...There is no objection in principle to holding that something is Truth, without error… And my criticism of Rome is that of her basis for declaring things infallible, which is the premise of assured perpetual infallibility of office.
Am I correct in reading this that you don't have a problem with 'someone' declaring things infallible, but only on what basis it is done so?
If so, who would be acceptable to you and on what basis? Notice, I assume there must always be a 'who.' I think that is true infallibly. :)
Am I correct in reading this that you don't have a problem with 'someone' declaring things infallible, but only on what basis it is done so?
Not in principal to the first part, the second part determining if there is a problem.
If so, who would be acceptable to you and on what basis? Notice, I assume there must always be a 'who.' I think that is true infallibly. :)
If any atheist tells me that it is sunny day here, and the sun is shining, then i would consider that a a surely true, and thus infallible statement.
Likewise a pagan who affirms their is a Creator. Scripture affirms man can make correct judgments, even about the weather, (LK. 12:54) and affirms the use of reason as arriving at assured truth in the light of evidence. (1Kg. 17:24; Jn. 6:69)
But it nowhere affirms formulaic assured infallibility as per Rome.
Now once again i will ask,
Is your argument that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth? (Or what>)