[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA (1917): *Protestantism*](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm#:~:text=Catholicism%20numbers%20some%20270%20millions,their%20only%20common%20denominator.) : > ### Conclusion > Catholicism numbers some 270 millions of adherents, all professing the same Faith, using the same sacraments, living under the same discipline; Protestantism claims roundly 100 millions of Christians, products of the Gospel and the fancies of a hundred reformers, people constantly bewailing their "unhappy divisions" and vainly crying for a union which is only possible under that very central authority, protestation against which is their only common denominator. That final claim, that protestation against the central authority (of the Catholic Church), is their only common denominator, seems too extreme. But is it? What fundamental beliefs that aren't also part of Catholicism are shared by all Protestant denominations?

For those of you who are recovering Catholics and now Christian brothers, what were the most convincing or compelling reasons to make the switch? I’ve heard a variety of reasons, but primarily the newfound personal relationship with Jesus Christ and complete assurance of salvation.

I will often engage in dialogue with Catholics and Orthodox Christians who tell me that the doctrine of their churches affirms that salvation is by grace through faith. If that is true, then what distinguishes Lutherans from Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians?

King Charles and Pope Leo become the first British monarch and Roman Pontiff to pray together at a church service ***since the Reformation in the 16th Century.*** That historic moment was in the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican, during a state visit by King Charles and Queen Camilla, late October 2025. >A Foreign Office spokeswoman said: "The Catholic Church is the largest denomination of the world's largest religion."As such, the King and Queen's visit will "strengthen the UK's relationship with this crucial and influential partner", she said. > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxkrn7jvexo >The King will sit in a purpose-made seat, decorated with the King's coat of arms, which will stay in place for the King's future use ***and his successors.*** > >BBC NEWS 17th October 2025 : https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/czxkrn7jvexo J C Philpot and William Tiptaft (the 'seceders') left the C of E in the 1830s as they could not in conscience way back then stay within it. Then, in 1966 Dr Martyn Lloyd Jones urged evangelicals within the C of E to stop supporting its continuing drift away from biblical truth by separating from it. At that time the equally influential John Stott publicly opposed that challenge, succeeding in persuading many to persist in trying to reform it from within. Now the current situation has developed into this historic, joint, public praying in the Vatican. **Yet, how can this be a 'reconciliation' when the C of E continues to endorse things Catholicism remains opposed to (such as the ordination of women, to name but one issue) ?** **Or is this, after 500 years, the complete capitulation of a claimed 'Protestant' denomination to the biblical truths it once upheld, overturning the Reformation ?**

I have heard the title "Mother of God" in connection with the "Hail Mary" prayer that(Ave Maria) is recited by Catholics. However, I have never heard this term used in any Protestant setting. (From the comment by Bobo, we find that the Orthodox also refer to Mary in this way; *Theotokos* in Greek literally means "Birth-giver of God", as well as *Bohoroditza* in Russian. Both of these terms are widely used in their respective Orthodox groups). Why, then, do Protestants not use this title that appears to be so common in Catholicism?

### Background *Sola Scriptura* is commonly defined as follows > **The Bible is the sole infallible source of authority for faith** (alternatively doctrine) **and practice.** Protestant discussions about the scriptural basis for *Sola Scriptura* nearly always involve 2 Timothy 3:16 and other NT verses, but I have not seen Protestants argue for for *Sola Scriptura* on the basis of the Hebrew Bible. ### Question Do Protestants believe the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament taught *Sola Scriptura* prior to the advent of Christianity and the writing of the New Testament? If so, which passages teach this? If not, how do they explain this doctrine only being introduced by the New Testament?

Sola Scriptura can be broken into two parts: 1. Sola - Alone 2. Scriptura - The sacred Scriptures One aspect of Sola Scriptura is the idea that Scripture is the *Sole* **Infallible AND Authoritative** rule of faith over Christians. But in relation to [my last post](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/89214/how-do-proponents-of-sola-scriptura-defend-the-doctrine-without-scripture-being) , there is a question over the canon of scripture. Since no book that anyone would consider scripture (at least among protestants that would claim Sola Scriptura) *never* says what scripture is, who determines what scripture is? Or, as I point out in my [blog post](https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/5957239847810915194/4590423893995530597) : >This poses a two horned dilemma. Horn 1 - The source that canonized the Bible is not infallible and authoritative, thus we could add any books to the Bible and no one would have a basis to reject these additions (this is obviously bad). Horn 2 - The source that canonized the Bible is infallible and authoritative, thus Sola Scriptura is false. So whatever horn you take, you will end up with consequences. So to close on my question, what source has given us the canon of scripture (not scripture, since that has come from God), and is that source infallible or authoritative?

It is an observable fact that most people, even most Christians, don't repent of every sin individually before they die. Even that really great guy at church who's everyone's best friend and is first to let you know he messed up probably has been in a tiff or two where he thinks he was completely right and, in a lack of charity, or even with just a hint of pride, he refuses to see that he may have handled things improperly. For Catholics and Orthodox, with their theology of purgatory/tollhouses, as well as the Sacrament of Penance, this is a non-issue. That guy has all of those "venial" sins forgiven when he makes a good, honest confession of at least all his mortal sins. And, even if some venial sins slip through the cracks before death and aren't absolved, or aren't fully properly repented of, he will spend some time suffering in purgatory temporarily, and then will enter heaven for eternity thereafter. However, for Protestants who specifically reject both the doctrine of purgatory *and* make no distinction between mortal and venial sins (I'm thinking of those for whom the statement "stealing $1 and stealing $1 million are both damnable offenses" is generally a thought to be a true statement), it would seem that unless a man manages to truly and fully repent of every single little sin he has committed in his entire life, he would end up going straight to hell. Do Protestants who deny both of these tenets of Catholic faith simply bite that bullet, or do they have another way of working out this theological problem? ## Clarification I'm confused as to why I am getting lots of answers about earning our salvation. I am presuming that those answering believe, like I do, that people must repent of all of their sins in order to go to heaven. What I am asking is what Protestants think happens to people who neglect to repent of a single sin or maybe two or three, but otherwise live holy lives, when they die. I feel I must add this because I must have communicated something unclearly in the original body of the question.

[Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism#Christianity) says that formal schismatics are those who: > knowing the true nature of the Church, have personally and deliberately committed the sin of schism. But if formal schismatics have to truly know the true nature of the Church, is it ever actually a category that can apply to people? For example, Protestants reject the authority of the Catholic Church and the Pope, and so would not be said, I would think, to know the true nature of the Church. Likewise, are the SSPX truly formal schismatics if, in their rejection of Vatican II, they believe the true nature of the church is other than that of the Catholic Church after Vatican II? If you have to know and truly believe in the true nature of the Church in order for your rejection of it to be "formal", then it seems to be that this is a largely academic category, and that there would be exceedingly few actual cases of formal schismatics.

When Elizabeth greeted Mary - >42 ...she exclaimed with a loud cry, "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb! 43 And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?..." - Luke 1:42-43 (RSVCE) Why don't Evangelical Protestants treat Mary with at least this much reverence?

Analytic meditation, as defined : > Our minds are filled with confused thoughts and beliefs; often, even when we recognize logically that our beliefs are wrong, they are so embedded that they are virtually impossible to shed. By employing vigorous analytical methods and reasoning, we can deconstruct these beliefs, actively examining the concepts we cling to and questioning whether they really exist. With practice, logic becomes more sustainable, and understanding gains force, leading to wisdom. Is there any equivalent of analytic meditation in any Christian tradition/denomination/sect, specifically in ***Protestant*** tradition? If yes, what are the supporting scriptures?

Historical Protestantism (particularly in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions) have since the Magisterial Reformation held to two doctrines relating what is required of an individual for salvation. The first is the doctrine of *Sola Fide*, meaning "by faith alone". This principle states that salvation is not by works of man, but by faith in Christ. In fact, not only are works insufficient to merit salvation on their own, they account for not even a portion of our salvation--it is, rather, *wholly* through faith in Christ. The second doctrine was worked out by Luther and put into its present form by his collaborator and successor, Melancthon. This doctrine is simply a definition of faith, or sometimes known as the three aspects of faith--as such, it is intended to explain what is required of the "faith" for salvation "by faith alone". The doctrine has three steps: 1. *notitia* One must know the basic information (or "content") such as Christ's death and resurrection. 1. *assensus* One must agree that the basic information is correct. In other words, he/she must not only have heard that Christ died and rose again, but they must believe that he did do that. 1. *fiducia* One must trust in Christ, and rest on the knowledge that the content to which he/she assented is sufficient to save. It is this last piece--fiducia--that I struggle with reconciling with the concept of Sola Fide. Scripture makes clear that these first two points are insufficient (James 2:19 ), and on the face of it, it makes sense that we must trust in Christ for our salvation. Where I struggle is that *fiducia* puts faith in functional terms. This means that, although in theory, I trust in Christ for my salvation, I don't always do so in practice. Here's an example: I'm can be a bit of a control freak, and sometimes yell at my wife in trying to assert my control. I am not loving her as I'm commanded to do so, and it stems from my pride. Although I think I trust in Christ for my salvation, my actions show that I am considering another functional 'gospel' (control) of 'salvation' and another function 'god' (myself) that will effect that 'salvation'. When I stop and think about it, I know that I am no god, and that my gospel is no gospel, but I do stumble and my actions reveal my heart. In fact, I would argue (and Luther has) that every sin follows such a pattern. To come at the problem more directly, this notion of *fiducia* makes my faith dependent upon my works, whereas "Sola Fide" asserts that salvation is through faith and not works. How does this puzzle fit together?

### Background Early (pre Protestant Reformation) Christian writers from the 1st through 5th centuries like St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Jerome, and others seem to have universally condemned usury and defined it as charging any interest on loans, not merely excessive or extortionate rates. St. Ambrose of Milan (4th c.) explicitly stated the classic definition: > “Food too is usury and clothing is usury, and **whatever is added to the capital is usury**. Whatever name you wish to put upon it, it is usury” St. Augustine (late 4th–early 5th c.) likewise defined a usurer as anyone who expects back more than he lent : > "If thou hast given the loan of thy money to one from whom thou dost expect to receive something more than thou hast given; not in money only, but anything... **if you expect to receive more than you have given, you are an usurer**, and in this are not deserving of praise, but of censure." ### Question The practice of usury has had a mixed history in the Christian Church. How do modern Protestants define it, and do they still believe it is a sin? And what do they base their definition on? For example, is usury the collection of interest at any rate on a loan? Is it the collection of excessive interest?

I know that Martin Luther and Philip Melanchthon tried to oppose the school system introduced by the Catholic Church (according to Luther, Oxford and Cambridge model was influenced by the Paris universities, which in their turn by the Catholic Church). This happened at the beginning of the 16th century, when they founded some of the so-called Reformed Schools (based on the Protestant beliefs) like the University of Wittenberg. As far as I know, a little later, some bigger universities like the University of Halle and University of Göttingen were created on the same model. The latter was indeed a very prestigious institution during the whole 18th and 19th century together with Univ. of Berlin and some other German schools. It looks that at a certain moment, the whole movement ceased to be active. Does anyone know more about this reforming of the schools' movement and what exactly happened with it? Which of the currently prestigious universities in North America have been founded according to the Luther and Melanchthon's ideas?

## Background The character of Satan appears very different in the New Testament as compared to the Hebrew Bible. Some of the apparent stark differences appear below: --- - **The idea that the snake in the garden was Satan** Revelation 12:9; 20:2 identify Satan as an "ancient serpent". Later Christians linked this allusion with the snake from Genesis. On the other hand, the Hebrew bible **never** identifies the snake as anything more than an animal, and certainly never teaches that Satan was disguised as or possessing a snake. --- - **The idea that Satan rules the world as god** Satan is called “the god of this age” in 2 Corinthians 4:4: > In their case **the god of this world** has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing clearly the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. and “the prince of this world” in John 12:31: > Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out The Hebrew Bible no where supports the idea of a supernatural being besides YHVH ruling the world. It repeatedly says that YHVH will not share His power and dominion of the world with another: > I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not yield my glory to another or my praise to idols - Isaiah 42:8 --- - **The idea that Satan is a fallen angel working against God** The NT portrays Satan as a fallen angel in Luke 10:18, and portrays him as working at odds against God's plans of spreading the gospel in 1 Thessalonians 2:18. The Hebrew bible contains no references to 'Satan' falling from heaven or working against God's plans and it portrays Satan as one of many 'sons of God' who remains in God's presence in heaven and in fact does God's commands in Job 1:6-22. ## Question How do Protestants explain these differences? Why is Satan taught to be the "god of this world/age" in the New Testament while this theology is absent in the Hebrew Bible?

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says >“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God” (Matthew 5:9). However, in some situations, people might use deception to bring about peace — for example, concealing the truth to prevent violence or lying to stop conflict. From a Protestant theological perspective, would such a person still be considered a “peacemaker” in the sense Jesus describes in Matthew 5:9? Or would the use of deceit disqualify them from that blessing, given the biblical prohibitions against lying (e.g., Proverbs 12:22; Ephesians 4:25)?

So I am not asking about Mary and Joseph's genealogy. I am asking about their children's descendants. So Jesus's siblings' children, their children's children, etc. Whenever I search for this, I only receive results about their family history genealogy. So essentially, what happened to Jesus's nieces and nephews?

In Romans 7:12–14, Paul writes that the law is “holy, righteous, and good,” yet he also emphasizes that it cannot save humanity from sin. How have theologians, especially in the Protestant tradition, reconciled this apparent tension?

In Protestant eschatology, it is commonly taught that when Christ returns, believers who are alive at that time will have their mortal bodies transformed into glorified, heavenly bodies (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:51–53; 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17). My question is: What happens to those who are alive but not saved when Christ returns?

There is an old man in our neighborhood who is a member of a Southern Baptist congregation, though for various reasons he does not attend the local church. He asked me what I thought about the question, "Might a person read the Scriptures, remembering Jesus and the Cross, and take communion (the wine and the flat bread) alone at home, by one's self?" He reminded me that various wealthy people throughout history had their own chapels, priests and attendants that served the communion supper, "at home alone." Do the Southern Baptists have a position on private home-communion?