The Christian Vanguard

In doing research on the KJV onlyists, I came across an argument against baptism that I want to address. It goes as follows. Those who believe that baptism is necessary for salvation will usually cite 1 Peter 3:21. But that actually disproves the necessity of baptism. When you look at 2 Corinthians 7:1, you see that "filth of the flesh" refers to sin. And since 1 Peter says baptism doesn't do away with the filth of the flesh, it therefore doesn't do away with sin. So baptism doesn't save. Understand that in dealing with the KJV onlyists, you may have to look at other translations. I'm no expert in languages, but I do trust that the translators did a good enough job for me to understand what is given to me without any expertise in any ancient language. However, just as I am skeptical of Jehovah's Witnesses using a translation that is unique to them, and various other cults doing the same, skepticism can be warranted in dealing with KJVO and looking and...

It has been advised to me, by a few people, that a part of the healing process for a breakup is to get into a rebound relationship. A rebound relationship is a relationship that you enter into that isn't too serious, if at all. When I showed my friends a photo of my ex's new boyfriend to see whether they thought he had a punchable face (unanimous agreement: he does), they suggested that he may just be a rebound, and so maybe I should get in on that rebound plan too. It's bad advice, I think. Like, horrid advice, even if somewhat amusing. It suggests using another person. And we shouldn't use people so selfishly.  But I wonder if I'm already doing that. Not long after my ex broke up with me, I was curious to see if she was active on Catholic Match. She was. That she put herself in a search mode so soon after our relationship hurt to see. Was I so insignificant? Was I so replaceable? So expendable? Did she even mean it when she said she loved me? I may never get ...

One argument that critics of the King James Only-ist movement give goes something like this: If you believe that the King James Version Bible is the only perfect inspired word of God, then you're going to have difficulty pointing to a particular Bible, because there are different versions of the KJV. The KJVO have a response, which goes something like this: Granting for the sake of argument that this is a difficulty, then you have the same difficulty because you can't point to a particular Bible that you think is a perfect word of God. And that's tantamount to just not believing the Bible is not really from God. You can see examples of that argument here and here . So because a critic can't point to an authorized version like they can, critics have no business raising the problem.  There are two possible responses. The first is that it isn't equivalent. Because the critic isn't making the same claim as the KJVO, they don't suffer the same problem. KJVO c...

Why do lingering feelings of guilt, shame, doubt still haunt us after we have confessed our sins which we think are the cause for such feelings? St. Thomas Aquinas may have some insight into the issue here when he says, "...passion is properly to be found where there is corporeal transmutation." Which is just basically to say that when you have a certain emotion, there is a corresponding bodily change. When you feel fear, your heart races, you begin to sweat. When you see the woman you are infatuated with, you have a slight pain in your stomach. When you see your wife walk over to the bed to fulfill marital duties, you also have an appropriate physical response.  And is well known, there is a difference between your passions and your intellect, or your will, in this case. When our intellect craves for something, we don't "feel" it like we feel our emotions. If I feel hungry, I have a bodily reaction to it, and is very immediate. When I feel sad, I have an ...

Years ago, when I was still a Protestant, I attended a panel discussion at my school on the topic of homosexuality. One woman, a mother of a lesbian, and a professed Catholic, said that a topic that the Catholic Church does not like to bring up concerning homosexuality is that of conscience. Since the Church teaches that we should obey our conscience, and for some, and participating in the homosexual lifestyle is in accord to ones conscience, one should continue being homosexual. This clearly would make some Catholics uncomfortable. So, what's going on here? First, terms. Conscience is our judgment of what is right and wrong, and it is our only contact with the moral realm. This is why we must always obey our conscience, because to disobey our conscience is to disobey what we judge to be right. It is saying that we will to do evil, and we should never will to do evil. If conscience is a judgment of what is right and wrong, it is possible that our judgments can be incorrect. It ...

We have all been, or know someone who has been, "emotional." What does this mean? That they have some strong emotions, yes, but that alone cannot be a good answer. When a groom cries when he sees his bride walk down the aisle has some strong emotions, but we wouldn't say he is "being emotional." When a parents loses their child, she may cry but we wouldn't say that she should stop "being emotional." Contrast this with the interchangeable phrase "be rational." Likewise, we do not say that one ought not have emotions and be nothing but rational. This is an even worse mistake. So what do we mean?  Observe what happens when someone is "being emotional." Say Eve breaks up with Adam. Adam doesn't like this, so what Adam does is lash out. He lashes out in anger because it feels right to him. But is lashing out the correct thing to do? Ask Adam, and he will do one of two things: he will say admit that it is not the right thing,...

Here is an argument for Molinism and Divine Simplicity being incompatible.  Divine Simplicity posits that in God there are no parts and no proper distinctions. Further, God has no potency and is Pure Act. Molinism posits that in God's knowledge, there are distinctions, most importantly the distinction of Middle Knowledge. Molinists further posit that God can actualize a world from an ensemble of possible worlds, thus changing his knowledge to and from Middle Knowledge. But change in God is impossible on Divine Simplicity, so the two are incompatible.  This doesn't say which of the two is true, only that they cannot both be true. But I think it is clear when you weigh the importance of the doctrines and how it relates to God, that we should abandon Molinism and keep Divine Simplicity.