I was recently asked this question on a similar thread. I was at work, so I responded with
a series of short replies (posts 479 to 482) but those posts will show you how to a link to a few slightly-longer posts that are more thorough.
I haven't been able to go over your longer post with a 'fine tooth comb', so to say, but I've read most of it. I'll give you two things right now that I disagree with immediately;
Your Maxim, "If feel certain that action-A is evil, and B is good, I should opt for B", is ironically the exact same thing used by a lot of Atheistic arguments. I'd have a difficult time convincing someone with that Maxim that God is not evil, he is not unjust, and that religion is not wholly toxic.
As for a fellow Christian, there are just as many ways that Maxim can go wrong. In fact, I'd say it underlines the large problem we have of people making personal convictions based on their faith, and then setting it as a hard 'rule' in Christianity. The idea is to unite the church; not divide it. The fact that people are still to this day receiving radically different revelations--sometimes about something as mundane as the sinfulness of hair length, to me points out what I already thought; God is not currently 'active' as far as direct revelations are concerned. At least, in the variety we see in the bible.
I hold the view of Sola Scriptura that you use Scripture and the Holy Spirit together in order to receive any accurate understanding of God's will--although, scripture should be by default the final authority if there are no resolutions otherwise. Scripture is a recording of God's word, it is how we keep track of what has been said. The way you discern what 'voice' you're hearing it, would be to compare it to scripture. And vice versa can happen, as well(For example, the Holy Spirit may guide you to find historical facts or context behind any contradictory scripture to illuminate the real meaning). If everything in scripture is an accurate recording of biblical events and God's word, then the voice you hear should not contradict that; God does not contradict himself. And if scripture is not inspired...well, I'd say you and I should probably stop being Christian then, because otherwise we have little to nothing else to base our faith on.
If direct revelation takes precedence over the authority of the written word, we have no reason to have the bible. Yet without scripture, the truth of Christianity would've been lost long, long ago--I don't think I need to tell you about the 'telephone' game and its repercussions(we do, after all, have the gnostic gospels).
Second, I disagree with your other statement here;
"This maxim is a final authority in the sense that it both can and does properly dictate all our behavior, thereby contradicting the view of Scripture as the ONLY final authority. The maxim is tautological because it defines justice. God would be unjust to dishonor this maxim because perfect justice evaluates men on whether they did what is right to the best of their knowledge, which is precisely what the maxim means."
This teeters on universalism, which is not compatible with scripture whatsoever. If your maxim defines justice, and God would be unjust to dishonor that maxim; what of the tribal people who do not know of God, yet worship other gods? Are they going to be saved? After all, they did what was best to their knowledge; and God was not of their knowledge. That is, except, for the famous line "No one shall come to the father except through me."
Obviously we're just showing off our opinions here, however; I doubt either of us are truly qualified to make any set-in-stone rules in this area. However, compared to sola scriptura, I think your theology falls short in terms of the foundation it is built on. Will probably write more later when I'm better rested and my brain isn't fried.
