[Your response:]You mean being the magisterial discerners and stewards and translators of Divine revelation means such are the assuredly correct interpreters and teachers of it? Yes or no?
I mean several things:
1. As a historical fact, the Catholic Church decided which books belonged in the Biblical canon, and the Protestant canon is borrowed from the Catholic canon, with a portion of books omitted. Without the authority of the early Catholic councils and the historical testimony of the Church Fathers, Protestants have no authoritative basis for settling which books belong in Scripture. For instance, how can Protestants definitively exclude the Shepherd of Hermas, which many 2nd- and 3rd-century Christians considered canonical? I can see how you could make a case against it, but it would be a case based on merely human opinion, with no divine authority behind it.
2. Also as a historical fact, the Catholic Church translated the Bible into first Latin and then English, and the Protestant translation traditions stemming from Luther's translation and from the KJV are based on these earlier Catholic translations.
3. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel in His name and gave them binding and loosing authority, and they passed this authority on to the bishops through the laying of hands, as Paul records, as Clement of Rome documents in the first century (while the Apostle John was still alive, so you cannot exclude Clement even by your 100-AD-or-less criterion), and as Irenaeus, student of John's disciple Polycarp (who most likely collected the NT books for the first time in the mid-2nd century), confirmed in the 2nd century. So Catholics at least claim a divine commission for our authority, even if you don't accept this authority. In contrast, Protestants can only claim to have an authority based on the authority of a Luther or a Calvin or the founder of whichever new denomination or "nondemoninational denomination" one professes to follow--unless one wants to claim some special new divine commission such as George Fox's inner voice, but that would be going beyond Sola Scriptura. So I don't see where Protestants following Sola Scriptura can claim any authority other than merely human authority when you reject the authority of the Catholic councils that settled the canon. But Paul said his Gospel was not based on mere human wisdom (1 Corinthians 1:18ff).
I know I still have some posts to respond to; I will follow up another day on those—daniel1212 gave me enough to answer for one day :-)
I mean several things:
So there is no yes or no?
1. As a historical fact, the Catholic Church decided which books belonged in the Biblical canon, and the Protestant canon is borrowed from the Catholic canon, with a portion of books omitted. Without the authority of the early Catholic councils and the historical testimony of the Church Fathers, Protestants have no authoritative basis for settling which books belong in Scripture.
Really? You mean assuredly one cannot know what is of God apart from Rome, as being magisterial discerners and stewards and translators of Divine revelation?
2. Also as a historical fact, the Catholic Church translated the Bible into first Latin and then English, and the Protestant translation traditions stemming from Luther's translation and from the KJV are based on these earlier Catholic translations.
So again, your argument is that being the magisterial discerners and stewards and translators of Divine revelation means such are the assuredly correct interpreters and teachers of it? Yes or no?
3. Jesus commissioned the Apostles to preach the Gospel in His name and gave them binding and loosing authority, and they passed this authority on to the bishops through the laying of hands, as Paul records, as Clement of Rome documents in the first century (while the Apostle John was still alive, so you cannot exclude Clement even by your 100-AD-or-less criterion), and as Irenaeus, student of John's disciple Polycarp (who most likely collected the NT books for the first time in the mid-2nd century), confirmed in the 2nd century. So Catholics at least claim a divine commission for our authority,...
So formal descent (regardless of the early absence of the Roman pope and how problematic Rome's line is) means the magisterial discerners and stewards and translators of Divine revelation means such are the assuredly correct interpreters and teachers of it? And thus dissent from such such rebellion against God? Yes or no?
For it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God.
Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?