Because Scripture, by the very fact that it's Scripture, and not a living entity,...other infallible authorities are needed, living infallible authorities, for God is a God of the Living, not the dead. A living Magisterium, and a Tradition in the living minds of believers is what God provided us, in order to help ensure, that His Authority, and His Gospel, are well heard.
Since you seem reluctant to plainly affirm what I asked, but nonetheless affirm that an infallible magisterium is essential for common people to assuredly ascertain what is of God.
Then if this is true as you in many words insist it is, then as
has been explained to you but ignored - despite your stated confidence that you have covered everything pertinent - then you have essential nuked the NT church.
(This is not flaming.)
For the NT church began with common souls having ascertained what/who is of God, holding to a body of books as being inspired by God and holding men such as John the Baptist as being "a prophet indeed," (Mark 11:32) and likewise common souls heard Jesus of Nazareth gladly, (Mark 12:37) another Itinerant Preacher, both of whom were rejected (Mark 11:27-33) by those who sat in the historical magisterial seat of Moses over Israel. (
Mt. 23:2) Who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (
Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (
Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation if and as they believed, (
Gn. 12:2,
3;
17:4,
7,
8;
Ex. 19:5;
Lv. 10:11;
Dt. 4:31;
17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9;
Is. 41:10,
Ps. 89:33,
34;
Jer. 7:23)
But whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (
Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (
Mt. 22:23-45;
Lk. 24:27,
44;
Jn. 5:36,
39;
Acts 2:14-35;
4:33;
5:12;
15:6-21;
17:2,
11;
18:28;
28:23;
Rm. 15:19;
2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
Therefore an infallible magisterium is NOT is essential for common people to assuredly ascertain what is of God, nor does being the magisterial stewards of Scripture require or mean such possess the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, so that whatever they have will solemnly define in accordance with their scope and subject-based criteria, will be infallible (though they do not speak as wholly inspired of God, as men such as the apostles could, as well as thereby provide new public revelation).
Only in cults do we see leadership uniquely (or not) presuming such. The case of Caiaphas (John 1:49-51) was only that of the non-formulaic spontaneous uttering of prophecy, even of evil intent, not defining faith or morals whenever speaking according to Rome's infallibly defined formula.
Because human beings are fallen, and therefore fallible, Sacred Scripture will have to be processed through fallible beings, and thus, a danger for misinterpretation arises.
This is true, yet this does not mean that the Truth cannot be rightly discerned and win out. And despite your attempt to help God out, an ensured perpetual infallible magisterium was never God's means of providing and preserving faith -though the OT magisterium certainly had authority to enjoin conditional obedience, as do civil courts (Dt. 17:8-13; Rm. 13:1-7) - but God actually often raised up men who reproved those who sat in the official magisterial seat, and were rejected by them.
Therefore the real NT church did not begin under the premise of ensured perpetual infallibility of magisterial office, but upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, both rebels in the sight of those who often seat of Moses, whom the Lord charged with persecuting. (Matthew 23:31-37; cf. Acts 7:52)
And rather than an autocratic infallible magisterium defining what to believe and requiring implicit assent to it under that premise of ensured veracity, God allows false teachers to test the people, and tells them to themselves "try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John 4:1; cf. 1Ths. 5:21)
In order for this danger to be avoided, other infallible authorities are needed, living infallible authorities,
And which solution is nowhere promised or found in Scripture, despite spurious Cath attempts to extrapolate it out of general promises such as to be progressively led into all Truth (while censuring us for interpreting the Scriptures rather than letting Rome do so).
In addition, unity itself is not the goal, but unity in Truth, and not by autocratic dictatorial controls, but by how the NT church obtained followers:
But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)
If unity is the criteria for veracity, and disunity means error, then cults such as the
Watchtower Society would have the ascendancy, since their clone-like indoctrinated, slow-walking members walk in far greater lock-step unity with their leadership than Catholics do. Nor do Catholics overall testify to greater unity in basic beliefs than evangelical do. And as one who remained a weekly Mass-going RC for 6 years (this is not the Bible belt by far) after becoming manifestly becoming born again, and realized the profound basic changes in heart and life versus institutionalized Catholicism or Protestantism, I can attest I find far more of the essential unity of the Spirit (which rejoices in the living Christ and what He did in us, versus "The (particular) Church" being the main focus and security) than in Catholicism (the charismatics showed some promise).
But it is the quality of unity resulting from Berean-type souls searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of what is taught that is superior to the implicit assent Rome requires of her faithful.
Yet in reality, while your premise is that an infallible magisterium is essential for correct interpretation of Scripture, just what has Rome accomplished by her i(self-proclaimed) infallible magisterium?
- Has she infallibly defined more than just a few verses out of the over 31,000 verses in the Bible? No.
- Has she produced any infallible commentary on the whole Bible? No.
- Has she infallibly defined anything close to all the Truths found in the Bible? No.
- Has she even product an infallible list of all infallible teachings (and thus all that RCs must provide assent of faith to)? No.
- Is Scripture so obtuse that its essential Truths requires an infallible magisterium, as they cannot otherwise be deduced, with the due use of ordinary means? No.
- Are all infallible teaching so clear that their preclude the need for interpretation, and preclude variant ones? No.
- Can RCs expect timely responses to disputes as to what Scripture means?
- Within basic parameters, do Catholics have a great deal of liberty to interpret (wrest) texts in order to support their church? Yes.
- Are those whom Rome counts and treats as members more unified in basic beliefs than those who most strongly hold to the authority and integrity of Scripture? No.
Pinging redleghunter, JayW, Major1