How Direct Revelation Trumps Sola Scriptura

[LostMarbels]

@EVERYONE:

If God intended us to base our doctrines on exegesis understood as our singular authority

My biggest contention thus far is you constantly bring up exegesis. Remember? Lean not on your own understanding? Im wondering if you are stating that your critical explanation or interpretation of text 'exegesis' is correct just because you get a warm fuzzy feeling.

I don't believe God ever expected man to interpret his word. This why we have the Holy Spirit.

The Inward Witness solves this problem by causing them to feel certain that the gospel is true.

I don't reconise an 'inner witness' any more than I do Him, He, His... Example: 'In his precious name, Amen.'

His who? Who is his?

Likewise, what inner witness? I will not assume one means the holy spirit and not their own spirit or others.

 

[JAL]

I don't believe God ever expected man to interpret his word. This why we have the Holy Spirit.

Unacceptably ambiguous. That statement doesn't help anyone unless you clarify in what sense the Holy Spirit teaches us. If I reach a conclusion, how do I know if it came from the Holy Spirit? Can you give me a clear rule to abide by? Notice that I provided a clear rule:

If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

My biggest contention thus far is you constantly bring up exegesis. Remember? Lean not on your own understanding? Im wondering if you are stating that your critical explanation or interpretation of text 'exegesis' is correct just because you get a warm fuzzy feeling.

So you'd characterize the above rule as a warm fuzzy feeling? Sure, call it whatever you like. Do you know of any exceptions to the rule?

I don't reconise an 'inner witness' any more than I do Him, He, His... Example: 'In his precious name, Amen.'

His who? Who is his? Likewise, what inner witness? I will not assume one means the holy spirit and not their own spirit or others.

Not following you here. I suppose if you don't believe in the traditional doctrine of the Inward Witness, that particular argument of mine doesn't apply to you. As Calvin defined it, the doctrine of the Inward Witness means that the beliefs constituting our original deposit of saving faith became, and remain, persuasive to us as a result of the Third Person's soteriological influence upon our hearts. In a word, He "convicts" (convinces) us of the gospel, causing us to feel certain of its veracity. Again, if you reject this doctrine, you face the challenge of having to explain the germination and stability of saving faith in several categories of people:
(1) The mentally handicapped including those with Alzheimer's?
(2) Children?
(3) People in 3rd world countries too poor to own a Bible or study it? No access to seminary libraries?

 

[LostMarbels]

If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

I have met many individuals that feel it is okay to do all manor of things. Molest children. Kill people. Steal. Lie. And they honestly do not have a moral dilemma about it. This is not a standard but a rubber stamp. Self consent.

'I feel it is ok to shoot that dude so it is good.'

Unacceptably ambiguous.

Or intentionally stated. This is why I am big on names. There is no mistaking who is being referred to by the Holy Spirit.

Can you give me a clear rule to abide by?

In God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. God and his scripture is the standard to apply beliefs to.

So you'd characterize the above rule as a warm fuzzy feeling? Sure, call it whatever you like. Do you know of any exceptions to the rule?

There is no rule. You just made it up in this conversation. Where is this rule of following one's own feelings in the bible?

Not following you here. I suppose if you don't believe in the traditional doctrine of the Inward Witness, that particular argument of mine doesn't apply to you.

Docturne?

I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
2Jn 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
2Jn 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

As Calvin defined it

Sorry, he is not my God or teacher. The Christ, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit Christ sent as both a "helper" and "teacher" are. God can explain God to me far better than any man.

Again, if you reject this doctrine, you face the challenge of having to explain the germination and stability of saving faith in several categories of people:
(1) The mentally handicapped including those with Alzheimer's?
(2) Children?
(3) People in 3rd world countries too poor to own a Bible or study it? No access to seminary libraries?

God is immutablely soverighn, with unmitigated authority. Such things are not an obstruction to him. As a part of the same triune God, the Holy Spirit has said authority.

 

[Aussie Pete]

With 100 billion souls at stake, God isn’t so stupid as to rely on fallible exegesis. His plan for both OT and NT saints has always been the absolute primacy of direct revelation (1Cor 14:1). Let’s see how it trumps exegesis. Prior to conversion, exegesis convinced Paul that the Messiah would liberate captive Israel . Hence he regarded Jesus neither as Messiah nor as God incarnate. Then he saw a vision and heard a voice on the road to Damascus. This direct revelation caused him to feel certain that Jesus is Lord and God, thereby trumping 20 years of exegesis – he threw it all out the window literally in a single flash of Light.

How and when does a direct revelation trump exegesis? Feelings of certainty. There are no possible exceptions to the following rule, termed here the “authority of conscience” or “the rule of conscience”:

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

In fact that’s how we got saved. The Inward Witness "convicted" us (convinced us), causing us to feel certain of the gospel. Calvin specifically defined the Inward Witness as feelings of certainty.

While the prophets often felt 100% certainty, we immature believers usually suffer mere degrees of certainty. When faced with several choices, my conscience will prompt me to opt for the one that I feel most certain about.

In my next post, I plan to show evidence that walking in faith ideally means walking in 100% certainty born of direct revelation (prophetic experience).

IMPORTANT: If you want to rebut my thinking, you’ll need to supply at least one clear exception to the above rule of conscience. And that cannot be accomplished.

Also, if you want more evidence, I have a whole thread here, demonstrating that the first epistle to the Corinthians defines spiritual maturity as mature prophethood.

Conditional hearty agreement. The condition is that revelation will never contradict God's word. God's word is the safety net that ensures we do not fall into error. To be picky, revelation is revealed intuitively. The conscience warns us that we are or are about to sin.

 

[JAL]

I have met many individuals that feel it is okay to do all manor of things. Molest children. Kill people. Steal. Lie. And they honestly do not have a moral dilemma about it. This is not a standard but a rubber stamp. Self consent.

'I feel it is ok to shoot that dude so it is good.'

I've adequately addressed that concern in posts 69, 71, 72,78 for example, to name a few.

In God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. God and his scripture is the standard to apply beliefs to.

There is no rule. You just made it up in this conversation. Where is this rule of following one's own feelings in the bible?

Docturne?

I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
2Jn 1:5 And now I beseech thee, lady, not as though I wrote a new commandment unto thee, but that which we had from the beginning, that we love one another.
2Jn 1:6 And this is love, that we walk after his commandments. This is the commandment, That, as ye have heard from the beginning, ye should walk in it.
2Jn 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
2Jn 1:8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
2Jn 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jn 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
2Jn 1:11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.


Sorry, he is not my God or teacher. The Christ, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit Christ sent as both a "helper" and "teacher" are. God can explain God to me far better than any man.


God is immutablely soverighn, with unmitigated authority. Such things are not an obstruction to him. As a part of the same triune God, the Holy Spirit has said authority.

Lot's of talk here, but no clear principle to abide by, nothing plain and objective that we can all understand and emulate. Not helpful at all. I can't follow your advice if I'm not sure what it is.

 

[JAL]

There is no rule. You just made it up in this conversation. Where is this rule of following one's own feelings in the bible?

Tautologies often stand reasonably well on their own merit (inner coherence) without recourse to exegesis. Mathematical axioms are a good example, and they serve as building blocks for complex theorems. When your math teacher writes a theorem on the board, do you reply, "I cannot accept it until you prove it from Scripture" ????

No. You accept the theorem because you are not aware of any exceptions to the underlying axioms. Again, if you want to rebut me, simply find one exception to my axiom:

"If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

My claim is that all your own behavior and personal experience corroborate this axiom. You are free to provide a counterexample. Obviously you don't have one, not even a hypothetical one.

Look, we all know that exegesis, and the discipline of theology as a whole, is fallible. Therefore since we have to start SOMEWHERE, why not start with tautological axioms?

 

[Barney2.0]

Church history trumps Sola Scriptura.

 

[Albion]

Church history trumps Sola Scriptura.

If that were so, the "truth" would be one of constant change, human ambition, and doctrinal uncertainty.

It's more than certain that there has to be some overriding, absolute, standard...and there obviously cannot be anything that beats the word of God himself given to us men. Can there? To be sure, nothing that is manmade, like Holy Tradition, can do so.

 

[Hazelelponi]

With 100 billion souls at stake, God isn’t so stupid as to rely on fallible exegesis. His plan for both OT and NT saints has always been the absolute primacy of direct revelation (1Cor 14:1). Let’s see how it trumps exegesis. Prior to conversion, exegesis convinced Paul that the Messiah would liberate captive Israel . Hence he regarded Jesus neither as Messiah nor as God incarnate. Then he saw a vision and heard a voice on the road to Damascus. This direct revelation caused him to feel certain that Jesus is Lord and God, thereby trumping 20 years of exegesis – he threw it all out the window literally in a single flash of Light.

How and when does a direct revelation trump exegesis? Feelings of certainty. There are no possible exceptions to the following rule, termed here the “authority of conscience” or “the rule of conscience”:

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

In fact that’s how we got saved. The Inward Witness "convicted" us (convinced us), causing us to feel certain of the gospel. Calvin specifically defined the Inward Witness as feelings of certainty.

While the prophets often felt 100% certainty, we immature believers usually suffer mere degrees of certainty. When faced with several choices, my conscience will prompt me to opt for the one that I feel most certain about.

In my next post, I plan to show evidence that walking in faith ideally means walking in 100% certainty born of direct revelation (prophetic experience).

IMPORTANT: If you want to rebut my thinking, you’ll need to supply at least one clear exception to the above rule of conscience. And that cannot be accomplished.

Also, if you want more evidence, I have a whole thread here, demonstrating that the first epistle to the Corinthians defines spiritual maturity as mature prophethood.

In saying direct revelation trumps scripture then your saying Islam is a legitimate religion and path to salvation, as it's based on direct revelation, your saying Mormonism is a legitimate religion and path to salvation, your saying Jehovah's Witness is a legitimate path to salvation...

do you see what your actually saying? If there's no infallible authority by which to compare direct revelation to, in order to determine the validity and authenticity of said revelation, then your saying every revelation is equally infallible - and there are no absolutes in salvation.

Do you truly believe that?

Paul used Scripture to determine the validity of direct revelation - he didn't point anyone to his experience, he pointed them to Scripture.

Our exegesis can be fallible, but Scripture itself cannot, otherwise every direct revelation is equally valid, no matter how divergent from scripture.

And remember, the Apostles teaching from Scripture was so valid as to make converts out of Jewish preists.

 

[Peter J Barban]

With 100 billion souls at stake, God isn’t so stupid as to rely on fallible exegesis. His plan for both OT and NT saints has always been the absolute primacy of direct revelation (1Cor 14:1). Let’s see how it trumps exegesis. Prior to conversion, exegesis convinced Paul that the Messiah would liberate captive Israel . Hence he regarded Jesus neither as Messiah nor as God incarnate. Then he saw a vision and heard a voice on the road to Damascus. This direct revelation caused him to feel certain that Jesus is Lord and God, thereby trumping 20 years of exegesis – he threw it all out the window literally in a single flash of Light.

How and when does a direct revelation trump exegesis? Feelings of certainty. There are no possible exceptions to the following rule, termed here the “authority of conscience” or “the rule of conscience”:

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

In fact that’s how we got saved. The Inward Witness "convicted" us (convinced us), causing us to feel certain of the gospel. Calvin specifically defined the Inward Witness as feelings of certainty.

While the prophets often felt 100% certainty, we immature believers usually suffer mere degrees of certainty. When faced with several choices, my conscience will prompt me to opt for the one that I feel most certain about.

In my next post, I plan to show evidence that walking in faith ideally means walking in 100% certainty born of direct revelation (prophetic experience).

IMPORTANT: If you want to rebut my thinking, you’ll need to supply at least one clear exception to the above rule of conscience. And that cannot be accomplished.

Also, if you want more evidence, I have a whole thread here, demonstrating that the first epistle to the Corinthians defines spiritual maturity as mature prophethood.

In other words OP says...
"God isn’t so stupid as to rely on" [boring idea that most people believe] Instead, "His plan for both OT and NT saints has always been" [my idea that is posted on a Controversial Christian Theology forum].

With a premise this bad, I can't make myself finish the post.

 

[JAL]

In other words OP says...
"God isn’t so stupid as to rely on" [boring idea that most people believe] Instead, "His plan for both OT and NT saints has always been" [my idea that is posted on a Controversial Christian Theology forum].

With a premise this bad, I can't make myself finish the post.

Unfortunately I can't address this post for lack of any specific content. If you have an argument to make, then make it.

 

[JAL]

In saying direct revelation trumps scripture then your saying Islam is a legitimate religion and path to salvation, as it's based on direct revelation, your saying Mormonism is a legitimate religion and path to salvation, your saying Jehovah's Witness is a legitimate path to salvation...

do you see what your actually saying? If there's no infallible authority by which to compare direct revelation to, in order to determine the validity and authenticity of said revelation, then your saying every revelation is equally infallible - and there are no absolutes in salvation.

Are you saying that you've found an exception to the rule of conscience?

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

Can you be more clear as to what circumstances warrant deviation from this rule?

Paul used Scripture to determine the validity of direct revelation - he didn't point anyone to his experience, he pointed them to Scripture.

Apparently you've never read Acts, Galatians, and Ephesians. In those three books, it's painfully clear that Paul attests to the gospel "made known to me by revelation."

Moving on from that historic fact, it is also true that Paul cited Scripture in his epistles - he did so for the same reasons that I cite Scripture on this thread. It's a debating tactic. Meaning, if I have a pretty reliable theory as to how the audience regards a particular verse, I can use that verse against them in a debate, to show them where they are contradicting themselves, or show them where extrapolation leads.

Our exegesis can be fallible...

Exactly. And with 100 billion souls at stake, fallibility is not acceptable. We need something more.

... but Scripture itself cannot, otherwise every direct revelation is equally valid, no matter how divergent from scripture.

Valid for whom? You don't answer to God for everyone. You answer to God for yourself, and if He is just, He will evaluate you on one, and ONLY one principle:

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

And remember, the Apostles teaching from Scripture was so valid as to make converts out of Jewish preists.

Not sure why you think that statement proves anything definitively or decisively. You'd probably need to spell out that argument in more detail.

 

[fhansen]

Excellent point. You've nailed it on the head. Evangelicalism's doctrine of the Inward Witness, as formally defined by John Calvin, is in flat contradiction to Evangelicalism's doctrine of Sola Scriptura. This has been one of several longstanding contradictions in church history. Calvin is just as guilty of it as the rest.

And yet the “Inner Witness” responds to hearing the Word, no?... via Scripture.

 

[Greengardener]

With 100 billion souls at stake, God isn’t so stupid as to rely on fallible exegesis. His plan for both OT and NT saints has always been the absolute primacy of direct revelation (1Cor 14:1). Let’s see how it trumps exegesis. Prior to conversion, exegesis convinced Paul that the Messiah would liberate captive Israel . Hence he regarded Jesus neither as Messiah nor as God incarnate. Then he saw a vision and heard a voice on the road to Damascus. This direct revelation caused him to feel certain that Jesus is Lord and God, thereby trumping 20 years of exegesis – he threw it all out the window literally in a single flash of Light.

How and when does a direct revelation trump exegesis? Feelings of certainty. There are no possible exceptions to the following rule, termed here the “authority of conscience” or “the rule of conscience”:

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

In fact that’s how we got saved. The Inward Witness "convicted" us (convinced us), causing us to feel certain of the gospel. Calvin specifically defined the Inward Witness as feelings of certainty.

While the prophets often felt 100% certainty, we immature believers usually suffer mere degrees of certainty. When faced with several choices, my conscience will prompt me to opt for the one that I feel most certain about.

In my next post, I plan to show evidence that walking in faith ideally means walking in 100% certainty born of direct revelation (prophetic experience).

IMPORTANT: If you want to rebut my thinking, you’ll need to supply at least one clear exception to the above rule of conscience. And that cannot be accomplished.

Also, if you want more evidence, I have a whole thread here, demonstrating that the first epistle to the Corinthians defines spiritual maturity as mature prophethood.

Interesting post and conjecture, JAL. My gut thought is that in the example of Paul, God used the revelation to show him how he was abusing and misinterpreting the written word and over-emphasizing the traditions, thus setting him straight on the intentions of God, who never changes, whose word is reliable (or Whose Word is reliable). I would conjecture that most of what makes us 100% certain about a course of action will ultimately be found supported in concepts of Scriptures, so the Holy Spirit working in us will not be found to be in contradiction to what God already said, since God doesn't change. It's when we get stuck in how the words were administered then versus what the concept behind those words were and how that concept would make life work today that we find problems. Of course, along the way of "Christian" or church history we have had a lot of people to interpret how they saw things and other people based their interpretations on them, so in all honesty it's likely we're as confused as the people when Jesus walked, since they had a long line of rabbinical interpretations all based on prior rabbinical interpretations and needed Jesus to straighten out the mess and get back to the concepts instead of tripping up over the words. Just my humble thoughts in reaction to your first post, and thank you for the leads to other posts I can check out. I'm all for both the study of what God said and the listening to what God continues to say.

 

[JAL]

@EVERYONE,

Surely you don't want God to evaluate you based on your fidelity to Scripture, right? Wouldn't you prefer Him to evaluate you on your faithfulness to conscience? Bear in mind that disobedience warrants punishment/judgments from Him even in this life. Thus if He evaluates you based on your fidelity to Scripture, He can punish you for any exegetical mistakes. For example suppose you attend university-A, not realizing He wanted you to go to university-B. In fact you felt certain that A was the better choice. You acted in good conscience. Do you really want to be punished for that action?

 

[JAL]

And yet the “Inner Witness” responds to hearing the Word, no?... via Scripture.

Unacceptably ambiguous. What Scripture was Abraham reacting to when he heard the Voice?

 

[JAL]

Interesting post and conjecture, JAL. My gut thought is that in the example of Paul, God used the revelation to show him how he was abusing and misinterpreting the written word and over-emphasizing the traditions, thus setting him straight on the intentions of God, who never changes, whose word is reliable (or Whose Word is reliable). I would conjecture that most of what makes us 100% certain about a course of action will ultimately be found supported in concepts of Scriptures, so the Holy Spirit working in us will not be found to be in contradiction to what God already said, since God doesn't change. It's when we get stuck in how the words were administered then versus what the concept behind those words were and how that concept would make life work today that we find problems. Of course, along the way of "Christian" or church history we have had a lot of people to interpret how they saw things and other people based their interpretations on them, so in all honesty it's likely we're as confused as the people when Jesus walked, since they had a long line of rabbinical interpretations all based on prior rabbinical interpretations and needed Jesus to straighten out the mess and get back to the concepts instead of tripping up over the words. Just my humble thoughts in reaction to your first post, and thank you for the leads to other posts I can check out. I'm all for both the study of what God said and the listening to what God continues to say.

Thanks for the positive feedback.

You might imagine that we're dramatically advantaged over Paul because he was saddled with rabbinical traditions in contrast to our objective encounter with the written Word. But are we really objective? Are we really unbiased by traditions? Such as the tradition of Sola Scriptura, and the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity? There's a book online attesting to the fact that the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity - a Plato-based tradition - has dominated the mainstream Doctrine of God for at least 1800 years! I plan to start a thread on that issue soon.

Look, the main issue isn't whether our thinking is tainted - it is the possibility that it MIGHT be tainted. For this reason we need to seek infallible information. Exegesis cannot provide that hope and expectation.

 

[JAL]

Another comment on this.

In saying direct revelation trumps scripture then your saying Islam is a legitimate religion and path to salvation, as it's based on direct revelation, your saying Mormonism is a legitimate religion and path to salvation, your saying Jehovah's Witness is a legitimate path to salvation...

do you see what your actually saying? If there's no infallible authority by which to compare direct revelation to, in order to determine the validity and authenticity of said revelation, then your saying every revelation is equally infallible - and there are no absolutes in salvation.

I understand one of the concerns here. A church leader does, after all, have to decide what constitutes heresy. On what basis should he ostracize someone? Given my stance, how shall he proceed? Business as usual! The same way he proceeds now. He will ask himself whether he can admit a particular teaching into his congregation in good conscience. Perhaps the only difference is that my epistemology should cause him to:
(1) Be a little less arrogant about ostracism. He should admit that he himself is fallible and MIGHT very well be the one in the wrong.
(2) Be a little more tolerant, for the same reason. Don't be so quick to brand someone as a heretic.

In fact the tendency to leap to charges of blasphemy is in large part the reason for longstanding errors in doctrine. Scholars and pastors alike are understandably terrified of questioning traditional doctrines because doing so can spell a loss of career and consequent inability to put bread on the table for their own families. How sad. How stagnating.

By no means is exegesis uninvolved in ostracism. Naturally the conscience will direct a leader, when evaluating possible heresies, to examine the Scriptures with respect to any issues of uncertainty. But such a leader will be wise to spend at least as much time waiting prayerfully on the Lord for direct revelation, as he does in exegesis. Ideally, in fact, we should aspire to a church abounding so much in prophethood that traditional exegesis is rarely, if ever, called for.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Are you saying that you've found an exception to the rule of conscience?

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

Can you be more clear as to what circumstances warrant deviation from this rule?

Apparently you've never read Acts, Galatians, and Ephesians. In those three books, it's painfully clear that Paul attests to the gospel "made known to me by revelation."

Moving on from that historic fact, it is also true that Paul cited Scripture in his epistles - he did so for the same reasons that I cite Scripture on this thread. It's a debating tactic. Meaning, if I have a pretty reliable theory as to how the audience regards a particular verse, I can use that verse against them in a debate, to show them where they are contradicting themselves, or show them where extrapolation leads.


Exactly. And with 100 billion souls at stake, fallibility is not acceptable. We need something more.

Valid for whom? You don't answer to God for everyone. You answer to God for yourself, and if He is just, He will evaluate you on one, and ONLY one principle:

“If I feel certain that action-A is evil, and action-B is good, I should go with action-B.”

Not sure why you think that statement proves anything definitively or decisively. You'd probably need to spell out that argument in more detail.

Christianity isn't based on feelings. While we have feelings, we must have an infallible authority - outside of us - that governs.

2 Timothy 3:16

"All scripture is given by inspiration from God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;"

That authority is scripture according to the fathers of our faith. Why?

"But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death" James 1:14-15.

So how do you know if a feeling isn't one that is drawing you away from truth instead of toward it?

If I feel like action a) is sin and action b.) is permissible what should I do?

I should go to Scripture and see what Scripture says on the topic. Perhaps the feelings are actually impressed upon me by a demonic influence or just my human feelings, or perhaps they are given me by God. Either is possible for the saved individual.

So if I feel something is sin, then I should look to see if Scripture agrees with the assessment. If it does, then the feeling is Godly, if it doesn't, then I'm being led into a false gospel.

The Apostles and Jesus told us not to depart from the way... the only way to be assured that we will never depart is to hold tightly to Scripture, given by God,

"that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" 2 Timothy 3:17

 

[LostMarbels]

I've adequately addressed that concern in posts 69, 71, 72,78 for example, to name a few.

Obviously you haven't, seeing the point is in contention.

Lot's of talk here, but no clear principle to abide by, nothing plain and objective that we can all understand and emulate. Not helpful at all. I can't follow your advice if I'm not sure what it is.

No clear principle.... you say I provided no fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning.

I stated: "In God there is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. God and his scripture is the standard to apply beliefs to."

What is 'unclear' about that?