Short question bu this is an intriguing subject, and i hope you will allow me to elaborate somewhat on it though i am pressed for time today.
First, it seems you are equating the very inspired words of God with human documents which are (purported to be) protected from error,
As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains,
Infallibility must be carefully distinguished both from Inspiration and from Revelation.
Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but infallibility merely implies exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document.
Revelation, on the other hand, means the making known by God, supernaturally of some truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed. Hence when we say, for example, that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
Secondly, even apart from direct inspiration, a person can affirm "there is a creator," but the issue is not whether one can speak infallible Truth, but that of “assured formulaic (scope and subject-based criteria) infallibility” as i often describe it, versus the standard for establishing truth.
Moses spoke and wrote inspired, infallible words of God, confirmatory of the faith of Abraham and expanding upon it, and which was established as such due the supernatural attestation given it (there could be no rational atheists in the Exodus, though that did not prevent them from talking and acting as such) and Heavenly qualities, and the Law manifestly became the standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, thus more complimentary Divine revelation was added in conflation with it.
The instruments and stewards of this Holy Writ and its promises of God's presence, guidance and perpetuation (Dt. 4:31; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34, etc.) was Israel, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) "Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:5)
And thus they challenged the authority of this itinerant preacher of Galilee, seeing as they sat in the seat of Moses, (Mt. 23:2) and had the historical decent. However, while they could have claimed that their “tradition of the elders,” such as the law of Corban, was Scriptural (as i have actually seen a Catholic argue), the Lord reproved them by Scripture, and established His own authority upon Scripture and the attestation it provides for, as did the apostles. Thus the church began in dissent from those who were instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, but presumed a level of assured veracity and perpetuation by them that Scripture did not afford them.
Yet writings were established as Divine and truth was preserved, often by God raising up men from without their office, as God can raise up from stones children to continue to build His kingdom, (Mt. 3:9) and an assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) was not and is not necessary to do so, nor it is promised, despite attempts to extrapolate this from texts under the premise that it is necessary, and on the basis of historical decent and structure according to infallible interpretation.
Now if the canon of Scripture was not closed — this being manifest in time on the same basis by which it was established, that essentially being by recognition (immediately or in time) of its Heavenly qualities and effects — then a body of teachings could be held as equal in authority.
However, your church does not claim inspiration — whereby a man is so moved by the Holy Spirit that what he utters or writes are the very words of God — but infallibly claims she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria, whereby she makes nebulous oral Tradition equal to Scripture;
while she herself is effectively the supreme authority, as it is she who claims to alone assuredly infallibly define both what God said and through what means He said it, and thus infallibly defines herself as infallible, disallowing that she can be reproved by others from Scripture, Tradition or history, and thus this magisterium is actually the supreme authority for Catholics by which they can have assurance, even though her infallible teachings are not the very words of God as supernaturally established Scripture is.
In summation, it is from Scripture itself that we know that the apostles of the early church did speak infallibly by inspired words, though not simply in an ecumenical decision, but even in personal letters, these belonging to that class of revelation that is the assured word of God, but besides the need to meet the qualifications to be an apostles (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,17), and the lack of any successors after Judas (Acts 12:2, Matthias being in order to keep the number of the 12: Acts 1:15-33; Rv. 2:14); Scripture itself testifies than an AIM is not necessary to preserve Truth, and that Scripture, as written, was the judge of truth claims and upon which they were established. And that God has always provided and preserved His Truth and flock, not by an AIM after the manner of Rome, but often by raising up men from without the formal magisterium to correct those who presumed too much.
And thus the church began in dissent from such and according to that principle it continues as the body of Christ and salt of the earth, its authenticity being spiritual, and not by praying to the departed, or presuming (hopefully) almost all its clergy have the gift of celibacy, and waging war after the flesh, etc., and looking to Divinely uninspired men as assuredly infallible and largely preaching itself, but by holding Scripture as supreme, and effecting manifest regeneration by the preaching of the gospel of grace, testifying that it is the church of the living God, in contrast to its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant. To the glory of God. Though it is far from perfect, may its remnant tribe increase and grow in grace, myself included.
Thank God for your consideration.
Certainly.
First, it seems you are equating the very inspired words of God with human documents which are (purported to be) protected from error,
Interesting. Would you consider, say, Jude to be the very inspired words of God?
Moses spoke and wrote inspired, infallible words of God, confirmatory of the faith of Abraham and expanding upon it, and which was established as such due the supernatural attestation given it (there could be no rational atheists in the Exodus, though that did not prevent them from talking and acting as such) and Heavenly qualities, and the Law manifestly became the standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, thus more complimentary Divine revelation was added in conflation with it.
Excodus 24:4 Moses wrote down everything the Lord said. That is the difference. We believe that the NT was inspired rather than dictated. Luke confirms as much.
However, your church does not claim inspiration — whereby a man is so moved by the Holy Spirit that what he utters or writes are the very words of God — but infallibly claims she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined criteria, whereby she makes nebulous oral Tradition equal to Scripture;
Actually untrue. And by the way, how many infallible pronouncement have been made?
And thus the church began in dissent from such and according to that principle it continues as the body of Christ and salt of the earth, its authenticity being spiritual, and not by praying to the departed, or presuming (hopefully) almost all its clergy have the gift of celibacy, and waging war after the flesh, etc., and looking to Divinely uninspired men as assuredly infallible and largely preaching itself, but by holding Scripture as supreme, and effecting manifest regeneration by the preaching of the gospel of grace, testifying that it is the church of the living God, in contrast to its institutionalized counterpart, Catholic or Protestant. To the glory of God. Though it is far from perfect, may its remnant tribe increase and grow in grace, myself included.
The thesis does fail, though, if you consider that these men are inspired; how do you say that they are not - some of them, anyway, at some point. Infallibility does not suppose eternal and continuous infallibility on all things at all times. Again, how many infallible prouncements have been made? How about the selection of Scripture?
Thank God for your consideration.
I thank God every day; and I ask His blessing upon you as well. I perceive you as a sincere seeker of Him.