Argument 1 Premise 1: God exists. Premise 2: God is omnipotent. Premise 3: The Holy Scriptures teach the truth. Premise 4: The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today. Conclusion: God does not want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly (or He does want the truth to be known but has not provided the means - an impossibility give premise 2)
Since his premise is faulty, so is his conclusion.
Premise 4: The Holy Scriptures cannot be infallibly interpreted by any human authority today.
That is not the claim, consistent with how the apologist himself allows infallible truth to be defined, that "there are plenty of historical, mathematical, and scientific facts which are beyond speculation."
The fact is that even pagans can speak infallible Truth, such as the one Paul quoted in Acts 17. Thus the SS evangelical certainly can believe that one can interpret Scripture infallibly, but not as possessing ensured formulaic infallibility, so that whatever he has or ever will speak according to a certain scope and subject-based formula is and will be infallible/without error.
And as souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God before there ever was a magisterium which uniquely claimed infallibility, (Dan. 2:47; Jn. 6:14; 7:40; 1Co. 14:25) and that such knowing of a Truth is the only definition of souls infallibly knowing Truth, then we can present this as:
Premise 1: God exists.
Premise 2: God is omnipotent.
Premise 3: The Holy Scriptures teach the truth.
Premise 4: Souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God before there ever was a magisterium which uniquely claimed infallibility.
Premise 5: such knowing of a Truth is the only definition of souls infallibly knowing Truth in Scripture.
Conclusion: God does want the truth contained in the Holy Scriptures to be known infallibly, but ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is not essential for this.
If indeed the Gospel is God’s inspired, infallible Word, then what good is it if Christians cannot be certain that they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached? If God did not make sufficient provision for the Gospel message to be declared infallibly, then God would not be God, He would be a sadist.
Which perverse Roman reasoning is what is repeated elsewhere and exposed as such. For if indeed an infallible magisterium is essential to know if they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached, then it also must apply to the Scriptures upon which the gospel is based. "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures.." "...now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets..." (Rm. 1:2; 16:26
But since God did not provide one, then according to this logic He makes God to be a sadist.
However, since both men and writings of God were always discerned and established as being so ling before there was a church which presumed she was essential for this. And as a perpetual IM was never essential to provide and preserve faith in Scripture, then the student of Scripture can know of a Truth that Rome is presuming to think of men above that which is written. (1Co. 4:6)
Moreover, the RC here admits what many RCs try to hide, that since certainty that they are indeed hearing the true Gospel preached rests upon the (unScriptural) premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), then faithful RCs are not as seek to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by acting like a noble Berean, (Acts 17:11) but is to implicitly trust that his church cannot err. Which is cultic, not Christian.
The fact is that even pagans can speak infallible Truth, such as the one Paul quoted in Acts 17. Thus the SS evangelical certainly can believe that one can interpret Scripture infallibly, but not as possessing ensured formulaic infallibility, so that whatever he has or ever will speak according to a certain scope and subject-based formula is and will be infallible/without error.
And as souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God before there ever was a magisterium which uniquely claimed infallibility, (Dan. 2:47; Jn. 6:14; 7:40; 1Co. 14:25) and that such knowing of a Truth is the only definition of souls infallibly knowing Truth, then we can present this as:
The fact you seem to be missing or ignoring is that in all the instances you cited where "souls knew of a Truth that certain men and writings were of God" were due to either divine intervention and/or the intervention of Jesus (cf Dan 2:47, Jn. 6:14; 7:40; 1Co. 14:25) or by the instruction and guidance of St. Paul (Acts 17:16 onward). You'll note in all these instances, the people in question don't come to their revelatory moments via reading the Scriptures. They come to greater knowledge of God via instruction, either from divine revelation, from Jesus, or from St. Paul.
Let's pause and reflect on that for a moment: All the cases you cited are not of anyone "studying" the Scriptures. They are either divine intervention, or acts of teaching.
I suppose one could bring up the case of the Bereans earlier in the chapter of Acts (17) but this is just another example of teaching. This is teaching coupled with Scripture to be certain, but St. Paul didn't just throw a copy of the Scriptures at the Bereans and leave them alone. They studied it, with his help.
Now you may disagree at this moment, but that's your disagreement based on your opinion. We've been down this road you and I, so I won't belabor it. I'll leave it to any objective dispassionate lurker to decide for himself, if you are just giving your opinion and claiming it's "Scripture" or if you are really "just giving Scripture" in reply.
Overall, the main point is that you haven't been able to substantiate a reason to substitute the original Premise 4 for your own. Again, no one disagrees that before Christ, there was no Magisterium. At least not one that could be said to be "infallible". I already said before, that the people in the OT who came to a greater knowledge of God did so via HIS help, not through any "power" or "magisterium".
God's plan is not to leave us dependent upon such moments, such intervention on His part. This is actually the reason for the Incarnation. He became Man precisely because He wishes to work with man to save man. It wasn't just to suffer and die; it was to become part of our existence so as to lead us to a greater way of living now. Otherwise, we remain as lost as the people in the OT.
Whether or not it's admitted, Premise 4 is indeed the Protestant/non-Catholic Christian approach. There is no way it can't be; unless of course one doesn't wish to admit that when one reads the Bible and comes to some conclusion about what's in there, then one is indeed "interpreting" it. And since everyone who reads the Bible is a human, then it's a "human interpretation".