Sharing a draft of a related essay (I’m in the middle of thinking this through, but the gist should be clear). There’s unfortunate flaws within Protestant churches, especially reformed churches. They begin with undeniable power, forging Christian communities that stand as historical triumphs. E.g., the Puritans in the early America colonies built disciplined piety, near-universal literacy, and covenantal societies, the very foundation of what became the United States — this is the goal of today’s Christian nationalists, and proof that Reformed elements (Scripture-first, accountable laity, lived-out faith) are necessary for a church to thrive. Yet these same elements prove insufficient for multi-century fidelity. They simply do not stand the test of time. Harvard (1636, Calvinist seminary), Yale (1701, same), Princeton (1746) all slid from robust Calvinist/reformed theology to secular and antichristian, not just abandoning their roots but now openly fighting against the mandate of their founders. Denominations repeat this process: PCUSA held the line into the 1950s, then green-lit same-sex marriage by 2011; the UCC, born of Pilgrim covenants, now platforms transgender clergy as doctrine. This is no fluke or one off, it’s the same depressing story over and over. It goes like this: democratic sessions and assemblies invite progressive capture; confessions erode from strict to “essentials” to optional via majority vote; conservatives, boxed out, schism away, gifting the husk of their former churches to antichristian liberals who parade it around like a skin mask (e.g., former Puritan/reformed churches are today funding abortions). Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, despite their many issues, have mostly escaped this antichristian fate. And every Protestant, especially reformed Protestants, should understand what is missing such that their churches repeatedly fail the test of time: 1. Insulated hierarchy — authority is vested in life-tenured bishops, with permanent synods whose legitimacy derives from apostolic continuity, not electoral cycles. 2. Sacramental ontology of office — ordination confers an indelible character; public heresy severs the minister from the sacraments and from the Church itself, not merely from a paycheck. 3. Irreformable canonical tradition — Holy Scripture is interpreted within the unbroken patristic consensus; no majority vote can redefine marriage, the Trinity, or the creeds. 4. Schism — formal separation is excommunication, not a strategic rebrand with the building intact. Reformed churches typically secure none of these. History’s verdict is merciless: absent these orthodox guardrails, liberalization is not a mere risk but the inevitable fate of every conservative reformed church. Know them by their fruits — the founders of every mainline Protestant church would (by their own writings) admit that the gates of hell prevailed on their churches. And worth pointing out that ALL of this was made possible by the great schism between east and west (cemented after the sack of Constantinople, by the west, during the fourth crusade). Meanwhile the gates of hell have not prevailed against Eastern Orthodox (despite murderous/genocidal attempts from communists), and the same is true of Roman Catholicism (despite numerous scandals that by all accounts should have destroyed them) — and thus it remains an absolute tragedy that His church remains in schism, all while some of the most pious and impressive Christian theologians in history have ended up in reformed movements that ultimately seeded the ground for antichrist churches.

I’m not a Catholic but this just isn’t true — and I don’t just mean in the ancient pre-schism catholic church, I mean even today in the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), this isn’t true. There’s much to complain about with the RC church, but one nice thing is that their “magisterium” systematically articulates every aspect of their theology with painstaking precision (dating back pre-schism, with later innovations that they refer to as “doctrinal development”). The east may criticize that the west over intellectualizes the mysteries and misses the “phronema” (the heart), but from a western and especially reformed perspective RC provides an exact articulation and exegesis on these topics. For example: Salvation is initiated and completed through Jesus Christ’s passion, death, and resurrection, which provide infinite merit for the redemption of humanity (CCC 1992; Hebrews 7:25) Justification begins with faith and baptism, infused by God’s grace (CCC 1987–1995; Romans 3:24). Good works are necessary as a response to grace, not as a prerequisite or independent contribution (James 2:14–26). And where it aligns closer to Calvinist/reformed confessions goes back pre-schism, to Augustine. Catholicism explicitly rejects Pelagianism (and semi-pelagianism) and affirms there is no human effort towards salvation without grace, that God is 100% responsible for your salvation, and man is 100% responsible for sin and rebellion against God. The seeming contradiction was resolved earlier in Chalcedon (5th century, pre schism), that the person of Christ, fully human and full God, has a divine will and human will — and a “synergoi” between the two, that is, man and God cooperating (from man’s perspective free will, from the divine perspective complete sovereignty). The Catholic rebuttal to reformed confessions (and TULIP more generally) is similar to the eastern (e.g., confessions of Dositheus) — basically a series of anathemas that most reformed theologians actually agree with, such as explicitly stating that God is never the author of evil. The concerns from EO and RC are about these edge cases where Calvinism leads to moral determinism, or deism (clockmaker God) — and it’s important to point out that this is exactly what happened, e.g., to the Puritans (the most hardcore Calvinists and Christian nationalists to ever exist — whose theology I love, but the bad fruits of Harvard and Yale are undeniable). Similarly, I’d be careful about the “violating free will” line, even staunch Calvinists reject that way of thinking as it leads to the view that God is the author of evil. The reformed position on this is technically not that different from the EO and RC position (despite all the Internet strawman versions). I think best articulated in that Jonathan Edward’s quote.. which RC and EO fully agree with.

What happened to the Puritans? It is perhaps the greatest irony imaginable. And a lesson for today’s conservative churches. The Puritans embodied Biblically centered, ultra-conservative Christianity: orthodox, rigorous Calvinists, aiming to forge a “city upon a hill”, founding what became a large part of mainline American Protestantism, founding universities such as Harvard and Yale to train orthodox clergy and uphold divine covenants. Puritans built tight-knit communities with strong Biblical social structures, that were an undeniable foundation to the American colonies and eventually states (especially in New England). At first this appeared successful. The exact goal of many of today’s conservative Christian nationalists. But what is the Puritan legacy? Secularized institutions now championing theological liberalism, Unitarianism (rejecting the trinity), Universalism, churches promoting LGBTQ+ “rights”, environmental “justice”, promoting atheism and humanism, advocating for abortion, funding abortion, and claiming the murder of an unborn baby is “healthcare”. If you see a church today with rainbow flags and clear woke propaganda, openly advocating for abortion, there’s a good chance it is a descendant of a Puritan church. The “fruits” (Matthew 7:16) of Puritanism are directly antithetical to their own Biblical conservatism. Did the gates of hell prevail? One imagines not a single Puritan founder could look at the legacy of their churches and congregationalist communities and not be horrified. Not just a failure, but a kind of demonic mockery of Christianity, arguably the worst and most antichrist churches and institutions that have ever existed have come from the Puritan lineage. The lesson is hopefully clear, one needs more than Biblically centered Christianity, one needs more than conservative principles. This might be a hard lesson for today’s staunch Calvinists (it was for me), but the rotten fruits are clear.