The Christian Vanguard

 Suppose one took the traditional position that an unjust law is no law at all. This has the curious consequence of having to say that there are no such thing as bad laws. When countries have codified slavery, we can't say that they have a bad law on the books, because that law isn't real to begin with. But this seems counter intuitive. We do want to say that countries have bad laws. Other than being a legal positivist, one way out of this is to draw the parallels from metaphysics more generally. So when we say that evil exists, we could say that we don't mean it literally since evil is a deprivation and deprivations don't have their own positive ontology. Rather, evil is parasitic upon being. Likewise, we can say that bad laws do exist, but that they are parasitic upon something else. What this could be, I'm not certain, perhaps parasitic upon the governing authorities, but that would be a place to start this investigation. 

 Having come from an anabaptist background, we believed in the necessity of baptism for salvation. But we also believed that there was only one baptism that we needed to partake in. One question that I had which made Catholicism more plausible to me was: how are your sins forgiven post baptism? Since baptism forgives sins, and you can only do it once, how is it that sins that you commit after your baptism are forgiven? You could confess to God, but surely you could do that before baptism as well. This made me believe the sacrament of confession made more sense. But if I were to remain a protestant anabaptist, how could I answer this?  One answer could be that baptism works preemptively to forgive future sins. But this leads to a doctrine similar, if not outright the same, to the Once Saved Always Saved. That is to say, once God has forgiven you and written your name in the book of life, you are there forever. But I suspect many anabaptist would recoil at this solution. What other solut

 What is the Church in Protestantism? A common answer is that it is like an invisible fellowship of believers. So if Adam, Bryan and Chad gather for worship and some Bible reading, that is a microcosm of a church. Small, sure, but still a church gathering. Contrast this with something a bit stronger, which claims a visible church. An institution which exists that has defined rules for membership like the sacrament of baptism for example. What are the defined rules of membership within Protestantism? It doesn't seem to have a good answer for this.  Take their common answer that it is an invisible fellowship of common believers. There are two red flags to be raised here. First, how do you defined what it is that is needed to believe? Second, what is it that does that if not a visible institution? So suppose the Protestant says you need to believe in the Trinity, and so a church is a fellowship of Trinitarian believers. Okay, first, why is it that the Trinity needs to be believed. To

 Hey, it's been a while. Graduated school, and stopped some of my reading and writing. But I have few thoughts. Hopefully I can get this back up and running again. If not, whatever, a place to jot down some thoughts.  Suppose that the Catholic doctrine of the Papacy were false. Would it follow that Catholicism is false? Or would it follow that Catholicism isn't the place to be? On one hand, it would seem that the Papacy is one of the core or essential doctrines of the Catholic church, and yeah, to have that be false would seem to falsify the entire institution. But that may be too fast of a move. If it were false, then that would put Catholicism in the same boat as Protestantism. How do I mean? I mean that since Protestant churches do no claim to be infallible, then possibly some part of their doctrine is wrong. And most Protestants would agree that there is SOMETHING about their doctrine that is incorrect, even if they cannot currently identify exactly what that is. It would b