It's really a simple matter. God speaks to mankind in an infallible way.
When God speaks directly (whether it is recorded in Scripture or not) it is an infallible utterance and must be belived/obeyed.
When God spoke (or speaks) through a prophet, it is still God who is speaking, it is still infallible and it must still be believed. An OT King who said to his prophet "I know that you say that God wants us to kill those people over there... but right here in the written word it says "thou shalt not kill" so I won't do it... I'm resting on Scripture" would quickly find out (the hard way) that it was his own interpretation of Scripture" that was the problem and that, in fact, there was no conflict.
When God spoke through the Apostles (whether recorded in Scripture or not) it was still an infallible utterance and must be (have been) belived/obeyed.
When God spoke (and still speaks in a different way) through the authors of Scripture by the written Word, it is still an infallible utterance (in a much more verifiable way, but not uniquely so) and must be believed obeyed.
When God speaks through His Church (at least for most Christians), it is still an infallible utterance and must be believed/obeyed.
You see no conflict in my example because Jesus gives "God's Word" and the Bible is God's Word. They are not really separate. But the Catholic accepts that God's didn't stop talking 1700 years ago. And the source is the same. Choosing between Scripture and the Cathecism is a false choice because the source of both is God. The Scriptures are (and must always be) in the preeminent position, but "preeminent" still accepts that there are situations like the OT King where our interpretation of Scripture could be in conflict with the Truth. And forcing Dave to chose one over the other (even if he believes the Bible is in position one) is a false choice.
Jesus is God's final word. What more needs to be said?
And just who was it who taught you this great truth? Did you sit down one day with your Bible and prayerfully read what it said and come to this conclusion by the written word?
Or by chance could it have been the ones who wanted to convince you they had this infallible utterance you were to obey that gave you this truth?
Paul was the last apostle besides John who God spoke to. There has been no one since them. If they didn’t say it, then you have no idea what God wanted if it’s not in the scripture.
John said, 1 John 2: 27. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
If we have the anointing in us, the Holy Spirit, we are capable of teaching our selves, and we need no man to teach us.
Paul said, Galatians 1:8-9 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
Paul who was to the early church speaking for God, told us that when a man taught anything that couldn’t be directly tied to Paul’s teachings, then that man should be accursed, and then he repeated to make sure you took it seriously.
Now tell me again how the RCC has come up with all their teachings that by no stretch of the imagination connected to any thing Paul ever taught, and still make the claim they follow scripture.
The Scriptures are (and must always be) in the preeminent position, but "preeminent" still accepts that there are situations like the OT King where our interpretation of Scripture could be in conflict with the Truth.
The story you related is not in the most popular Bible in the world, so why spend this time on a hypotheticals that did not, or could not ever happen? If it had happened it would be the fault of the king who did not know God or his prophet.
If a traffic patrolman is directing traffic out of a parking lot, and the light is red, and he continues sending out cars while holding the traffic back who has the green light, he takes authority over the mechanical light because he is a live person who wears a badge or a uniform that identifies him as a true represenative of the law.
But, if some guy is out there wearing dirty jeans and a tee shirt with a 5 day growth of beard, and no patrol car present or any form of ID, then you had better not run the light, because both of you will be held accountable if there is an accident.
You can tell the judge that you saw the light was red, but this guy seemed to have authority, so I pulled right out into on coming traffic, it’s not my fault judge, I trusted that man.
JH