"In fact, I'm not going to even treat Scripture as an inspired document for the moment, just for the sake of argument."
Why do you suppose a Latin apologist would want to base any kind of argument on this? Sounds like Jesus Seminar stuff to me, though apparently with the opposite intention? This is just idiotic! The author's conclusion,
"The Catholic tells the Protestant that he cannot know that Scripture is trustworthy since he doesn't have an infallible Church to vouchsafe the canon to him--that he has only a "fallible collection of infallible books". But the Protestant need not be nervous about admitting the truth of the last phrase, for he is still in a better epistemological position! He can simply reverse the argument and point out that the Catholic cannot know that Rome is the true Church, since all he has is "a fallible collection of (possibly false) historical trivia".
is absolutely fair given the way this fellow Madrid framed his argument.
Good point.