If you have doubts that the early Church Fathers were not infallible when they assembled the canonical texts of the scripture you cite, and offer doubts on the same infallibility whereby the Church provides the Credo, then you must logically doubt whether the books they assembled were credible as well. In which case you must not cite scripture or Protestants should try assembling their own Bible. But you can’t have both.
You cannot cite to the infallible authority of the Church in authenticating the Bible and then doubt its subsequent infallibility. That Petrine infallibility in AD 382 on both the written and unwritten Word of God did not evaporate into the ether.
Playing “internet theologian” won’t do. So we must take “your” interpretation of Scripture or any other Tom, Dick, and Harry, or a Joel Osteen’s version versus those provided by the early Church Fathers and Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, Benedict and a litany of eminent Protestant theologians, scholars, authors, and preachers who converted to Catholicism?
In the year 110 A.D., not even fifteen years after the book of Revelation was written, while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote:
“Where the bishop is present, there let the congregations gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church”. The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).
Can you point to any canonical texts that were different than those confirmed by the Synod of Rome in AD 382?
The Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) confirmed definitive list of canonical books in the Synod of Rome. These were ALL Councils of the ONE Church. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible and its universal interpretation given by the Church. The only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later resulting in a tsunami of heresies where every local Foursquare Church pastor can offer his/her definitive interpretation of Scripture just as you are peddling “your” own interpretation of Scripture. This is what Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen etc have been doing to a gullible following.
Unfortunately, those in the Protestant pews are swallowing this theological cyanide while the theological intellectuals among the Protestants are converting to Catholicism.
This is what Jim Jones, David Koresh, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, Billy Graham, Creflo Dollar and Joel Osteen etc have been doing to a gullible following.
You must have missed Boatbums' post #33. Protestants trust the infallibility of the Holy Spirit to protect the Word, not the infallibility of the early Church Fathers, nor the infallibility of any institutional church. We trust that the Holy Spirit protected God's Word throughout the human process.
There is nothing inconsistent with accepting the truths of the Apostles' Creed while questioning some undocumented legends about its origins. That is exactly what all these scholars with whom you seem to be so impressed do as a vocation. Whether actually created by the Apostles or a later creation, it is a wonderful summary of the Christian faith. A scholar would also realize that if the word "catholic" is included that it would be the small "c" version of the word meaning universal.
But you can’t have both.
In a true dilemma, that would be correct but not in a false dilemma like you laid out.