Hi Stellar, perhaps I’ll address biblical infallibilty another day in another post.
Yes, we can and we should, otherwise, everything is up for grabs to the loudest and most persistent voice. That’s Islam right now - claiming a superior vision. 600 years after Christ and copying what they wish - mainly the resurrection.
Don’t be fooled - scripture is not an opinion - it is the Word of God. We have what we need. The veil, the maddening veil, is God saying that you have enough to understand. Enough! What more has been added to pierce that veil and not add to the confusion? Nothing. Otherwise, name it!
My only response, for now, is something penned by the hand of George MacDonald:
Except to add that what’s been consistently told to us through the testimony of the scriptures is that God loves to reveal new things all the time, things wrapped up in the older revelations yet still contained as a mystery, to those who often have no formal training or no natural reason to have these things revealed to them.
The scriptures themselves testify to this.
At the risk of taking things off topic more, this gets back to my recent comment (in another thread) concerning Peter after pentacost.
Is Peter himself infallible or inerrant in his understanding and application of doctrine? No, not even after pentacost. Otherwise:
1.) He wouldn’t have had to be slapped down by God for restricting his evangelism to Jews and avoiding Gentiles (one of the longest single stories in Acts, and just about the last major thing Peter does in Acts for that matter);
2.) He wouldn’t have had to be slapped down by another apostle (namely St. Paul) for insisting that Gentiles had to convert mostly or entirely over to Jewish religious observance to be accepted by God.
It might be suggested that this came about simply because Saint Peter simply didn’t pray first before undertaking such long-term errors. Technically that might be true, I suppose. But that would be reading into Acts (and Galatians, if I recall correctly), not out of it. 
At any rate, I await A37’s willingness to apply this principle in following the infallibly inspired post-apostolic teaching of the Magisterium and the Pope, whenever they speak ‘ex cathedra’. (I think that’s the proper term. They aren’t considered particularly infallible or inerrant otherwise, only after heavy preparation in prayer, fasting and other spiritual devotion such as properly taking the sacraments in communion with the inspired Catholic Church.) Remember, it doesn’t matter whether what they say is logically valid, or whether their data is accurate, or whether they have included enough data. They’re infallibly and inerrantly inspired, once they’re prepared! Just like… um… A37 by his own testimony!
(Most of us are Protestants, A. And you’re going to have trouble convincing us to follow you as an apostolic-level inspired source, when we aren’t even willing to follow the Pope and the Magisterium on the same grounds.)
I enjoyed your post, too, Bob. And I agree–it deserves it’s own topic somewhere.
Sonia
I took Bob’s post and created a new topic for it in the Christian Living section (since it seems to have more to do with that than technical philosophy or ecclesiology.)
Link: Inspiration (+Infallibility, Inerrancy) and Christian Living
Further discussion on this important topic (including any replies to previous material in this thread insofar as this topic goes), should go there.
Meanwhile, Aaron37 has now attempted to answer one (out of dozens) of points, in this thread:
My answer is also in that thread.