This kind of goes back to some of my previous posts. The basis for this common sense is experience. If there’s a disagreement between two parties then it obviously necessitates a third to resolve this difference.
I say as a Catholic, God the Holy Spirit choses (normally) to resolve such differences, to guide people to truth and protect them from error via other people. Via a tangible visible magisterium.
I don’t have much time to explain this as much as I probably should so I’ll leave it there. It just seems to me though there is no way to determine truth from Scripture alone as opinions are like noses, to use an old euphemism.
If one doesn’t accept as a matter of faith that not only has God chosen to use humanity to teach humanity, but that no one single individual is perfect all the time and therefore everyone needs correction...if one doesn’t accept these two as plainly obvious through reason and experience then there really isn’t much left to say anyway.
If theres a disagreement between two parties then it obviously necessitates a third to resolve this difference.
It just seems to me though there is no way to determine truth from Scripture alone as opinions are like noses, to use an old euphemism
no one single individual is perfect all the time and therefore everyone needs correction...if one doesnt accept these two as plainly obvious through reason and experience then there really isnt much left to say anyway.
The issue is not the warrant for the teaching office, and for synods to settle disputes, which Westminster itself affirms as being Scriptural, but that an infallible magisterium is essential for this, for determination of assurance of Truth.
Do you understand this is your position?