The Christian Vanguard

There is good reason to believe that Judas is in hell. Our Lord says of him that it would have been better for him to have never been born. If Judas was finally saved, it would make no sense to say that it was better for Judas to have never been born. So Judas was not finally saved.  A common pious sounding counter argument goes like this. Since the Church does not definitively declare who is in hell, we cannot know whether Judas is in hell or not. There are a few problems with this response. First, it seems as though Our Lord does declare it, so even if the Church has not declared it, a credible witness, God Himself, has, and that is sufficient reason.  Second, there is a more serious problem with the argument, namely, the argument is self refuting. The argument rests on an assumption that if the Church has not declared some article of faith, then we cannot know it. But that statement is itself an article of faith. So the question should be asked, when did the Church declare ...

My students don't believe me when I tell them I am an introvert. I wonder if I am being fake in class, that I'm just playing a character, that who they see in class isn't really who I am. I project my voice, I like to tell stories, tell jokes, aiming to deliver some point about the subject we are covering. But as soon as the last bell rings, I mentally clock out, and I rush to be alone in my car. This alone time is important to me. I'll get frustrated when my wife calls me, with seemingly no real purpose other than to talk to me about how she can't quite figure out how to make cornbread right and all the research she has done about cornbread, and this is frustrating because it violates my me time that I don't wish to fill with cornbread.  But I get it. She wants to talk with me, because by sharing her speech with me, she is sharing with me her private and innermost thoughts and life. We are married, and are not only united in body but in mind, and sometimes the ...

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...

 An argument that I found convincing in accepting the Papacy is the connection between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. I wont rehash the argument here, but it was pointed out to me that the way the Septuagint, or the Greek version of the Old Testament, called the LXX, translates Is 22:22 is notably different from the Hebrew. There are times this happens, and the New Testament is aware of this and continues to cite the LXX anyway.  The NIV translates the Hebrew version of Is 22:22 as follows, "I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." Pretty straightforward. You can clearly hear the parallels Jesus is making in Matthew 16:19.  However, the LXX translates Is 22:22 as follows, "And I will give him the glory of David; and he shall rule, and there shall be none to speak against him."  Before we touch on the significance of the difference, lets explain what's going on. "The key t...

 Here is a common argument I hear against Mary's sinlessness that is plainly invalid.  1) If Mary sinned, then she would die 2) Mary died 3) Therefore, Mary sinned The idea here is that mortality is a result of the fall. If Adam and Eve had never sinned, they would have remained immortal, in a sense. And since Mary died, she must have been subject to sin.  The obvious problem with this is that it is invalid. It follows the form of Affirming the Consequent .  1) If A, then B 2) B 3) Therefore, A Is obviously an invalid inference.  But supposing it was valid, each premise requires some justification anyway. Jesus didn't sin, yet He died. And how do we know Mary died? A point against this is that there is no strong devotion to the burial site or relics of Mary, but we do have them for the Apostles. Not definitive points perhaps, but the point remains, the argument is simply invalid. 

 From the book "The Ambassador's Guide to Islam" by Alan Shlemon.  1. The Qur'an says the words of God cannot be changed or corrupted  2. The Qur'an says the Bible is the Word of God 3. Therefore, on the Qur'an's authority, the Bible could not have been changed or corrupted, as many Muslims claim  Three citations in support of 1 are given.  Surah 6:34, "Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah . Already hast thou received some account of those messengers." Surah 6:115, "The Word of your Lord has been perfected in truth and justice. None can change His Words . And He is the All-Hearing, All- Knowing." Surah 10:64, "For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicit...

 In a discussion between a Christian and Muslim, I heard the following analogy. To understand how God can be three persons and one nature, think of three humans. You have three persons, but all one nature, the human nature.  Preliminary comment. All analogies for understanding God will come short in some respect since God is totally unique. God can't be compared to anything, so no analogy is appropriate. That said, they are helpful. We just need to understand that they will have limits.  The limit here is that one could easily respond with: yes, there are three persons, and they all are of the same nature, human. But there are also three humans, which would mean you would have to say there are also three gods. That's an unacceptable consequence for a Trinitarian, and it's often what Muslims will say Christians are forced to believe.  I read the following explanation from J.P. Moreland some years ago, I forgot the title of the book, but a similar analogy, which I thin...

 Being a dad has given me a new perspective on things. One of them is sin. Of course, I know sin is bad. I know sin is evil. I know the consequences of sin, even if I don't grasp the full effects of them. But being a dad, I've come to appreciate the ugliness of sin. I reflect on the joy of my son. He is constantly happy. His biggest emotional dips of the day are when he doesn't get his milk fast enough. Not a very tough life. I will sit him in my lap to read to him, and I get brief glimpses of how God views me. And then sin intrudes upon my joy, and this congruence sucks my joy away. I remember that at some time, perhaps in the not too distant future, my son will experience real sin. My glowing bundle of joy will have his lights turned out some day. Cloudy skies are on his horizon, and I can't do anything to stop it. It's just the fallen world we live in. And it's ugly. There's a kind of healthy hatred of sin one can have. A disappointment in one self, and ...

 A common question you might hear from Muslims is, "Does Jesus have a God?" The answer is Yes, of course He does. He says this repeatedly in scripture. Romans 15:6, 2 Cor 1:3, Ephesians 1:3;7. Now where this goes from here is usually with a follow up question: How is this possible? I've listened to many Christians stumble in trying to answer this question and get steamrolled by Muslims. And I've seen it happen enough to motivate me to write down an answer.  How is possible that God have a God? There are a couple ways to answer this. The first is to analyze what "to have a God" means. Because this could be interpreted in a few different ways, I suspect that Muslim apologists get a lot of mileage out of not defining this relation. What it means to "have" a God is commonly meant as something like creator. We commonly understand the Christian God to be our Creator and Sustainer. So, to say that Jesus has a God would mean that Jesus is also a created be...

The word "patriot" has as part of it's root the Latin word for "Father". Think of the prayer "Pater Nostra" for example. It's a bit of an older way of speaking, but we sometimes call our home country the "Fatherland". So someone who is a patriot is someone who has a love for their fatherland, or their home country. Patriotism describes one's love for their fatherland. When it comes to love of America, there is something in the culture which causes some people to pause or hesitate. Should we love America?  Sometimes you see this in the current culture war surrounding the phrase "Make America Great Again". I often hear a leftist ask, "When was America ever great?" So, if I were to tell my leftist friends I was proud to be an American, or I love that I am an American, they may ask, "What is there to be proud of?" with their noses raised.  There is plenty to be proud of. I can worship the Lord every Sunday wi...

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 ot...

 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...