> **“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God."** - Matthew5:8 **IMPORTANT NOTE:** We cannot add nor subtract any word from the bible. When Jesus said this beatitude, He said this promised to all the living not dead nor this promise can only be gain after death. Jesus did not said, *"Blessed are the pure of heart, for they will see God,* ***after death***." Archangel Gabriel have faculties to see the state of soul of every human being. Archangel Gabriel saw the majestic soul of Mary, and proclaimed that it was *"full of grace"*. Mary was seen having the most pure heart. > [**Mary: Woman of Most Pure Heart**](https://carmelite.org/spirituality/mary-woman-most-pure-heart/) > > As well as regarding Our Lady, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as patron of our Order, we Carmelites revere her under a number of special titles such as ‘Beauty of Carmel’, ‘Sister’, and ‘Woman of Most Pure Heart’. > > Purity of Heart (Puritas Cordis in Latin) is an important concept in Carmelite spirituality, and Mary is seen as its greatest exemplar and embodiment. For this reason medieval Carmelites were among the most fervent promoters of the doctrine of Mary’s ‘Immaculate Conception’, which was not formally proclaimed a dogma of the Catholic Church until 1854. > > Carmelites have always sought to imitate Mary in her purity of heart. The medieval Carmelite writer Felip Ribot said that the goal of the Carmelite life is to offer to God a holy heart purified from all stain of sin. The purpose of this is to achieve, by God’s grace, union with God. Mary, the Most Pure Virgin, is seen as the perfect model of one who was totally available for union with God. > > To explain the significance of purity from a Carmelite perspective, the Irish theologian Chris O’Donnell, O.Carm., uses the image of a milk jug. The purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk. In order to do so properly, it must be clean; if the milk jug is dirty, then the milk will become infected. However, there is no point in the milk jug being clean simply for the sake of it; if the purpose of a milk jug is to dispense milk, then it can be as clean as you like but if it’s empty then it isn’t useful. This is an analogy of the human heart. Its purpose is to pour out love for others. If our hearts are impure, then what we ‘pour our’ to others will be infected. But there is no point is having a pure heart simply to leave it empty; the point of purity is not an end in itself but a means to be useful for others. > > This is what Carmelites mean by purity: having a heart undivided for God, free from our own motives and desires so that God’s will be done in us. Today’s society often associates ‘purity’ with puerile notions of sex. Carmel teaches us that purity is more a matter of the heart than the rest of the body. > > *Maria Purissima*, Mary Most Pure, is the great example of purity, in that her heart is totally given over to God and pours out love towards those around her. **Looking for Protestant Founders like Luther,Calvin, Zwingli, etc. also theologians and biblical scholars outside of Catholic Church, before reformation and early reformation era, who look upon the Blessed Virgin Mary as having a pure heart**." A citation from Protestant Founders and Theologians in harmony with Early Church and Church Fathers would be a perfect answer.

**IMPORTANT NOTE:** The OP is not looking to justify the Immaculate Conception of Mary, rather, the OP is looking for passages, significant bible passages that explicitly prove that "Mary is a sinner", meaning Mary had committed sins. This is in no way a duplicate question as commented. If Luther, Zwingli and Calvin who uphold the dignity of the Blessed Virgin Mary were still alive, during the proclamation of the Dogma of Immaculate Conception, I'm pretty sure, the three of them will also embraced this Truth even the Assumption of Mary into Heaven, like what they did to the Dogma of Theotokos and Perpetual Virginity. Sad to say, the Modern Day Protestant and the Bible Alone Believers that I normally encounter in the social media, are simply drinking the shallow arguments, citing this two shallow passages. >"All have sinned." - Romans 3:23 and > "“None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” - Romans 3:10-12 In CSE, I've seen a lot of good exegesis, but when it comes to this two passages, they seem to become an elementary student or even a kindergarten in giving a thorough exegesis on this particular verse. Romans 3:10-12 can easily be refuted by God Himself in Job 1:1 >There was a man in the land of Uz whose name was Job. And this man was blameless and upright, fearing God and shunning evil. -Job 1:1 The "All have sinned", can easily be debunk by the Doctrine of Original Sin, as the word "sinned" here pointed to "actual sin", on which no Protestant, Modern Day Protestant and all Bible Alone Believers can justify against the Blessed Virgin Mary. Proof? Lets simply ask them a direct question. *What is the nature of sin committed by Mary and when? Please cite bible passages, and you wil see that none of them can cite a single verse, and they will simple go back to Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:10-12.* **In view of the above, I am looking for any wise Protestant and Bible Alone Believers here in CSE to cite significant verses aside from Romans 3:23 and Romans 3:1-12, to support their stance that Mary is a sinner.** Of course, I forgot the Magnificat... >My spirit rejoices in God my savior.." Careful to cite this passage, as Mary claimed to be saved already in this particular passage even before Jesus offered His life on the Cross. So, in this particular passage, the Savior of Mary is God the Father and not Jesus per se, and God the Father is outside of time, and can apply the merit of Christ in whatever ways He deemed appropriate according to His Divine Plan.

Adam was created in the original state of justice and holiness, he have a pure heart originally, a sinless creature. >The concept that Adam was created in a state of original justice and holiness is a doctrine rooted in the biblical narrative of Genesis 1-3 and supported by New Testament reflections on the image of God. >Key Bible verses and theological points supporting this doctrine include: Ecclesiastes 7:29: "Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions" (KJV). This verse is widely cited as direct scriptural evidence that humanity’s original condition was one of moral integrity, righteousness, and innocence. Genesis 1:26-27, 31: God creates man in His own image and likeness and declares all of creation, including humanity, "very good." This state is interpreted as original justice—a harmonious relationship with God, oneself, and creation. >Ephesians 4:24: While referring to the "new self" in Christ, this verse highlights the original state intended for humanity: "...put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness" (NIV). This implies that the restoration of humanity brings them back to the original holiness Adam possessed. >Colossians 3:10: Speaks of being "renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator," referencing a return to the original righteous state. >Genesis 2:25: "And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed." This describes a state of innocence, internal harmony, and lack of sin before the Fall. >**Key Aspects of Original Justice:** >Original Holiness: Friendship with God and sharing in God's own life (sanctifying grace). >Original Justice: Harmony between Adam and Eve, inner harmony of the human person (reason, will, and desires were aligned), and harmony with creation. >Preternatural Gifts: Freedom from sickness, suffering, and death. >The Council of Trent (Session V, 1511) formally affirmed that Adam lost this "holiness and justice" through disobedience. It would seems that Adam was created with a pure heart before the fall, and there's no obstacle for him to see the face of God. **Did Adam saw the face of God before the fall?** This question is open for Catholicism, Protestant and Christians who have a source or writings that stated, Adam had seen the face of God before the fall.

**NOTE :** This question is aimed at narrowing down the probability, when did Mary committed an actual and personal sin, and what is the most likely nature of sin that She would commit? Protestant and Bible Alone Believers do not accept the Dogma on Immaculate Conception for lack of biblical support, so its only fair for Catholics, that we also, cannot accept the accusation that Mary is a sinner, for the same reason that it also lacking in biblical support. And so, its now the Protestant and Bible Alone Believers turn to prove their accusation and judgement that Mary is a sinner, by providing us biblical proof? Sin of pride, lust, envy, gluttony, sloth, etc. What is the most probable nature of sin that a lowly handmaid, a human being with profound humility, who is daily praying and embracing the Will of the Father, can fall into? Let's check on Mary's age. At age 1 to 3, is the age of innocence, therefore, Mary cannot commit sin here at this age. At age 3 to 13, Mary had spent her life in the Temple as a servant of God. Most likely, Satan cannot offer any of his temptations as he did to Jesus as money, fame and power will not entice the young Mary of this non-sense. https://www.mdrevelation.org/the-presentation-of-mary-in-the-temple/ At age 13, Angel Gabriel having faculties to see the soul of human being, saw Mary's soul as "full of grace", and telling us that in Mary's soul, the Lord presence can be seen. -Dominus tecum. Before conception, during conception and after giving birth it is unlikely that Mary can commit sin, as She was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit. And so, for all the Bible Alone Believers and wizards here at CSE, we only have one choices left. Mary is possible to commit sin, after giving birth to Jesus Christ. But what is the nature of sin, that a person who is docile to the voice of God, and had shown holiness and righteousness in her life,so, the simple and direct question is... What is the nature of sin that Mary would fall into after giving birth to Jesus Christ? **Can anyone tell us according to the bible, what is the nature of sin that Mary had fallen into, after giving birth to Jesus Christ?** Catholic, Protestant and Christian can answer this question, using only bible as the source and nothing else.

### Background Protestants across the ages have criticized and prohibited icons and worship of icons of Jesus: John Calvin, *Institutes of the Christian Religion*: > God’s glory is corrupted by an impious falsehood whenever any form is attached to Him R. Scott Clark: > To picture His manhood, when we cannot picture His Godhead, is a sin, because we make Him to be but half Christ; we separate what God has joined ### Incarnation Protestants also believe in the incarnation: that God took on a physical form of a man named Jesus, and that Jesus retains a physical form of a human man today and into eternity, see the *Westminster Shorter Catechism* as an example of this belief: > Christ, the Son of God, became man, by taking to himself a true body, and a reasonable soul, being conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin Mary, and born of her, yet without sin ### Premises The premise of the question is as follows: Protestants believe **p1**. God (the son) took on physical form **p2**. Humans saw this physical form in the 1st Century CE **p3**. Some of those people worshiped Jesus while he was in the physical form Then reasonable logical inferences: **i1**. Those followers of Jesus continued to remember what Jesus physically looked like **i2**. When praying to Jesus, those people had a mental image of Jesus's face and prayed to that in their minds ### Question - Are any of the premises or inferences wrong according to Protestants? - Were the first followers of Jesus/Christians prohibited from making illustrations of Jesus? - Were the first Christians sinning when imagining Jesus's physical form when praying? - Why would putting an image of the incarnate Jesus to paper be a sin if people saw him and knew what he looked like? - Why would praying to an image of Jesus be wrong if praying to his physical form was not wrong?

According to Protestantism, can Satan and his demons perform true and genuine miracles? God can perform great wonders and miracles, but can the Devil and his minions perform such wonders and miracles as Almighty God is able to perform. Are satanic miracles permanent and long lasting according to Protestant scholars?

### 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?

I'm looking for reputable books for a thorough summation (and/or defense) of beliefs for the Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, and Presbyterian (or, more broadly, reformed) denominations. Any suggestions?

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?

[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?

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 ?**

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?