Okay, so you state that you are not conscious of conflating. However, if you are not conscious of it, does that not also leave the possibility that conflation might realistically happen with respect to the SDA interpretive tradition and Acts 17:11?
I have stated that the Heb 8 and Acts 17:11 model presupposes error can exist and that an infallible - all-knowing third party is needed.
I keep stating my solution to the problem which is never that I assume I cannot be mistaken nor can the magisterium ever be mistaken.
You have proposed no logical alternative at all.
Also, I am not Roman Catholic and do not seek to engage in apologetics to justify its teaching Magisterium.
Then presumably you have no reason to be at odds with Luther or Acts 17:11.
So far the only Bible evidence you give that Acts 17:11 could be a mistake is .... well ... nothing. Just the idea that people can make mistakes. But that does not mean that everything is a mistake.
However, despite the good intentions by clothing the SDA interpretive tradition in Acts 17:11, I still see it as just that, an interpretive tradition that comes out of post-Reformation politics.
Because you choose to tell yourself that kind of story.
It is illogical to assume that the Bible is wrong in all areas where it presents the correcting mechanism unless you are in fact wiser than God.
Thus, I see no reason as to why I should accept it over the Roman Catholic Magisterium or vice versa.
As a non-Catholic you have every expectation to accept the Bible over "believe whatever catholics tell me to believe - after all the dark ages went so well".
How could that possibly be even a little confusing to a non-Catholic??
The SDA church did not write Heb 8 or Acts 17:11 ... yet you start of adopting the Catholic concept that you cannot know what the Bible says until the Catholic church tells you what to think.
That might be logical for a cradle-catholic ... but not for a non-Catholic.
However, what reason does one have to believe that the Holy Spirit has led the SDA interpretive tradition to the right interpretation over that of the Roman Catholic one?
History bears that out -- as it turns out.
I understand this scenario. However, see my comments above for what I perceive the problem to be.
You have shown no solution at all to "what if you and the magisterium are both wrong and don't know it".
You propose a scenario that applies to all people all magisteriums - even the RCC.
You don't propose a logical solution.
I do. I say the Bible is very easy to read - read it. Believe it and notice that in Act 17:11 the very thing you claim cannot happen - is taking place.
That should be "a hint" (among the many others listed here) that your premise is flawed.
in Christ,
Bob
have fun on this thread 
