Your comment didn't really address my scenario. You seem to be asserting in advance that you can't possibly err in interpreting the "correct" inclination, and cannot end up bringing misery to yourself and those around you.---God isnt confused. He would never speak to someone to go against what is already revealed. If I say God told me to slap my neighbor, then we can both know God didnt really tell me that. NOTHING trumps the objective written Word of God
And yet, objectively speaking we can find plenty of examples of people who claimed at one point they were doing as God spoke to them (not plainly contradicting a scriptural command), and the result evidently ruins lives.
I mean to say, I hope you never follow that "still, small voice" that for sure tells you (hypothetically) to uproot your family and move them to Hawaii to do ministry, whereupon misery follows.
And how does your God-is-always-consistent rule fit this scenario: if your name (about 1800 B.C.) is Abraham, and God tells you to sacrifice as a burnt offering your son, your only son, whom you love... and this goes against everything you know about the character and promises of God? Can we both know God didn't really tell you that, based on previous revelation alone--as your comment seems to suggest?
My meaning being, your "out" is apparently ad hoc, in order to save your prior commitment to private revelations.
OK, so what do you believe about God's intermediate methods of expressing his will (other than direct revelation)? How often does God do direct speech, and how do we know when to tune in? Or is he constantly speaking and personally, verbally (attempting?) to influence our every act at every moment, we just only hear him when the tuner is keyed to the right frequency? Or do we always need to be on edge, because we don't know when the moment is ripe? Or is he constantly waiting on us to pause, and put out a fleece for him?---I am indeed actually
According to 1Ki.22:19-23, God has used a spirit to "influence" a man to his death. The man had two voices in his ears, both of divine origin, the one warning him from death the last and most immediate; and yet the inclination he followed was to his ruin; it was three steps removed from God, and the good word he ignored was two steps removed.
Is tuning in a spiritual skill? If you don't practice, are you sinning? Honestly if you believe you constantly receive direct revelation--your tuner is so good--then it would not seem strange to me that soon you would be telling others what God wants of them when you think you are directed to do so. Why stop with the car seats? "Hey, follow me; I've got heavenly GPS, people; it's always pinging." And how do ordinary shmucks like me tell the difference between the real deal, and the pied pipers? The rule up above isn't reliably going to give the kind of discernment necessary.
The reality is, this world is filled with voices. And I have been warned against trusting in them all--both internal and external--except for the written Word.
Well, I was hoping you would see them as distinguishable. You say the Bible is in a special class. But here you equate personal revelation with Scripture as if to blur the distinction. How is this any different from the papist claim that they have revelation on par with Scripture, just always in line with it?---O herein lies the difference: you think there's a "big difference" whereas I think they are 100% the same. How could they not?
One of the elements that once clearly distinguished the Protestants from Rome was our commitment to the finality of revelation, at least in all ordinary circumstances. ("Extraordinary" might be where the church was denied the Bible; clearly we are not talking about such here). You're basically saying Rome is correct on the principle; they're just not the right practitioners.
Ordinarily, God operates in the world according to his laws. The reliability of the world is a permanent witness to his presence and government. And appealing to constant direct divine intervention is a functional denial of the doctrine of Providence. The difference is the difference between standard operating procedure, and miracle. That's a huge and meaningful difference. It is not just a semantic adjustment.
OK, but you didn't actually say those quotes before; rather, you claimed a specific and distinct verbal Word from the Lord. I don't think "feeling" can be any more clearly of God directly, than we can attribute it to angels, or to an irrational second-cause that could still be used by God.---Again, this is what I mean when I say "I felt the the Lord probing me to do such and such", I could also say "I felt the Lord move my heart to do such and such"
All that said, I always maintain that I say I never know 100% for sure if God is speaking/directing/etc, but i can say I "think" He is.
And if you (wisely) hesitate to claim the direct prompting of God, or qualify your confidence in some respect, at least I can be glad for that element of self-doubt. Because it implies humility, or at least a willingness to consider you might be in error (not infallible).
Because, we do not have a promise from God he will use any other means to guide us than Holy Scripture.