You mean,
“the Scriptures require believers to make moral judgments and reprove error, (Eph. 4:11) but it is the basis for such that remains the issue.”
It is also understood that Rome does not claim to define doctrine irregardless [edit] of evidence, but that her claim to infallibility precludes that evidence could prove her wrong, and that assurance of the infallibility of her decrees does not rest upon the weight of scriptural warrant.
“And again, it is accepted that saying someone is wrong means saying you are right, but it is not the same thing as claiming inerrancy after the manner of Rome. However, if you want to imagine we simply object to the former and not the latter, and not deal with that, then no further exchange seems unnecessary.”
Sorry if it is not yet understandable to you now.
Dude, your prose is just about impenetrable. If there is anything making “further exchange unnecessary: that’s it.
Seriously... “not yet understandable to you now?”
Is that suppose to mean “misunderstood?”
Perhaps it would be easier going if you stopped trying to continually drag Rome into the discussion. I used it as a simple contrast while making a point about fallacious logic, but you insist on making it the topic.