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?
This is one of the best replies I’ve seen to daniel’s challenge, which he issued to you earlier and repeats despite the precise point you make here.
No evidence is apparently good enough for him other than to agree with his interpretation of Scripture. That is his “basis of infallibility” as best as I can tell.
He claims it’s just Scripture. He claims his basis for Truth is the written Word. But what he continually refuses to acknowledge is that it is his *opinion* of Scripture that is ultimately his “basis”.
I’ve tried to demonstrate this to him using personal experience, our own shared experience (in past discussions) and reason. But to no avail. Perhaps though it is simply a matter of repeating the question you (D-fendr) formed so succinctly: “I’m assuming you [daniel] claim to have the correct answer to your own question: ‘What is the basis for your assurance of truth?’”
I just don’t know how helpful it is to continue to repeat the question when it’s obviously not answered, at least not that I can see.
What is the answer to your own question Daniel? Are you going to claim it’s Scripture, again, for the umpteenth time, as if the Bible gets up off the table, talks to you in an audible voice, and tells you, “No you’re reading me wrong. This is how I should be read...”?
Are you just being insolent or playing ignorant? Seriously? I asked questions , and even without giving my answers, then the evasive response you give is to charge me with claiming infallibility, and which perverse Roman logic means whoever makes a truth claim must be claiming infallibility, versus the veracity of the claim resting upon the weight of evidence.
Tell me then whether the basis for such things as the widow's assurance that Elijah was a prophet (1Ki. 17:24) was based upon the premise that she was infallible, or the evidence provided to her? Now explain what one could have assurance of Truth that Isaiah was a prophet of God and spoke of Christ, without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and why i cannot likewise obtain assurance based upon evidence.
At least Mrs. Don-o alone attempts to respond to the fundamental questions in a sincere and civil manner. As for you, you are simply exampling more avoidance of dealing with the presuppositions behind a primary parroted RC polemic, which precipitate the questions I asked which require answers. Thus at least until you are willing to engage them then you are just another example of RC apologists being an argument against being a RC.