Sola Scriptura Doesn't Make Sense

[JAL]

You have based your entire argument on the premise that the Holy Spirit's Inward Witness, which according to you, gives us a "feeling of certainty" on every action we make. And as a result we can discard Sola Scriptura. Despite your disdain for bible scholars (because they disagree with your theories), to add weight to your argument you made a big fanfare about how the great John Calvin, who championed this doctrine, agrees with you and how the whole of evangelical Christianity has embraced it.

But you have been lying to us. That is not the doctrine of the Spirit's Inward witness. Here is Calvin's doctrine.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. (1.7.4)

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearths through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as a thing far beyond any guesswork! (1.7.5)​

As we can see it is nothing whatsoever to do with feelings of certainty regarding our actions. It is the Holy Spirit giving us an inner conviction that Scripture is authentic and is truly the word of God. It is ONLY that.

So ironically, far from repudiating Sola Scriptura as you make out, the Spirit's inward witness is actually the driving force behind Sola Scriptura.

We can now see that your theory is built on a pack of lies. And now it has been exposed, your whole edifice has come crashing down. It can now be safely consigned to the theological dustbin where all your other bizarre theories have ended up.




Despite your error being exposed at the beginning of this thread you have maintained your lie throughout. Only now are you starting to back-pedal and forced to admit the Spirit's witness refers to scripture. But in order to try and save some face, I see you are once again lying. It was not Calvin's view that "both facets were involved". Calvin makes no mention of the Spirit's internal witness also speaking to us about our actions.

How much more dishonesty must we endure?

Wow. This is your version of intellectual honesty? You claim that, if in any way I misquoted Calvin, it therefore follows that my whole theology must be false? Let's consider that claim. If my whole theology is therefore false, then:
(1) God doesn't exist.
(2) Jesus is a lie
(3) There is no salvation.
(4) There is no Holy Spirit to enlighten us
(5) There are no moral obligations
(6) etc., etc., etc.,

Once again, my whole theology is founded on ONE primary premise:

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

You've had 300 posts to find an exception to this rule. You failed - utterly. All you've done is complain that:
(1) It should not be called "conscience".
(2) It was not Calvin's view.

So? And? I mean, that's all you've got, right?

 

[JAL]

You seriously think that a person's conscience would tell him that it is acceptable to murder someone?

Um...Have you ever heard of a thing called self-defense, for example? Suppose an intruder were attacking your wife and kids in such a way that killing him seems to be the only way to protect them. What do you suppose the voice of conscience would tell you THEN? And if circumstances can influence the voice of conscience, how much more can God modify it?

Don't believe me - believe the Scripture.
(1) Heb 11 celebrated Abraham for attempting to slaughter his son.
(2) Heb 11 celebrated men like David who slaughtered the Philistines - it says these men "conquered kingdoms" as exemplary faith for us to emulate.
(3) Heb 3 and 4 thrice reprimanded Israel for failing to heed the Voice - they failed to go up and slaughter the nations the first time.
(4) 1 Sam 15 reprimanded Saul for failing to slaughter the Amalekites - for failing to heed the Voice.

One has to conclude either that Scripture advocates deliberate violations of conscience (i.e. deliberate attempts to do evil), or that the divine Voice modified their conscience. Take your pick.

Oh that's right - you already DID take a pick. You insinuated that Abraham's attempt to slaughter his son was deliberate evil on his part, yet still should be celebrated as exemplary faith for us to emulate. Seems to me that Jesus had a very different view of Abraham than you do:

39“Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would c do what Abraham did. 40As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41You are doing the works of your own father...the devil" (John 8).

 

[JAL]

That is not the rule of conscience. It is your own invented rule which you have been shoving down our throats for the past 300 posts, falsely maintaining it to be the God ordained rule that is stamped onto every human psyche. No, the rule of conscience is this:

If a person feels guilty about a particular action, then it is morally wrong and sinful.

And I've already shown how your trite paraphrase of my position is already fully compliant with it. The only reason you'd feel guilty about an action is if you lacked a degree of felt certainty that such action was morally upright. Your verbiage is perfectly consistent with my original definition of conscience:

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

 

[JAL]

You have based your entire argument on the premise that the Holy Spirit's Inward Witness, which according to you, gives us a "feeling of certainty" on every action we make. And as a result we can discard Sola Scriptura. Despite your disdain for bible scholars (because they disagree with your theories), to add weight to your argument you made a big fanfare about how the great John Calvin, who championed this doctrine, agrees with you and how the whole of evangelical Christianity has embraced it.

But you have been lying to us. That is not the doctrine of the Spirit's Inward witness. Here is Calvin's doctrine.

John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion

God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men’s hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. (1.7.4)

Let this point therefore stand: that those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture indeed is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right subject it to proof and reasoning. And the certainty it deserves with us, it attains by the testimony of the Spirit. For even if it wins reverence for itself by its own majesty, it seriously affects us only when it is sealed upon our hearths through the Spirit. Therefore, illumined by his power, we believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that Scripture is from God; but above human judgment we affirm with utter certainty (just as if we were gazing upon the majesty of God himself) that it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men. We seek no proofs, no marks of genuineness upon which our judgment may lean; but we subject our judgment and wit to it as a thing far beyond any guesswork! (1.7.5)​

As we can see it is nothing whatsoever to do with feelings of certainty regarding our actions. It is the Holy Spirit giving us an inner conviction that Scripture is authentic and is truly the word of God. It is ONLY that.

So ironically, far from repudiating Sola Scriptura as you make out, the Spirit's inward witness is actually the driving force behind Sola Scriptura.

We can now see that your theory is built on a pack of lies. And now it has been exposed, your whole edifice has come crashing down. It can now be safely consigned to the theological dustbin where all your other bizarre theories have ended up.




Despite your error being exposed at the beginning of this thread you have maintained your lie throughout. Only now are you starting to back-pedal and forced to admit the Spirit's witness refers to scripture. But in order to try and save some face, I see you are once again lying. It was not Calvin's view that "both facets were involved". Calvin makes no mention of the Spirit's internal witness also speaking to us about our actions.

How much more dishonesty must we endure?

As already argued, your entire theory that I've misextrapolated Calvin is actually just your failure to extrapolate Calvin. You admit that Calvin postulated a God-given feeling of certainty as the basis for our confidence in Scripture. Yet you claim that this has no MORAL IMPLICATIONS, you claim that it does NOT impose any moral obligations upon the conscience. In essence, you're implying that a person can feel 100% certain that Scripture is true and yet have no compunctions in his conscience about cursing Jesus Christ to His face. Your utterly preposterous position is here dismissed without the formality of an apology.

 

[eleos1954]

It's hard to say - those two perspectives seem like two sides of a coin. Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Scripture cannot even tell me whether I should show up for work today. Because it doesn't apprise me as to whether my workplace will today be the scene of another 911-bombing, or a Covid-19 infestation, or some other catastrophe. Scripture can't even tell me whether the bug spray that I use in my household is safe - perhaps it is contaminating my neighbor's water supply. Any suggestion that Scripture is sufficient seems outlandish to me.

Scripture cannot even tell me whether I should show up for work today. Because it doesn't apprise me as to whether my workplace will today be the scene of another 911-bombing, or a Covid-19 infestation, or some other catastrophe. Scripture can't even tell me whether the bug spray that I use in my household is safe - perhaps it is contaminating my neighbor's water supply. Any suggestion that Scripture is sufficient seems outlandish to me.

This is plain goofy .... the Lord don't micromanage our lives and scripture wasn't intended for that purpose.

Scripture sets forth how we are to relate to God and to one another. Provides a history (examples) of what people did or did not do that. Provides insight into the future. Most importantly the way to salvation through Christ.

We can not rely totally on our conscience. Our conscience is an inner "feeling" and feelings can be right or wrong or indifferent. They can be influence by the Lord .... they can be influenced by the world ... they can be influenced by satan.

We turn to His Word to discern these feelings.

We can wrestle with what we are struggling to understand, asking God to answer and reveal things in prayer. Our connection with Him deepens as we dive into His Word. His voice will often pop right off the page with a direct answer to the stirring of our hearts.

Nothing is coincidental with our God. When we are intent on seeking Him, He is faithful to be found. Use the powerful tool of prayer, conversation with the one true God, to ask for wisdom in discerning His voice through Scripture.

His Word is His voice

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart (mind).

Since the Bible is the Word of God, and the Word of God is called the sword of the Spirit (Ephesians 6:17), we have a weapon to wage war in the spiritual realms. Since the Holy Spirit dwells in us, the Words in the Bible become our way of understanding the will of God. The Spirit uses the Word for us to know God’s will. By knowing the will of God, we can stay in fellowship with God.

We point everyone to the Lord .... we point everyone to study His Word ... through His Word he reveals Himself to each of us through His Holy Spirit. All should be in His Word daily.

God reveals Himself to the human race in five major ways: nature, the human conscience, the Person of Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and most significantly through His Holy Word. Each of these methods testifies to his existence. Humanity has no excuse whatsoever for rejecting him.

If we did not have His Holy Word we would not be able to understand nor experience the fulness of Him.

Sola SCRIPTURA !

 

[JAL]

I'm REALLY short on time today but will come back later if possible.

 

[Michael Garrett Andrews]

I watched a video on youtube Calvinism vs. Arminianism , where John Mcarthur admits that every major Christian doctrine is Paradoxical. I was Shocked he admitted this, but it also came as a relief. Sometimes no matter how hard we try we just can't get to the bottom of how things are supposed to be in theory (an answer that works across the board for everyone if you will), Objective/Absolute Truth. Even if the Holy Spirit speaks Objective Truth to us , we would have to interpret it Subjectively. So then, we could argue there is no Objective truth, and the circle begins. It is right there in our face, but we can't say it is Always one way everytime, the minute we do, here comes the exceptions to the 'rule'. (Although we have not seen any exceptions to the rule of conscience it still leaves a few questions!) Is the bible full of contradictions, or does it cover all the bases. We can only experience God through our individual brain, conscience, consciousness Which star in the sky is closer to God, or has the best position? No 2 people can occupy the same space at the same time, so what if the bible tells us to take 3 steps to the left, we will all be in a different location, that would be like me saying, well i followed the bible, but i'm not in the same place as you are. Op makes a very good point and does a fabulous job defending it, and i agree with the rule of conscience, but i wonder if it falls victim to Munchhausen Trilemma as well.

 

[JAL]

We can not rely totally on our conscience. Our conscience is an inner "feeling" and feelings can be right or wrong or indifferent. They can be influence by the Lord .... they can be influenced by the world ... they can be influenced by satan.

Stop contradicting yourself. 300 posts deep, it is obvious that you have tacitly conceded your inability to find any exception to the following rule:

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

THAT'S the rule, and I'm not going to indulge you any longer in semantic-dancing debates as to whether the rule should properly be termed 'conscience' or something else. The FACT is - whatever the nomenclature - there are no exceptions.

We can not rely totally on our conscience.

On the contrary, we rely TOTALLY on the stated rule (term it whatever you want) - until you can establish at least one cogent exception.

The rule is tautological because it defines justice. If God failed to honor this rule, He would be unjust. Why so? Because a perfect justice will evaluate us based on whether we did what is right TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE - which is precisely what the rule means.

And the rule doesn't just cover our moral actions. It actually extrapolates to cover our beliefs as well (see post 222 for details).

 

[JAL]

Again, stop contradicting yourself. First you claim it's goofy for me to ambition that the Voice guide and superintend all our actions:

This is plain goofy .... the Lord don't micromanage our lives and scripture wasn't intended for that purpose.

And then in the same post you backpedal:

We can wrestle with what we are struggling to understand, asking God to answer and reveal things in prayer. Our connection with Him deepens as we dive into His Word. His voice will often pop right off the page with a direct answer to the stirring of our hearts.

Well which is it? Does the Voice intend to guide us, or not? Make up your mind. To help you out, I'll start with an exegetical basis:

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (Jn 10:27).

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come" (John 16).

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him" (1 Jn 2:27)

Your ulterior motive for repudiating micromanagement is the fact that it refutes Sola Scriptura, because only Direct Revelation provides a viable framework for God to micromanage us. Scripture has in fact a term for micromanagement - it is called "being led by the Spirit".

"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God" (Rom 8:14).

"So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever c you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law" (Gal 5).

" Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit" (Gal 5:25).

"Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2where for forty days he was tempted a by the devil"

He is most certainly intent on micromanaging our evangelism - I've already linked to two exegetical proofs that the NT defines proper evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).

Here are some examples of how Direct Revelation micro-managed Paul's evangelistic campaigns.

"Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them (Acts 16).

You do realize, don't you, that Pentecost was a paradigm rather than an unrepeatable event? The disciples were told to wait in prayer - for what exactly? Until when, exactly? How were they to know when they were endued with power from on high? They had to wait for a "loud and clear" signal from heaven. That's Direct Revelation.

Take a hard look at Numbers 9:15-24. It's an OT example of how the Voice - i.e. "loud and clear" signals from heaven - micro-managed Israel's military campaigns. See the parallel? God's micromanaging of the military campaigns typified His intent to micromanage all evangelistic campaigns.

There are several more provocative passages on this topic, but this post is already too long, and I'm a little short on time.

 

[eleos1954]

Stop contradicting yourself. 300 posts deep, it is obvious that you have tacitly conceded your inability to find any exception to the following rule:

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

THAT'S the rule, and I'm not going to indulge you any longer in semantic-dancing debates as to whether the rule should properly be termed 'conscience' or something else. The FACT is - whatever the nomenclature - there are no exceptions.


On the contrary, we rely TOTALLY on the stated rule (term it whatever you want) - until you can establish at least one cogent exception.

The rule is tautological because it defines justice. If God failed to honor this rule, He would be unjust. Why so? Because a perfect justice will evaluate us based on whether we did what is right TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE - which is precisely what the rule means.

And the rule doesn't just cover our moral actions. It actually extrapolates to cover our beliefs as well (see post 222 for details).

conscience
an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

Many behaviors in this world my friend (and certainly many not righteous)

How do we really know what is or isn't righteous? Through the His written word!

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

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

it's not based on feelings .... it's based on teaching/knowledge ... and we are taught through scripture.

feelings can be and many times are very deceptive.

That's why we were given scripture.

 

[JAL]

conscience
an inner feeling or voice viewed as acting as a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior.

Many behaviors in this world my friend (and certainly many not righteous)

How do we really know what is or isn't righteous? Through the His written word!

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,



it's not based on feelings .... it's based on teaching/knowledge ... and we are taught through scripture.

feelings can be and many times are very deceptive.

That's why we were given scripture.

If my thesis is incorrect, then rebuttal should be an easy task for you. All you have to do is show me one clear exception to the rule - one real-life scenario that clearly calls for acting in opposition to the rule:

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

Hint: You won't find one.

 

[eleos1954]

Again, stop contradicting yourself. First you claim it's goofy for me to ambition that the Voice guide and superintend all our actions:
And then in the same post you backpedal:
Well which is it? Does the Voice intend to guide us, or not? Make up your mind. To help you out, I'll start with an exegetical basis:

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (Jn 10:27).

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come" (John 16).

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him" (1 Jn 2:27)

Your ulterior motive for repudiating micromanagement is the fact that it refutes Sola Scriptura, because only Direct Revelation provides a viable framework for God to micromanage us. Scripture has in fact a term for micromanagement - it is called "being led by the Spirit".

"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God" (Rom 8:14).

"So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever c you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law" (Gal 5).

" Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit" (Gal 5:25).

"Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, left the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness, 2where for forty days he was tempted a by the devil"

He is most certainly intent on micromanaging our evangelism - I've already linked to two exegetical proofs that the NT defines proper evangelism as prophetic utterance (see post 179 on another thread, and post 180).

Here are some examples of how Direct Revelation micro-managed Paul's evangelistic campaigns.

"Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, “Come over to Macedonia and help us.” 10After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them (Acts 16).

You do realize, don't you, that Pentecost was a paradigm rather than an unrepeatable event? The disciples were told to wait in prayer - for what exactly? Until when, exactly? How were they to know when they were endued with power from on high? They had to wait for a "loud and clear" signal from heaven. That's Direct Revelation.

Take a hard look at Numbers 9:15-24. It's an OT example of how the Voice - i.e. "loud and clear" signals from heaven - micro-managed Israel's military campaigns. See the parallel? God's micromanaging of the military campaigns typified His intent to micromanage all evangelistic campaigns.

There are several more provocative passages on this topic, but this post is already too long, and I'm a little short on time.

.... and how is it you are able to being forth these things? Because it's in scripture.

Matthew 4:4
But he answered, “It is written, “‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

 

[eleos1954]

If my thesis is incorrect, then rebuttal should be an easy task for you. All you have to do is show me one clear exception to the rule - one real-life scenario that clearly calls for acting in opposition to the rule:

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

Hint: You won't find one.

it's more so like this ...

Romans 7

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I admit that the law is good. 17In that case, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. 20And if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.21So this is the principle I have discovered: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law. 23But I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me.b 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

 

[JAL]

it's more so like this ...

Romans 7

14We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do, I do not do. But what I hate, I do. 16And if I do what I do not want to do, I admit that the law is good. 17In that case, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.18I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh; for I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19For I do not do the good I want to do. Instead, I keep on doing the evil I do not want to do. 20And if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.21So this is the principle I have discovered: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22For in my inner being I delight in God’s law. 23But I see another law at work in my body, warring against the law of my mind and holding me captive to the law of sin that dwells within me.b 24What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, with my mind I serve the law of God, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

Exactly as expected. You couldn't find one exception to the rule. The rule refutes Sola Scriptura because it exerts an authoritative imperative upon us without recourse to Scripture. In other words, whenever the rule is dictating to me a course of behavior, I do NOT need to "check it out with Scripture" or "test it against Scripture" because the rule is self-authoritative in its own right. In a word, the "Sola" in Sola Scripture is a lie because Scripture is not, in fact, the only final authority for moral agents.

 

[swordsman1]

To help you out, I'll start with an exegetical basis:

"My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me" (Jn 10:27).

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!

Judges 2:20 "So the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and He said, “Because this nation has transgressed My covenant which I commanded their fathers and has not listened to my voice"

2 Kings 18:12 "because they did not obey the voice of the Lord their God, but transgressed His covenant, even all that Moses the servant of the Lord commanded;

Psalm 106:24-25 "They did not believe in His word, but grumbled in their tents; they did not listen to the voice of the Lord."

Jer 9:13 "The Lord said, “Because they have forsaken My law which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice nor walked according to it".

Deut 13:18 "if you will listen to the voice of the Lord your God, keeping all His commandments"

Deut 15:5 "if only you listen obediently to the voice of the Lord your God, to observe carefully all this commandment"

Deut 26:14 "I have listened to the voice of the Lord my God; I have done according to all that You have commanded me."

Ex 19:5 "Now then, if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant"

Ex 23:21 "But if you truly obey his voice and do all that I say, then I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries. " (this is Moses speaking)

Dan 9:10 "nor have we obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His teachings which He set before us through His servants the prophets."

Daniel 9:11 "Indeed all Israel has transgressed Your law and turned aside, not obeying Your voice;"

1 Sam 12:14 "If you will fear the Lord and serve Him, and listen to His voice and not rebel against the command of the Lord"

1 Sam 12:14 "If you will not listen to the voice of the Lord, but rebel against the command of the Lord,"

Jer 11:3-4 "Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, “Cursed is the man who does not heed the words of this covenant which I commanded your forefathers ..., saying, ‘Listen to My voice, and do according to all which I command you; so you shall be My people"

Jer 26:12-13 "The Lord sent me to prophesy against this house and against this city all the words that you have heard. Now therefore amend your ways and your deeds and obey the voice of the Lord your God".

Jer 40:2-3 "The Lord your God promised this calamity against this place; and the Lord has brought it on and done just as He promised. Because you people sinned against the Lord and did not listen to His voice, therefore this thing has happened to you".

Psalm 81:11 “But My people did not listen to My voice, And Israel did not obey Me.​

"I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. 13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come" (John 16).

The "you" that Jesus refers to in this passage is not every believer, but solely the apostles whom he is addressing. It is part of the same discourse where Jesus instructs the disciples about the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost....

v7 "for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I go, I will send Him to you....". ​

The "you" here is clearly the 11 disciples. Now look at the passage you quoted (still part of the same discourse),

v12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." ​

This is still clearly addressed to the disciples personally. Then we have your key verse, but there is no change of context between v12 and v13. It is still the same "you":

v13 "He will guide you [the apostles] into all the truth". ​

And that is what happened. As spokesmen for Christ, the truth was revealed to them by direct revelation from the Spirit.

"As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him" (1 Jn 2:27)

The "anointing" that "remains in you" is the same thing that "remains in you" a couple of verses earlier:

24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you.​

which is of course referring to the teaching of God's word. It cannot refer to the Holy Spirit internally teaching you as John says that "it has taught you" in the verse you quoted. Whatever taught them was not a person. John would not use the neuter pronoun is he was referring to the Holy Spirit.

Scripture has in fact a term for micromanagement - it is called "being led by the Spirit".

"For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God" (Rom 8:14).

"So I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever c you want. 18But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law" (Gal 5).

Don't take that verse out of context. Read the previous verse

Rom 8:13-14 "For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God."​

It is referring to the promptings of the Spirit in regards to the sinful deeds of the flesh. It's not about being somehow internally guided on all other matters.

Same for Gal 5. Carefully read the verses before v18 in the passage you quoted .

Here are some examples of how Direct Revelation micro-managed Paul's evangelistic campaigns.

Paul was an apostle who received direct revelation from God. We are not apostles.

 

[swordsman1]

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

THAT'S the rule, and I'm not going to indulge you any longer in semantic-dancing debates as to whether the rule should properly be termed 'conscience' or something else. The FACT is - whatever the nomenclature - there are no exceptions.

There is no such rule.

The rule of conscience is: "If I feel guilty about an action, I shouldn't do it."

Your conscience would only be pricked if a certain action is morally wrong and sinful. eg murder, lying, theft, etc. Your conscience would be completely silent on such issues as "should I evangelize face-to-face in the middle of a pandemic?". You would get no God-given feelings whatsoever to tell you whether such an action is the right thing to do. Instead you would reason within your mind, using scripture as a guide.

Feelings of certainty are useless as a guide.

You could feel certain about buying your ideal house at market price, only to find there were hidden structural problems that are now costing you a fortune to fix.

You could feel certain about moving to the other side of the country for a job, only to be made redundant a few months later.

You can feel certain that your theological view, or your interpretation of a passage is correct - only to find yourself refuted and proven wrong. (We've seen a lot of that in this thread!)

The list of examples is endless.

 

[swordsman1]

The only reason you'd feel guilty about an action is if you lacked a degree of felt certainty that such action was morally upright.

Nonsense. Your conscience is not pricked because you lack certainty. It is pricked because God has pre-programmed into the human psyche a mechanism of feeling guilty whenever an action you take or contemplate taking is morally wrong and sinful.

 

[JAL]

There is no such rule.

The previous semantic-dancing was whether we should call it "conscience". The current semantic-dancing is whether we should call it "rule". Regardless of what you call it (here let's call it 'maxim'), it abides as an accurate description of all appropriate human conduct for which no exceptions can be found. You certainly haven't found an exception.

The maxim is tautological because it defines justice. If God failed to honor this maxim, He would be an unjust judge. Why so? Because perfect justice will evaluate us based on whether we did what is right TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE - which is precisely what the maxim means.

All this semantic-dancing is beginning to look like dishonest debating. There's only so far I'm willing to go with all your nonsense.

 

[JAL]

Nonsense. Your conscience is not pricked because you lack certainty. It is pricked because God has pre-programmed into the human psyche a mechanism of feeling guilty whenever an action you take or contemplate taking is morally wrong and sinful.

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.

 

[JAL]

Feelings of certainty are useless as a guide.

Really? Apparently then, you're the only one who has found an exception to the maxim.

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

Wonderful. Tell me all about it. I'm all ears. Anecdotally, recount for me at least one scenario in your life that clearly and cogently warranted departure from the above maxim. I've been waiting 300 posts for this climax. Not sure why you've still got me on hold.