“All this argument goes in a circle. You claim (by what right?) the power to interpret Scripture infallibly. “
No, I’m pretty sure I didn’t. Try again.
“but as one whom the spirit has empowered to prophesy the truth. “
I have not claimed the gift of prophecy. However, it is a fact that the Holy Spirit indwells all believers, giving the saved individual a new mind and a new nature.
John 14:26
But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
This doesn’t mean that we are infallible. It does mean, however, that we are not without help, and that if we knock, God will definitely answer.
You act as if the scriptures are so difficult to understand that none dare read it on their own lest they are deceived. However, you cannot produce some fundamental doctrine that cannot be understood with simple logical and reading comprehension. Perhaps the prophecies of the Book of Revelation would be a bit tough, as one must understand the book of Daniel and speculate on the meanings of the various things John saw. Nevertheless, there is no such difficulty when it comes to the essentials, such as how one is saved, or the existence of hell, or even the Trinity (even though that word is not itself used). You insist on “tradition” and Catholic supremacy because Catholic doctrine required a leap of faith to believe.
It is not possible for you to justify the many perversions of scripture that Catholicism teaches, a few of which I have mentioned in this thread but have never gotten an answer for.
As for each book of the Bible needing to be signed. Plenty of them state who the author is. I will also add that the Popish church didn’t exist when those books were written. They were given to the various churches and used for a long time, long before the heresy of infant baptism (and baptism being required in order to achieve salvation) first reared its ugly head and the conversion of Constantine, who was so afraid concerning the doctrine that baptism is required to wash away sin, that he would not let himself be baptized until just before death (in order to wash away the maximum amount of sin). Here we have the greatest alleged conquest of the Catholic Church who, actually, did not even trust the saving power of Christ or the plain meaning of scripture. It’s possible the latter is because the “Bishops” would not allow him to read the scripture for himself.
But that is exactly what is meant by Tradition--consensus. And often this was arrived at by synods of Bishops. Arius wracked the Church precisely because he sought by his own authority, or by invoking the authority of others, to define the consensus regarding Father, Son and Holy Ghost. When Constantine convented the Council at Nicaea, they ruled that his notion about Jesus were novelties. That, however, did not end the matter. The Arians made a comeback and were able to persuade the Emperor finally to bring that theologian back to Court. Only his sudden death prevented his return to favor. The Emperor himself was torn between the factions, and his son was an Arian, or Semi-Arian. So not good to bring the matter of his Baptism in the mix. Who don’t know the nature of his faith.
As to that controversy, it took a long while for the Church to work out a doctrine of how to treat those who “fell alway,”especially those who did so in time of persecution. Costantine’ s Ediction of Toleration came after more than two generations of savage persecution by the Roman authorities. It caused great bitterness, and of course permanently divided the African Church, which defied all the efforts of St. Augustine to remedy, until he felt he had to result to compulsion. Some called for re-baptism, but that did not take hold. Then came pubic penance. Then finally private confession and penance.
The Reformation did away with that, or at least in the Reformed tradition. At the root of that was the rejection of the authority of the priesthood to act in the name of the Lord.