[daniel1212]

And the Lord opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? (Numbers 22:28)

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>)

[D-fendr]

Is your argument that an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth?

Well, that's the way Christ set it up of course :) But...

Logically, the alternative is A) Some other person on entity. And then you have the problem of whom/what. Or you have B) A bunch of competing "Truth."

So, in practice, sola scriptura does not work. Unless you have another alternative?

[Elsie]

I cry....

Mentioned; but not pinged...

Numbers 22:28