The next most dangerous ideology after sola fide is sola scriptura, as it makes their interpretation of holy scriptures as authoritative. (My friends in the Protestant world don’t subscribe to sola fide, but ultimately believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the only true one, making themselves the only ‘biblical church’ outside of which they believe there is no salvation).
When one believes that they can read a text, make it fit for them & their situation, promote themselves, give themselves a title, gather a following and ordain other folk underneath of them, all while believing that they have the truth, it’s pretty dangerous for the folks who subscribe to their teachings because they believe that they’re going to hell if they don’t obey and listen to the guy who promoted himself & has no higher accountability. A Protestant Cult.
But yes, Protestantism is dying and needs to die completely.
Correct. Sola scriptura is definitely a dangerous ideology. I typically don’t write about it because all the other Catholic apologists do a good job of addressing it.
Sola Fide is cancer*. It’s simple, if your faith is so weak that it doesn’t inspire you to do the things that Jesus tells you to do, then your faith is worthless. Works don’t save us, only faith does, but merely saying you have faith doesn’t save you either.
Sola Fide leads to the “it’s me and my Bible and that’s all I need” mindset. It makes you wonder if any of these people actually read the Bible like they claim to.
*Sola Fide as Protestants believe is cancer… ie by intellectual assent
Protestantism, especially the last 200 years, infected with despicable Darby-Schofield Dispensational teachings and, yes, sola fide and other solas that have demoralized the Faith, unfortunately. As Rod Dreher or Paul Kingsnorth might say on the Reformation "it made the final separation and death knell of walling off heaven and earth from the people". It's also interesting that Rahab in James 2:24 is rewarded by what she DID and not by faith alone. That's a good quote by the great Tom Woods, I actually met him once at a Libertarian Conference, and the wonderful thinker Joseph Sobran I met at the separation of school and state Conference. Thank you for this article.
I found another article that matches on some of the points I have made. I will continue to research this topic. I still have a lot to learn, and I will write a new article later this year on the same premise but with much more precision.
In doing some postgame analysis of my own writing, I found A LOT more scholarship that describes what I wrote about, in A LOT more depth than I am currently qualified to attempt to explain. For now, I can only link to some of those sources.
For starters, there is the book "The Unintended Reformation by Brad S. Gregory. He goes into much more detail, and expands it beyond Sola Fide. Here are some links to his works:
"Saturday Scholar Series: The Unintended Reformation - Brad S. Gregory 11.3.2012"
A good post that hits alot of nails on the head, concerning the poverty of Sola Fide. Yet, I was raised Protestant and after growing up and spending time among both the Catholics and the Orthodox, I found the Orthodox case far more convincing and was baptized into their church. In the time that's passed, I've found additional reasons for thinking I made the right choice. I can't endorse any claims that everything was just fine until Luther and Calvin came along. But alot of Catholics are not prepared psychologically to stare down that possibility, and I can't say I blame them.
Very good question! I suspect the Freemasonic structure was created as a means of tying all the Luciferian families of old together but that is pure conjecture. According to Nathan Reynolds, the families stretch back to OT times.. fascinating subject.
I have no doubt there was Freemason influence but the foundational concepts of the Constitution are still essentially Protestant. I believe if they weren’t Freemason they still would have crafted the same basic constitution.
Freemasonry is a terrible curse on our society and I may address that on a later article. If you have any suggestions let me know.
Sorry pressed send too soon! Anyway, it is an illuminating and heartbreaking conversation that really portrays the depths of power, iniquity and depravity that these followers of Satan currently possess. They are the rulers of this world and they are the reason we are where we are.
Hi Paul, thank you. It’s worth watching the recent conversation between James Delingpole and Nathan Reynolds (an American who managed to escape ‘the family’ I.e. Luciferian FM’s).
1) define Christendom. If you have already done it in a separate post, restate it. Always begin by defining terms.
2) after point one, you can then shift to the thesis. The definition will give you a clearer focus on what is wrong with sola fide specifically and Protestantism in general, and how those ideologies are incompatible with Christendom.
But what does THAT mean? What is meant by "Western Civilization"?
I would argue that Christendom is distinct. It is marked by a civilization that revolves, generally, around the Christian ethos, and is subject to that ethos. It has a share language: Latin. Its philosophy is essentially Thomistic, or Scholastic. Its political philosophy was grounded in the concept that all authority is ultimately derived FROM and answerable TO God, to the point that monarchs were not seen as absolute. In general, authority, even IF highly hierarchical, was oriented around allowing people the freedom to live their vocations as best they can. Government, then, was not regimented and controlling. Socially, Christendom was marked by a general sense of self-restraint.
Art was done to glorify God (which is why great artists usually hid what they believed were their greatest works in cathedrals, in obscure places so that they were visible "only to God"). Economics was oriented to the success of the family, that each individual family had the means to provide for themselves, which included the unfettered ability to transfer property from one generation to the next (TAX FREE). Under feudal laws, lords could not confiscate land from peasant/serf families, unless there was no heir available.
Those are some specific aspects of Christendom, just off the top of my head. I am probably missing many essential parts, but you get the idea. With some specific points of reference, you can more thoroughly argue that Protestantism destroyed Christendom...
You'll have to excuse me. You are probably being a lot more precise than I, due to time constraints, am willing to delve into. If you & I could sit by a fire with a pint or glass of something on the rocks and chat about this for a few hours, we could have a nice discussion, but for the purposes of addressing my audience and the context from which my argument springs, your points are beyond the scope of my Substack writings.
I am seeing a civilization in decline and responding to the currently proposed solution of "going back" to the 1950s or some other recent era, and I am saying let's look at the real cause of the decline, the roots on which our current society is based. So I don't want to get off message. Is there some other way you can ask your question without getting into separate subjects?
The next most dangerous ideology after sola fide is sola scriptura, as it makes their interpretation of holy scriptures as authoritative. (My friends in the Protestant world don’t subscribe to sola fide, but ultimately believe that their interpretation of the Bible is the only true one, making themselves the only ‘biblical church’ outside of which they believe there is no salvation).
When one believes that they can read a text, make it fit for them & their situation, promote themselves, give themselves a title, gather a following and ordain other folk underneath of them, all while believing that they have the truth, it’s pretty dangerous for the folks who subscribe to their teachings because they believe that they’re going to hell if they don’t obey and listen to the guy who promoted himself & has no higher accountability. A Protestant Cult.
But yes, Protestantism is dying and needs to die completely.
Correct. Sola scriptura is definitely a dangerous ideology. I typically don’t write about it because all the other Catholic apologists do a good job of addressing it.
Sola Fide is cancer*. It’s simple, if your faith is so weak that it doesn’t inspire you to do the things that Jesus tells you to do, then your faith is worthless. Works don’t save us, only faith does, but merely saying you have faith doesn’t save you either.
Sola Fide leads to the “it’s me and my Bible and that’s all I need” mindset. It makes you wonder if any of these people actually read the Bible like they claim to.
*Sola Fide as Protestants believe is cancer… ie by intellectual assent
Yes, exactly right
Protestantism, especially the last 200 years, infected with despicable Darby-Schofield Dispensational teachings and, yes, sola fide and other solas that have demoralized the Faith, unfortunately. As Rod Dreher or Paul Kingsnorth might say on the Reformation "it made the final separation and death knell of walling off heaven and earth from the people". It's also interesting that Rahab in James 2:24 is rewarded by what she DID and not by faith alone. That's a good quote by the great Tom Woods, I actually met him once at a Libertarian Conference, and the wonderful thinker Joseph Sobran I met at the separation of school and state Conference. Thank you for this article.
I am adding a few reference articles here, as I find them, for future research & refining my writing --
https://www.ncregister.com/interview/england-s-decline-began-with-the-reformation
I found another article that matches on some of the points I have made. I will continue to research this topic. I still have a lot to learn, and I will write a new article later this year on the same premise but with much more precision.
https://catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/why-only-catholicism-can-make-protestantism-work-louis-bouyer-on-the-reformation.html
In doing some postgame analysis of my own writing, I found A LOT more scholarship that describes what I wrote about, in A LOT more depth than I am currently qualified to attempt to explain. For now, I can only link to some of those sources.
For starters, there is the book "The Unintended Reformation by Brad S. Gregory. He goes into much more detail, and expands it beyond Sola Fide. Here are some links to his works:
"Saturday Scholar Series: The Unintended Reformation - Brad S. Gregory 11.3.2012"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqJvLScpn_Y
"A review of The Unintended Reformation: How a Religious Revolution Secularized Society, by Brad S. Gregory"
https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/conscience-unbound/
I am only remotely touching the surface of this important topic. Perhaps I can write more later as time permits.
The Reformation didn't cause the collapse of Christendom. It was the result of said collapse.
A good post that hits alot of nails on the head, concerning the poverty of Sola Fide. Yet, I was raised Protestant and after growing up and spending time among both the Catholics and the Orthodox, I found the Orthodox case far more convincing and was baptized into their church. In the time that's passed, I've found additional reasons for thinking I made the right choice. I can't endorse any claims that everything was just fine until Luther and Calvin came along. But alot of Catholics are not prepared psychologically to stare down that possibility, and I can't say I blame them.
Yes, combined with the Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Michael Warren Davis covered this well in his book, "The Reactionary Mind."
Thank you! I’ll check that out! Exactly what I’m looking for!
The US is founded by Freemasons
Very good question! I suspect the Freemasonic structure was created as a means of tying all the Luciferian families of old together but that is pure conjecture. According to Nathan Reynolds, the families stretch back to OT times.. fascinating subject.
Here’s the link Paul https://substack.com/@delingpole/note/p-153302530?r=p6x9e&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Can you explain what that means in relation to my article?
You mentioned that the US was founded by Protestants so I was just clarifying that it was actually founded by FMs..!
I have no doubt there was Freemason influence but the foundational concepts of the Constitution are still essentially Protestant. I believe if they weren’t Freemason they still would have crafted the same basic constitution.
Freemasonry is a terrible curse on our society and I may address that on a later article. If you have any suggestions let me know.
Sorry pressed send too soon! Anyway, it is an illuminating and heartbreaking conversation that really portrays the depths of power, iniquity and depravity that these followers of Satan currently possess. They are the rulers of this world and they are the reason we are where we are.
Did Freemasonry come out of the Enlightenment, or was the Enlightenment started by Freemasonry?
Hi Paul, thank you. It’s worth watching the recent conversation between James Delingpole and Nathan Reynolds (an American who managed to escape ‘the family’ I.e. Luciferian FM’s).
Pointers:
1) define Christendom. If you have already done it in a separate post, restate it. Always begin by defining terms.
2) after point one, you can then shift to the thesis. The definition will give you a clearer focus on what is wrong with sola fide specifically and Protestantism in general, and how those ideologies are incompatible with Christendom.
Christendom is essentially Western Civilization.
But what does THAT mean? What is meant by "Western Civilization"?
I would argue that Christendom is distinct. It is marked by a civilization that revolves, generally, around the Christian ethos, and is subject to that ethos. It has a share language: Latin. Its philosophy is essentially Thomistic, or Scholastic. Its political philosophy was grounded in the concept that all authority is ultimately derived FROM and answerable TO God, to the point that monarchs were not seen as absolute. In general, authority, even IF highly hierarchical, was oriented around allowing people the freedom to live their vocations as best they can. Government, then, was not regimented and controlling. Socially, Christendom was marked by a general sense of self-restraint.
Art was done to glorify God (which is why great artists usually hid what they believed were their greatest works in cathedrals, in obscure places so that they were visible "only to God"). Economics was oriented to the success of the family, that each individual family had the means to provide for themselves, which included the unfettered ability to transfer property from one generation to the next (TAX FREE). Under feudal laws, lords could not confiscate land from peasant/serf families, unless there was no heir available.
Those are some specific aspects of Christendom, just off the top of my head. I am probably missing many essential parts, but you get the idea. With some specific points of reference, you can more thoroughly argue that Protestantism destroyed Christendom...
You'll have to excuse me. You are probably being a lot more precise than I, due to time constraints, am willing to delve into. If you & I could sit by a fire with a pint or glass of something on the rocks and chat about this for a few hours, we could have a nice discussion, but for the purposes of addressing my audience and the context from which my argument springs, your points are beyond the scope of my Substack writings.
I am seeing a civilization in decline and responding to the currently proposed solution of "going back" to the 1950s or some other recent era, and I am saying let's look at the real cause of the decline, the roots on which our current society is based. So I don't want to get off message. Is there some other way you can ask your question without getting into separate subjects?