assurance of Truth must be to substantiation from a wholly Divinely inspired source of Truth.
Substantiated according to whom? Would that be the same daniel1212?
Seems the point is still: their basis for assurance should be an internet persona called daniel1212.
It is both amazing and grievous what submission to Rome and letting her enslave minds does to them. If a person makes a claim based upon what a a wholly inspired source states then he is accused of claiming assured infallibility himself, which is perverse logic. According to your logic, to make any claim is to claim infallibility, while if not, then one cannot have assurance of Truth. If you hold to either then argue for it.
But you refuse to answer the question as to your basis for your truth claims. Are you claiming infallibility based upon what a wholly Divinely inspired source states. If not, what is the basis for the credibility of your Truth claims made for your source, and why is it superior than appeal to a wholly Divinely inspired source?
What won't you just answer the questions regarding the presuppositions behind your reasoning??? Why is this so difficult or avoided?