Actually, if this argumentation is the result of the submision to Rome then it is an argument against it.
Longenecker seeks to broad brush all non-Catholics together, as if Anglicans are actually pouring over their Bibles, while he equate the pure subjectivism of Mormon proselytism with his former baptist teacher who told him to prayerfully search the Scriptures, and which method he either implicitly sanctions by saying it led him to Rome, or he was led by the Holy Spirit to Rome by the using the same fallible human reasoning he censures as unreliable!
And then in its place and he advocates “one that claims to be directed and guided by the Holy Spirit.” And although this authority can claim more historicity than the Mormonic “living prophet,” its “infallible” interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition are no more open to debate or requires demonstrable Scriptural warrant than theirs are, and in reality its authority rests upon its own proclamation. According to its interpretation, only its interpretation can be right in any conflict.
Thus we are much back to square one, and the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome can communally but autocratically channel truth just like the autocratic Protestant he characterizes as doing. Except that for Rome this also includes infallibly tweaking the concept of tradition* from what was understood early on, as well as defining “unanimous consent of the Fathers”** to make something much less than that.
The difference here is that the authority of the apostles, who appealed to human consciences by “manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) and who added to a yet open canon, was established by a purity and teaching that conformed that which was written (unlike such things as praying to an heavenly object besides God), with abundant supernatural attestation, (2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; Acts 17:2,11; 28:23)and was not based upon formulaic assuredly infallibility.
Ad paradoxically, those who contend for Sola Scriptura will agre that the modern trend toward baptized subjectivism is contrary to Scripture, and that eccelsial community and its magisterium is necessary for perfection, but that only the Scriptures are infallible, and teaching is established as authoritatve by its conformity with Scripture and ts attestation.
*http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/livingtradition.html
**http://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
1. "Poring" not "pouring."
2. Quit with the broad brush yourself -- many of us Anglicans really do pore over our Bibles.
I agree, though, Longenecker does tend toward the use of broad brushes and strawmen -- I've taken issue on those grounds with several of his previous articles. It kinda makes sense, if this Longenecker is the same guy pamlet knew at Bob Jones University -- the zeal of a convert has to be taken into account.
In his defense, though, Longenecker is correct about the dangers of individual interaction with what one believes to be the Holy Spirit. It's easy to mistake our own desires for the urging of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, we must acknowledge and be wary of Satan's ability to mimic the feel of the Holy Spirit, to lead us astray.
Those are real and serious dangers, and Longenecker is quite correct in stating the need for something outside our personal interaction with Scripture and the Holy Spirit, to ensure that we're not being led astray.
The Church exists to provide that balance, in large part through traditions and teachings that have been guided by the Holy Spirit. That's one of the primary purposes of the Church (denomination carefully not specified), which Jesus Himself instituted.
Longenecker certainly does not claim a Church-only approach; rather, he makes the same basic point: "Catholics certainly believe in the individual's infilling with the Holy Spirit, but we hold this in balance with the equally important truth that the Church herself is inspired and filled and guided by the Holy Spirit."
I don't particularly agree with his assertion that only the Catholic Church is qualified to do that, but I do agree with the general idea of the Church acting as a buffer, and that requires a fair measure of spiritual authority.
The dangers of Churches that emphasize personal relationships (real or perceived) with the Holy Spirit, are reflected in the dizzying number of denominations and ugly schisms among Protestants, that are often driven by personal differences over interpretation of minor points of practice or doctrine -- and those splits are often accompanied by quite un-Christian rancor and outright hatred.
There's probably no one answer, but I think an authoritataive hierarchy is probably necessary. Rome's history shows the dangers of too much concentration of power at the top; contemporary difficulties in the Anglican Communion show the problems with too little central authority.