In looking at my previous reply, I come across as unnecessarily confrontational and harsh. It's not my intent to make committed Christians abandon holy scripture.
But please try to understand my situation. I was an atheist. God -- for whatever His reasons -- made me capable of being a vessel for carrying his word. What was I supposed to do with that? Turn my back on it? Refuse it? Waste it?
I come from a Jewish background. Jews -- not Christians -- are the first people to be called the "people of the Book."
But I've written, edited, and published books. That's been my profession. I know the virtue of books and their limitations. The word Bible means "book."
So let me put it this way. Which would you rather have: a living father who you can talk to, or one who's abandoned you and left you nothing but his diary? That's the choice that Jews and Christians have to make when they're asking what more God might have to say to one of His children. I think that deafening oneself to a living God in favor of a book -- any book --is a form of idolatry. I think that denying a living God's attempt to communicate with us, because the words written in a book are supposed to be sufficient for all time, is an attempt to petrify God. I think that anyone who puts the Bible, which is finite in time and space, ahead of God, who surpasses our limitations of time and space, is not being open to God.
I'm doing the best I can to tell what happened to me and what I think I learned from it. Again, no one has to believe me. I'm not starting a new religion, or going into competition with any existing religion.
But here I am with a story to tell.
Neil
Either I have not read this thread carefully at all (entirely possible, as I am chock full of Sudafed) or the above statement represents the first shot at context you have given us. Whether or not context should make a difference, I cannot say with certainty, but I think (for some, not all) it does.
To me, context does not matter so much and yet matters a great deal. To explain that would wear on your patience, believe me, but I thought I'd put it out there.
Which would you rather have: a living father who you can talk to, or one who's abandoned you and left you nothing but his diary?
Now, this I like. It's got meat into which one can really sink the teeth. If God had indeed left us nothing but His journal and then promptly clammed up, we would still have much for which to be thankful. But a lot of people--and I place myself quite firmly in this group--need more than that. Do I actually need more words? No. I need help in understanding those words which He has left for me. FReeper SJB stated:
Yet, as the scriptures make clear, that will not be enough for many, who will demand to see or hear signs, wonders and visions.
What if one does not demand these things but experiences them anyway? I am not one to discount the epiphanous, and I feel a certain amount of frustration with this assertion:
By saying you have received a message from God, you are claiming to have additional truth beyond the word of God given us in the scriptures by the Holy Spirit.
That makes me squirm. I have seen no mention of an additional truth. Initial understanding of the truth, perhaps, and would that be so bad? Isn't that something to strive for? Signs, wonders and visions do not speak of additional truths outright. I think that what bothers me the most about the statements of SJB's that I have cited is that, forgive me if I am wrong, they seem to reduce to importance of the Holy Spirit.