it says plainly. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be perfect unto ALL good works. Now, is a voice combined with feelings a necessary component in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 so that you may be PERFECT unto ALL good works? No. It doesn't say that. No doubt the early apostles had this experience, but they wrote 2 Timothy 3:16-17 for believers like us (Who would not have such experiences that they had). So if all Scripture is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness so that the man of God may be PERFECT unto ALL good works, what do I need for a voice combined with a reliance upon my conscience? Sure, I do have a conscience. Many people do. But the Bible talks about how a conscience can be defiled. So the conscience cannot be trusted, and neither can a voice, either. They are infallible sources. How do I know that? Did I just guess or hear a voice or see a cat talk to me about it? No. I got that from the Bible. It's my spiritual word of authority. Voices, and consciences, etc. cannot be a our sole source of authority and neither can they be trusted over what the Bible says. Spirits have to be tested, and consciences can be defiled according to the Bible. But my Bible.... it's totally trust worthy because it is indeed the Word of God.

Side Note:

I could be wrong, but I remember you saying before about how 2 Timothy 3:16-17 only applies to Timothy. But the passage says "Man of God" and not Timothy here. So while Paul is writing the letter to Timothy, he is letting him know about the "Man of God" in general in how he is to conduct himself.

 

[JAL]

Do you believe people have false near death experiences?
Do you think they feel that their conscience (or what they feel is right) plays a factor in the accepting of these visions that they had when they died and came back?
What is their spiritual authority?

If God is just, He will evaluate each of us on one principle:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

However, degrees of certainty matter on moral issues. To kill someone, most of us would generally feel a need for 100% certainty. Suppose such an after-death vision happened to me. More than likely, after the fact, I would feel less than 100% certain that the vision was real. Let's say 99% certain. Personally I'm not comfortable claiming that I had a supernatural vision unless I'm 100% certain. Thus I myself could NOT say with integrity:

"I feel certain that publicly proclaiming this vision is good"

because I lack what I perceive to be the needed degree of certainty. But now consider another issue - eating a nutritional meal. Since I'm not a nutritionist, I can hardly expect to achieve 100% certainty that a given meal has a healthy balance of nutrition. I would therefore be comfortable with 90% certainty. Thus at 90% certainty, I could honestly say:

"I am eating this particular meal because I feel certain it is the morally right way to treat my body."

That doesn't exempt me from the responsibility of continuing to seek 100% certainty. But since I was hungry and needed to make a decision immediately, I ate that particular meal in perfectly good conscience since, at that moment, that was the best I knew how to do.

 

[swordsman1]

Semantic-dancing. Ignored. All you're doing is proving that you can find no cogent exceptions to the maxim.

No, it's not. Your rule, as it stands, is still the rule of conscience. What is "evil" and what is "good". That only gives you a guilty feeling if your action is morally wrong and sinful. Nothing else.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If God is just, He will evaluate each of us on one principle:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

However, degrees of certainty matter on moral issues. To kill someone, most of us would generally feel a need for 100% certainty. Suppose such an after-death vision happened to me. More than likely, after the fact, I would feel less than 100% certain that the vision was real. Let's say 99% certain. Personally I'm not comfortable claiming that I had a supernatural vision unless I'm 100% certain. Thus I myself could NOT say with integrity:

"I feel certain that publicly proclaiming this vision is good"

because I lack what I perceive to be the needed degree of certainty. But now consider another issue - eating a nutritional meal. Since I'm not a nutritionist, I can hardly expect to achieve 100% certainty that a given meal has a healthy balance of nutrition. I would therefore be comfortable with 90% certainty. Thus at 90% certainty, I could honestly say:

"I am eating this particular meal because I feel certain it is the morally right way to treat my body."

That doesn't exempt me from the responsibility of continuing to seek 100% certainty. But since I was hungry and needed to make a decision immediately, I ate that particular meal in perfectly good conscience since, at that moment, that was the best I knew how to do.

Again, do you believe there are false near death experiences out there? If so, what ultimately tells you it is false? The Bible or your feelings or some voice?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If God is just, He will evaluate each of us on one principle:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B".

Yet, that is not the standard. Some think they are doing good while they do evil.

"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yes, the time comes, that whoever kills you will think that he does God service." (John 16:2).

What is the standard by which the Lord will evaluate each of us according to Scripture?

"He that rejects me, and receives not my words, has one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48).

According to the Bible and not you, it says that the person who receives not the words of Jesus, those very words by Jesus will judge them on the last day. So it is the Bible (i.e. Jesus's words in the Bible), and not some conscience alone or some voice.

But if you were right, then your voice, or your conscience would have gave you the more correct information here. But in reality, the Bible is correct on this one.

See.... that is why you need a Bible;
And to take it more seriously in regards to our final word of authority on spiritual matters. Nothing should come between you and God's Word.

 

[JAL]

Then why don't you tell us exactly what you understand God's metaphorical "voice" to be. I've already proved to you that it is Scripture. I challenge you to show me where it is described as something else.

Metaphorical voice is your term. I never used that term and really have no idea what you mean by it. In my view, God is capable of communication/speech, in various ways. Therefore He has a voice.

I can't debate "metaphorical voice" with you since I have no idea what that means.

That was the LITERAL voice of God that Abraham heard, not a metaphorical voice. You don't think we should all be literally hearing Jesus's audible voice, do you? So what is his metaphoric voice in John 10:37, if not his words in scripture as I've already proved? Is it a feeling? Is it a thought? Is it extra-sensory perception? What? Show us from scripture what it is. We've been waiting for over 300 posts.

Again, you're making distinctions that break down. You shouldn't limit God' voice to the normal sense of audible words (it's a bit narrow-minded) because consciousness is loudness. You seem to be saying:
(1) God's "real" voice consists of audible words.
(2) Anything else (such as vision) is His metaphorical voice ????

Again, these distinctions don't hold up. In a single vision, God impact me in all the five senses.

So, generally, I'd say that God's voice consists of any real-time impression more or less distinct ("loud and clear") that He imposes on the mind via His direct agency. Example. I can hear my heart-beating, and ultimately God is the author of that sound. Is that His voice? I'd say no, because it's an indirect agency, it's a mechanism He caused a long time ago, and thus is not a real-time exchange of communication with Him in the here-and-now.

Suppose God picked up a human telephone and dialed my number. Is that His voice? That's a difficult question. Certainly His voice is speaking into the phone, but what I'm actually hearing is an electronic facsimile of the Voice. Still, since at least it is in real time, it possibly qualifies as fellowship, although the ideal form of fellowship is direct contact with Him.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
This was in the past by the prophets.

I believe in the end times when Christians are persecuted and or killed, and they do not know what to say, we are told that the Holy Spirit will speak on what they should say. These words come from God, but they are not the creation of new doctrine, or some new instruction in righteous living. So yes, God can talk through us, and lead us in what to say. But they are not for general faith purposes in our every day Christian walk with God. This is only for believers being persecuted to the point of death.