The Christian Vanguard

I teach 10th and 11th grade history, but as a bit of an afterthought. When I applied to this school to teach, my goal was to teach theology, but history (and literature) came with the package. It's the subject I am the least enthusiastic about. Before today, I suppose the reason I would give you if you were to ask me why we ought to study history is so that we know ourselves. I find myself in this American context, and I am partially shaped by my environment, so I ought to know how I got here, and this should clue me in as to where I ought to go and how to get there.  After a small conference I attended today hosted by Hillsdale, the thinking became a bit clearer for me. History, the speakers said, is a study of particulars. The reason we study history is because when we teach history, we are presenting an argument. It's not just a narrative. And what history does is something like provide precedents, or minor premises. So for example, if I suffer from a corrupt government, I w...

A couple of months ago, I read an article about how semi academic talks were being hosted in bars. Like TED talks, but a lot more casual, and not as pretentious. I was vaguely aware of these happening, but they were picking up steam and so, it merited an article in either the LA Times or NY Times or some other legacy paper. I shared it with a friend, and told him what it really was is just a bunch of socialist millennials who didn’t want to leave the college scene. I’ve been to a meeting like that once years ago, when I was still in community college, and didn’t like the people. Literally socialists, talking Marx. So I looked down my nose and didn’t think much of it.  The algorithm being what it is, suggested to me on Instagram to follow one of the pages who host these events, called the Saturday Salon. I was mildly interested, and followed really just to confirm what I had already believed, that it was just a socialist club. Again, didn’t think much of it.  Soon after that, s...

John 17:3, from the mouth of Our Lord, reads, "Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent." I heard Muslims cite this passage and argue that this shows that God the Father is the only true God, and thus, Jesus is not. This is an invalid inference. And we know it's invalid because of the placement of the word "only". There is a difference between  1. God the Father is the only true God  and  2. Only God the Father is the true God The Muslim, and really any unitarian who wants to argue in this way, is saying (2) but the text only says (1). So what's the difference? (1) means that the Father is identical to God and there is exactly one God while (2) means the Father is identical to God and anything identical to God is identical to the Father. Trinitarians can affirm (1). We have to affirm (1). It is part of our faith. But (2) is clearly heretical, and is not supported by the text.  To clarify further, (...

 A common claim among Christians who deny Original Sin is that the doctrine in some way originated with St. Augustine. St. Augustine lived between 354 and 430 AD. There are, however, texts that predate St. Augustine that do refer to the doctrine of Original Sin. For example, you have in Sirach 25:24, the following verse, "From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die."  Sirach is considered canon by Catholics, but suppose for the sake of argument it is not. It would still be true that Jews at the time thought this, since Sirach was written around 180 BC. That's still 500 years before St. Augustine. What does this verse show? It shows that Eve's sin is the cause of our death. Does it mean just physical death? Looking at the context of this verse, which begins at 25:13, it is about the spiritual dangers of an evil woman. So it is more likely here that it speaks of spiritual death, if not physical as well. And to be caused by our original parents to b...

 Todays gospel reading at Mass was John 21. The dialogue between Peter and Jesus is something to take note of in Papal discussions because of what Jesus tells Peter to do. The NIV, a common Protestant translation, and even many Catholic translations, lose some of nuance from the Greek which sheds light on Papal claims.  Looking specifically at v16, many translations translate the word "poimaino" as "tend" even though it literally says "shepherd". Blue letter Bible has this. And the same word is used in Matthew 2:6, in which the shepherd rules over the people of Israel. This is a strong claim, and not just one that means Peter is going to be a mere pastor. Peter is literally ruling. 

It is a common Catholic talking point that there seems to be no essential definition of Protestantism. It reduces to a kind of relativism, thus demonstrating the need for a magisterium. And the common reply is something like, "We are united in those doctrines necessary for salvation" or that "We are united on the obvious doctrines". Sometimes you hear "The main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things."  It doesn't escape the issue being pressed. You ask different Protestants what's necessary for salvation and you'll get different answers. "Believe in Jesus." But which Jesus? The Jesus of Mormonism? I think not. "Sola Fide." Okay, does that include baptism being necessary for salvation? Protestants will disagree on that. Which is exactly the problem we're trying to highlight.  What of the "obvious" or "clear" issues like the Nicene Creed? Or the Trinity? Obviously you can...