1. God's infallible word is recorded in scripture just as He directed it to be.
2. The Holy Spirit was given to born again individual to be able to infallibly determine what those words mean.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.
Now, if the Holy Spirit was given us that we might "understand" would you still suggest it's fallible? Would you still suggest it's unnkowable? Would you still say it's "by human authority" when scripture says those who have been born again have been born of the Spirit and it is He would gives us understanding?
Stop putting the Catholic Church in the place of the Holy Spirit where it doesn't belong.
Let's make this real simple.
I thought the arguments put forth in my previous posts were simple. But I'm willing to listen to/read what you have to say as long as it stays on point. Which it does.
1. God's infallible word is recorded in scripture just as He directed it to be.
2. The Holy Spirit was given to born again individual to be able to infallibly determine what those words mean.
1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.
Now, if the Holy Spirit was given us that we might "understand" would you still suggest it's fallible? Would you still suggest it's unnkowable? Would you still say it's "by human authority" when scripture says those who have been born again have been born of the Spirit and it is He would gives us understanding?
What you have done here, whether you realize it or not, whether you admit it or not, is object to Premise 4 of argument 1. Which is fine. You have to object to that premise in order to remain a Christian and attempt to save sola scriptura from the logical problem illustrated in the conclusion of argument 1.
You've basically said that Premise 4 is false because it's a straw man argument. That is, there is another source of infallibility not being considered in that construct, to whit: the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit, when He is present in the believer, protects Scriptural interpretation from error and thus, there is no reason for a human authority at all. So again, you reject premise 4. I think this is a fair representation of what you are saying here. If not, stop me here so we can proceed with agreement elsewhere. But if this is a fair representation then let's proceed.
The problem with this line of reasoning is that it's basically claiming the charism of infallibility for yourself. You are saying, whether you wish to admit it or not is irrelevant, that you now have the charism of infallibility (when it comes to reading and understanding Scripture correctly). You have this charism because the Holy Spirit is in you, and He guides you personally to all truth (in the Scriptures). That's what you're saying. But that's ALSO the very definition of the charism of infallibility!
So you're claiming that for yourself, with no way to verify it (other than to read and interpret Scripture the exact way you do of course which is a self-serving "test") but yet deny anyone else can have the same or even lesser gift namely the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him.
So you acknowledge that it's the Holy Spirit that protects one from theological error, but insists its only you (and those like you) who have this gift. The Popes can't though, because they disagree with what you believe. And you have the Holy Spirit.
This is actually all well and good but if this is indeed your reasoning then you haven't disproven that the Pope and his Bishops don't have the charism all you've done is just insist, for an unproveable reason, that you have it and they don't.
This is all very well and good but again, what proof do you have that's outside yourself, and outside your interpretation of Scripture, that you have the charism and they don't? It's all very circular for you but not for the Church because the Church doesn't deny the charism of infallibility, she doesn't deny that indeed the Holy Spirit teaches us all truth, she just says it's through a particular means that employs mankind. You reject that last notion (that the Holy Spirit teaches through mankind) but yet have no proof no reason to reject that, other than what you claim is the Holy Spirit's guidance as you read Scripture.
You have effectively recognized the weakness of the argument in the OP but your solution to it solves nothing. All you've done, really, is substitute the Holy Spirit for your own conclusions. It's easy to *claim* the Holy Spirit is your teacher but there is no proof of that if one rejects, by other words, the very gift He could give to assure that, which is the charism of infallibility.
You can't have it both ways in other words. You can't say "the charism of infallibility doesn't exist" and yet also claim "I know this because the Holy Spirit taught me so through the Scriptures". Those two statements are incompatible.