No you don't. At least not that I've ever seen, unless you wish to state now that you, Daniel, are a Presbyterian, since you do tend to post passages from the WCF from time to time. Are you a Presbyterian?
It is certainly not necessary to be a Presbyterian in order to invoke Westminster, any more than one must be a Lutheran in order to invoke something Luther said in this context, for the debate as i understood you as framing it has been btwn the Protestant position and that of Rome, and thus it is entirely fitting that i invoke a classic Prot source in that regard. And the issue should be SS versus SE, sola scriptura versus sola ecclesia (that of the infallible church being effectively supreme over Scripture), based on historical teaching.
However, if you wanted to define Protestant belief by what you see certain RCs expressing then you are only arguing against what you wrongly assume i hold to, while in any case you can only argue for the need for the magisterial office, which i affirm, both benefiting from it and in being subject to authority which Scripture says in whatever church i have been part of, as Scripture says, . "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls..." (Hebrews 13:17) Just this Wednesday night i did what the pastor asked me to in giving a message, while i also have stated on FR before that the ideal would be a centralized magisterium, if not being above Scripture as Rome effectively makes herself.
But while you can argue for the validity and viability of the magisterial office, it remains that you cannot provide any example of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome in Scripture, nor of its necessity. But i can show that God did provide manifest men and wholly inspired writings of God, which were discerned and established as being so without a perpetual IM. And that God has left us with a wholly inspired infallible source of Truth, by which Truth claims are tested and established, and that the NT church began with laymen recognizing men of God as being so in the light of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium.
Moreover, since you want to go by what laity believe, the problem under sola ecclesia, versus unchanging Scripture being the infallible supreme authoritative source of Truth, is that since it directs souls to directly look to leadership as supreme in providing Truth and interpreting it, versus examining the evidence for warrant, then when the leadership goes south then so do most of the people. SSPX and SSPV RCs who expose the contrasts btwn past historical teaching and modern V2 interpretation of it become like Protestants in principal. For instead of obeying such teaching as "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors" (VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X, 1906) they presume to determine Truth based upon their interpretation of historical teachings, not what the present pastors teach and convey it as being.
In addition to V2, the local level is usually is where most RCs look for the interpretation of what higher magisterial teaching means. And any claim to being more strict or effectual or rigid than in evangelical churches is fantasy, as it is manifest that liberal RCs find a home in Rome far more than in evangelical churches overall, and what one does and effects is what Scripturally constitutes the evidence of what one really believes. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) Every time Rome even honors a Teddy K, Menino, Chavez with a RC funeral she shows her interpretation of canon law, and examples how fluid and accommodating she can be.
If not, if you are going to state like everyone else around here that "I'm not a part of any denomination" and/or "I'm just a Bible-believing Christian" or similar non-committal statements, then you most certainly do not "uphold the teaching and magisterial office." I'm fully aware of the theoretical definition of "sola scriptura".
Once again you are displaying your ignorance of the RF, as well as using a convenient definition of "Protestant." No, not everyone else around here says "I'm not a part of any denomination" and/or "I'm just a Bible-believing Christian." I recently argued against a "don't need the visible church" post. And i am sure the other poster (SR) does not hold to that either. Either argue with me as one who upholds the validity and viability of the teaching and administrative office but who denies as novel and unScriptural the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, or argue with those who deny the former in principal. ,
The only authority you rely upon is Scripture. When asked to support your claims nothing else is given other than Scripture and your interpretation of it. You never give any other authoritative reason.
Really? Meaning i when i provide Scriptural substantiation as the supreme authoritative source then the weight of that does not count as an authoritative reason, and when i provide such a source as Westminster in upholding magisterial authority then it must be dismissed as not admissible in my case, and deemed as "nothing else!" Either you only see what you want to see or dismiss me as a liar or you simply reject any authoritative reason outside a perpetual IM, the very thing that needs to be proved.
So you are your own authority. Whether you want to admit it or not is not my concern.
Actually, what i have argued for is that unlike Rome, i am not my own authority, as the veracity of what i contend for must rest upon the weight of substantiation of the only wholly infallible comprehensive material body of Truth that we have, but which you do not hold as supreme. For in contrast, Rome is indeed her own authority, as Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
If you mean that i determine what i will hold as my supreme authority, and to varying degrees what it means, then that is what RCs does themselves, making a fallible decision to trust in a (self-declared) infallible authority, and to varying degrees what she means. And while in both cases they hold to their respective infallible sources, yet as Ratzinger states.
Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one's own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience [which is to be properly formed] confronts [the individual] with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church" [though not necessarily being correct, or having ensured veracity]. - (Pope Benedict XVI [then Archbishop Joseph Ratzinger], Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Vorgrimler, 1968, on Gaudium et spes, part 1,chapter 1).
I may be configuring another PC for a while and so may not be back for a while.
Knocked the cover off of that one. Clean out of the park, too.
It bounced around out in the parking lot smashing Romish windshields.
Can they sue? Nope.
They chose to come to the ballgame, and try to play but are [again] losing badly.
Their team is like a High school team with a few hot-shot pitchers and (and lots of chatter-noise makers).
The pitchers can smoke a few over the plate, when pitching to Little League grade-schoolers, but once reaching collegiate levels the brush back pitches end up being hit right back at the pitcher, the curve-balls are smashed for base hits, and when bases are loaded, the relievers are sent in to try to finish the inning of with a "save" ---- ker-pow, good-bye, and good-nite Irene.
It should be over, but Truth will still be denied.
Alright fine. It's interesting you cite Heb 13:17. I guess the next logical question to ask would be: have you ever found yourself in disagreement with any that "rule over you" and "watch for your soul"? If so, what happened? Specifically did you always submit to such authority (i.e., change your mind in accordance with their argument or will) or were there any times, when in such disagreement, you didn't do so. Be specific as possible please.
Also, to save yourself some time, you can safely ignore any questions or comments that don't apply given answers to previous questions. It'll save you from having to write pedantic statements like "Once again you are displaying your ignorance of the RF..."