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?
I'm assuming you claim to have the correct answer to your own question: "What is the basis for your assurance of truth?"
Or at least what you think the correct answer is.
The answer you've given thus far reduces to: their basis for assurance should be an internet persona called daniel1212.
If this is what your view of the correct answer is, it would be difficult not to propose an answer that would be an improvement. I'll be happy to, but, first, to clarify, is this your best attempt at the correct answer? Is this the one to beat?
Objection. Asked and answered.
The only thing grievous around here is to see such obsession. It’s like a program waiting for a certain input so it can fulfill the rest of its programming. And no matter what input it receives its just not quite good enough to allow for the execution of the torrent of instruction that is sure to follow once the “correct” inputs are applied.
A mind enslaved to the scratched CD in their head. Playing the same 2 seconds of a song over and over again. Sad.