The words from my past response are marked by a bullet (•) while those from Scott that follow are in bracketed red italics, followed by my present responses. This blog is not always faithful to keep that same formatting as i had when i wrote it on my word processor, but any difference is not substantial. However, it is a lot to digest, but should be read in its entirety before any response is made.
• Again, why would I argue this since it can only mean to you what supports Rome? [That is not an answer to the question; it is a refusal to answer the question.]
You cut out most of what i posted — then deleted all of it — and now criticize me for not providing even more? Or are you just desperate to get some polemical points? If i knew i could have provided a ink (which would not go through the first time i tried), then i would have used some for such references, as i do on this blog.
• If you want to deal with Luke 10:16 even though it cannot be allowed to impugn the claims of Rome, what i said is what is supported, that it pertains to all who preach the evangelical gospel. [Yes. If they are in apostolic succession and receive Holy Orders. But one cannot just get up one morning and declare himself a preacher of the gospel. They must receive their orders from someone authorized by God to ordain. That would be a bishop.]
And in the NT church all are called and enabled to preach the common gospel, and to “prophesy.” (1Cor. 14:31)
• For in context this does not apply to simply the apostles, which hardly anything does, nor did it originally to those whom they themselves ordained, but to the other seventy that the Lord appointed also. (Lk. 10:1) [Yes. Commissioned specifically by Jesus, not by themselves. I think the commission of Christ himself has some authority. It is not pertinent to the self-validating claims of Protestants.]
• [Sproul described the Bible as “a fallible collection of infallible books.” It was a sly and transparent way of trying to get around the Catholic observation...Only an exterior authority can do that.]
And the RC answer basically is that an infallible magisterium is required in order to know and establish both which men and writings are authoritative, and that the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture are that magisterium. And that assurance of truth cannot be through fallible human reasoning, since this result in disagreements, so therefore it requires an infallible magisterium, which Rome provides. And thus RCs have assurance that she is this magisterium because Rome has infallibly declared that she is infallible.