Replies

1) Your argument was wrapped up in another argument of infallibility; so it's obvious to ask if you claim it; and, 2) If you are not claiming infallibility - i.e., you could be wrong, then how is this "assurance" in your choice of words?

As said to another, the Roman reasoning here fails to see the distinction btwn claiming personal infallibility as the basis for assurance, so that Scripture must say says what I say it says, and then calling others to assent to that, which is what Rome does, versus being persuaded by the degree of apostolic "manifestation of the Truth," which is what they appealed to, (2Cor. 4:2) and making Truth claims upon that basis.

If you hold that lack of personal infallibility means that one cannot have assurance, then for once answer a question and explain how souls could have assurance that Elijah or John were men of God, or that Jesus was the Christ, without an assuredly infallible magisterium to tell them.

Or how Apollos "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)

Be consistent with your reasoning.

So, your objection seems to me to be that I'm requiring you to answer your own question and, at the least, in a better fashion than whatever you claim to be arguing against.

What absurdity is this?! Your "better fashion" turns any truth claim into a claim to personal infallibility, versus veracity being dependent on the weight of another, which is why Scripture was so much appealed to in by the NT church, while your Roman reasoning is as absurd as even thinking it is a better argument!

I think if a debater challenges, they most certainly are not immune from being given the same challenge.

Which is why i asked my questions, only to be met with lack of cognition or avoidance by absurdity.

"...versus being persuaded by the degree of apostolic "manifestation of the Truth," which is what they appealed to, (2Cor. 4:2) and making Truth claims upon that basis....how Apollos "mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)"

When Apollos in Acts was "shewing by the Scriptures" that Jesus was Christ, not one word of the New Testament had yet been written. Not one word.

Now, you will of course say "all of the Old Testament books had been written and Apollos was referring to them." But of course, since he was disputing with learned Jews, including Scribes and Pharisees, about the OT, he was disputing with people who knew the OT very well, and yet many of them did not consider his arguments to be dispositive.

Apollos himself was incomplete in knowledge, even if he had--- we may posit --- a complete grasp of the OT. So he had to listen to the oral teaching of that Apostolic generation, including Priscilla and Aquila, to get things that he couldn't have puzzled out from Scriptures alone, e.g. Baptism in the Holy Spirit. Here he was learning not from Scriptures, but from Sacred Tradition: that which was handed on to him which was NOT in Scriptures.

So we're back to the perennial problem: how do we know for sure that this writing but not that, is truly Scripture? The Epistle of Jude, but not the Epistle of Barnabas? The Apocalypse of John, but not the Apocalypse of Peter? And how do we know that this man but not that, is truly a man of God? Simon Son of Zebedee but not Simon Magus?

The only way you can know, is by seeing who and what has been accepted and received by the Church.

Let's look at the canon of Scripture. It was accepted and received by the Church without any especial exercise of the papal Magisterium, first "in practice", de facto, by the Churches who received and used these books liturgically, on the authority of their local Bishops; later confirmed by regional Synods of Bishops (not Ecumenical Councils) at Hippo and Carthage, later re-confirmed in the most formal sense by an Ecumenical Council (Trent), in each of these cases received also by the Bishop of Rome.

So you had the different levels of Magisteria: the Ordinaries (local Bishops by legitimate Succession), the Bishops in Synod, the Bishops in an Ecumenical Council, and the Papal Magisterium not in an executive form, but concurrently and obliquely. The various popes "received" these Scriptures and did not dissent from their identification as having been inspired by Almighty God.

So the whole formation of the Canon was developed through the infallible Ordinary and Universal Magisterium. That is a claim of infallibility.

Then 1600 years after Apollos of Alexandria, you have the Reformers chucking out books of the Bible. What incoherence! By what authority?

The whole structure collapses because men have chosen to suppose that the Holy Spirit could permit the entirety of Christendom, East and West, to go wrong for 1600 years, until a committee of 47 men --- all of them Anglicans--- overseen by the King of England --- set them straight.

And, assuming that you accept the KJV canon of 66 books as inerrant, you do so only by logically presupposing the magisterial infallibility of 47 Anglicans.

(And who were they? Can you give me a list?)

Of whose church you are not a communicant --- unless I'm mistaken. I am not aware of your self-identification as an Anglican, but you could set me right if that's what you are.