@WriterJohnBuck@doofgeek4011 you enough warrant to be certain that the apparition happened as exactly as Bernadette reported?
I think we can agree healings show God's mercy to the sick. Personally, I don't see how they confirm the specific content of a private conversation, let alone with certainty.
@WriterJohnBuck@doofgeek4011@IFFFMEISTER ‘…there’s the outsider casting out demons in Jesus name, seems like this was done to support the doctrine of Jesus authority without vindicating aspects of the outsider themselves.’
Is that why Jesus responded “And Jesus said, “Do not forbid him, for there is no one who will
@WriterJohnBuck@doofgeek4011 I'm happy to grant that God healed at Lourdes. On my view I'd expect him to work among ancient communions and Protestants alike, since he's merciful to people who diligently seek him in faith. But my question was about certainty around the apparition itself. Do the healings give
Your question assumes something SS doesn't claim. The claim is that Scripture is the only infallible norm, not that any one interpreter is infallible. We do it much in the same way Roman Catholics since the magisterium has formally defined so few verses. 👇
In celebration of Reformation Month, I have a question for Protestants.
If Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith, by what infallible authority do you know your interpretation of it is correct when another Bible-believing Christian reading the exact same verses reaches an opposing doctrine?
For example:
On baptism: You read John 3:5 and 1 Peter 3:21 as a symbolic ordinance with no saving power, while a Lutheran reads those exact words and insists baptism objectively washes away original sin and saves the soul.
On salvation: You read John 10:28 to mean a believer can never lose salvation, while a Methodist reads Hebrews 6:4–6 and insists a true Christian can commit apostasy and go to hell.
On communion: You read Matthew 26:26 as a pure metaphor, while a Reformed Christian reads it as spiritual communion and a Lutheran reads it as the actual physical body and blood in, with, and under the bread.
Both of you pray to the same Holy Spirit.
Both of you use the same Bible. One of you is objectively wrong on a core matter of salvation.
Since the Bible cannot speak off the page to resolve who is right, how do you prove your personal interpretation is divine truth rather than just your fallible opinion?
@WriterJohnBuck@doofgeek4011 So let me pick your thoughts for a moment. In your opinion, would you say the miracles at Lourdes give you enough credence to believe with certainty what was told to Bernadette?
If my question doesn’t make sense just let me know. I had trouble wording it lol
Scripture correctly. How did you determine that Rome is the infallible interpreter, and that you've understood her teachings correctly?
If the answer is "my own judgment," we're in the same boat. If the answer is "the Church itself," that's circular and must be proven.
all treat baptism as a real means of grace and the washing of original sin. "Symbolic only" is a minority view.
And honestly Rome, her magisterium, really doesn’t solve this.
Consider the counter question:
If we need infallible certainty to know we've interpreted