Jswranch left a rather long comment on The Canon: Fallible Certainty post which was really just pointing to a post Ellen made where she worked off another post on Parchment and Pen. I believe jswranch was mostly responding to Ellen’s post, but starting with the initial post that spurned Ellen’s may have brought some clarity.
All that said, let me try to briefly answer some of jswranch’s objections.
(Original post in italics, jswranch’s comment in bold, my reponse in regular type)
The smoke screen of epistemological certainty that seems to be provided by having a living infallible authority (Magisterium) disappears when we realize that we all start with fallibility...
Why? Just because I am fallible does not mean the HS didn't institute an infallible institution to do its will. Wasn’t Moses the infallible teacher anointed by God to instruct His people in truth?
No, the HS didn’t institute an infallible institution because nowhere in scripture is such a thing ever mentioned. The point of the epistemological argument is that an infallible organization can never provide 100% certainty because the followers are still fallible.
I believe this plays out in two ways. First, your personal fallibility means that your determination that the RCC IS an infallible organization instituted by God is a fallible decision. You can never be 100% certain that you are correct. Second, even if there were an infallible, visible organization, you can never be 100% certain that you will properly interpret what they have to say because you are still fallible.
The Catholic position is really no different than the Protestant position. We each have our own infallible authority (for Cats the magisterium, for Prots the Bible), but neither can be 100% certain that their source of authority is true since our own personal decisions are fallible. After that, neither can be 100% certain that we are understanding/interpreting the words/directions of our authority properly because again, we are fallible. Instead we must go with the highest amount of certainty and this is where Protestants pull ahead (from an epistemological POV).
So the point is that the whole need for an infallible, earthly organization is not only unscriptural, but it really doesn’t solve anything. Because of personal fallibility, you can never have 100% certainty.
As far as Moses being the “infallible teacher”, really? Is this the new Catholic apologetic argument to try to read an infallible leader into the Old Testament? Moses was not infallible, so this really doesn’t affect anything.
I’ll continue with this later…