**As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture. **
Not true.
Well ... that settles it ... LOL ...
Your post reads that the following is ‘Not true”....
.....**As soon as a Roman Catholic argues from Scripture he denies the need for an infallible magisterium. Once he points to Rome apart from Scripture, he shows himself to be a blind follower of Rome in the face of Scripture. **
Ok...then how would you respond to the following......??
...” Roman Catholic apologists often point to conflicting doctrines within the whole of Protestantism to create need for Romanism, the supposed arbiter of truth. Yet if we lump Rome in with all the rest of Christianity... (and apply her reasoning).... then her disagreements with the Westminster standards, for instance, makes her doctrine as questionable as all the Protestant denominations she would cast doubt upon. ........In response to this Roman Catholics might say that Rome claims infallibility whereas Protestant denominations don’t...... But how does the claim of infallibility establish actual infallibility any more than it points to absolute delusion?