More Than A Dozen Reasons To Reject Baptismal Regeneration

I've discussed many problems with it in a lot of posts over the years, but I want to provide a list in one place. I'll include a link to a post addressing each of most of these items. This isn't meant to be exhaustive:

The History Of Beliefs About The Unbaptized

Anthony Lusvardi recently published Baptism Of Desire And Christian Salvation (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, 2024). He's a Roman Catholic priest and scholar who did a doctoral dissertation on baptism of desire. Though the book is primarily about that subject, the book also addresses some related concepts to a lesser extent: baptism of blood, invincible ignorance, limbo, outside the church there is no salvation, the salvation of infants who die without having been baptized, etc.

Never Doing Anything Bravely

"even a general in battle loves that soldier who returns after fleeing and presses the enemy bravely, more than the one who never turned his back, but never did anything bravely." (Gregory the Great, cited by Bede, in Calvin Kendall and Faith Wallis, translators and editors, Bede: Commentary On The Gospel Of Luke [Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press, 2023], 466)

Jacques Vallee On UFOs And "Satan's Toys"

He was recently interviewed by Ross Coulthart, and the subject of the demonic explanation of UFOs came up. Coulthart asked about the widespread reports that Christians (apparently primarily or exclusively Evangelicals) in the United States government have tried to shut down UFO research on the basis that UFOs are demonic and that we shouldn't do further research into them. Coulthart and Vallee both dismiss that sort of reasoning, comparing it to refusing to investigate a crime because it involves evil. I agree with them that even if the demonic hypothesis were true, the government and other people should still research UFOs and, in fact, should research them a lot. For more on the subject, see here. What I want to do in this post is focus on some other comments Coulthart and Vallee made while addressing the issue of demonic activity.

Boy Jesus

Joan Taylor recently published a book about Jesus' childhood, Boy Jesus (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Academic, 2025). Taylor is a scholar who's specialized in the study of Judaism and Christianity in the ancient world. She isn't a conservative, but her book argues for conservative views on some significant issues related to Jesus' childhood (e.g., Jesus' Davidic ancestry, the credibility of his genealogies, his Bethlehem birthplace). So, the book is a good illustration of the fact that conservative conclusions are often supported by non-conservative scholarship.

But Taylor takes some positions I disagree with, and I want to link several of my posts addressing those issues. She cites Yigal Levin's work against the idea that Jesus could have been considered a son of Joseph by adoption. She doesn't interact with Caleb Friedeman's response to Levin, discussed in the second hyphenated section of my post here. See here for my argument against the notion that Luke's infancy narrative wasn't finalized into its canonical form until the time of Marcion. On objections to the historicity of Luke's census account, I've written many posts, such as here and here. (To Taylor's credit, though, she's more reasonable than many other critics of the census account, such as by acknowledging that the census wasn't ancestral and that Joseph had more than an ancestral relationship with Bethlehem. On the evidence for such conclusions, see here.) She thinks Jesus' family was more supportive of him than they likely were. On the unbelief of his family (faith mixed with unbelief in the cases of Joseph and Mary), see Eric Svendsen's Who Is My Mother? (Amityville, New York: Calvary Press, 2001). Taylor probably thinks the family's unbelief would be too problematic for the historicity of other parts of the New Testament (and whatever extrabiblical sources), but they're not too difficult to reconcile. See the section of the post here discussing Matthew 13:54-55, for example. I've also discussed the subject elsewhere, like here on the gospel of Mark in general. Since Taylor mentions some early sources who rejected the virgin birth and sometimes cites Andrew Lincoln's book against the virgin birth, go here and here for my discussion of how widely the virgin birth was accepted early on, in response to Lincoln, and here for my overall assessment of Lincoln's book. On the issues Taylor is right about, she often leaves out a lot of the evidence that could be mentioned. There's far too much of that to discuss all of it here, but see, for example, this post on Jesus' relatives for further evidence supporting Jesus' Davidic ancestry and the genealogies (e.g., Luke's use of James as a source, James' comments on Davidic ancestry in Acts 15). Or see here on the Bethlehem birthplace. Or here on how much Matthew and Luke agree about Jesus' childhood.

The book goes into a lot of depth about what we know of the context of Jesus' childhood from extrabiblical sources, like Josephus and archeology. A lot of ground is covered: the physical characteristics of Bethlehem and Nazareth, what Joseph and Jesus would have done in their work as builders, connections between Jesus' childhood and his public ministry (e.g., his parables and illustrations), etc. You'll probably disagree with much of the book, but also learn some significant things from it.

The Dream Model Of Near-Death Experiences

I've often cited Gregory Shushan's work on some paranormal issues, including near-death experiences (NDEs). I hold a dream model of NDEs that's a variation of what Shushan outlines in a book I'll be quoting below. You can go here to read a post I wrote a few years ago about that book and how my views relate to it. What I want to do in this post is quote some of Shushan's comments on a dream model of NDEs. You can read my post just linked or Shushan's book for more information:

Justification Apart From Baptism In The Eighth Century

Several centuries before the Reformation, Bede wrote against viewing 1 John 5:5 as support for justification through faith alone and, more specifically, justification apart from baptism:

Prayer Is A Mighty Weapon

"Prayer is a mighty weapon if it be made with suitable mind. And that thou mayest learn its strength, continued entreaty has overcome shamelessness, and injustice, and savage cruelty, and overbearing rashness. For He says, 'Hear what the unjust judge saith.' [Luke 18:6] Again it has overcome sloth also, and what friendship did not effect, this continued entreaty did: and 'although he will not give him because he is his friend' (He says), 'yet because of his importunity he will rise and give to him.' [Luke 11:8] And continued assiduity made her worthy who was unworthy. 'It is not meet' (He says) 'to take the children's bread and to cast it to the dogs.' 'Yea! Lord!' she says, 'for even the dogs eat [the crumbs] from their master's table.' [Matthew 15:26-27] Let us apply ourselves to Prayer. It is a mighty weapon if it be offered with earnestness, if without vainglory, if with a sincere mind. It has turned back wars, it has benefited an entire nation though undeserving. 'I have heard their groaning' (He says) 'and am come down to deliver them.' [Acts 7:34] It is itself a saving medicine, and has power to prevent sins, and to heal misdeeds. In this the desolate widow was assiduous. [1 Timothy 5:5] If then we pray with humility, smiting our breast as the publican, if we utter what he did, if we say, 'Be merciful to me a sinner' [Luke 18:13], we shall obtain all." (John Chrysostom, Homilies On Hebrews 27:9)

Resources For Addressing The Papacy

The papacy has been getting a lot of attention lately, because of the Pope's death. Go here for a brief summary of some of the evidence against the papacy. The main section of the post is just two paragraphs long, summarizing some problems with Roman Catholic appeals to Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 and several contexts in which there could have been evidence for an early papacy, but the office is absent or contradicted instead. And here's a collection of many of our posts on the papacy, including lengthier discussions of the issues summarized in the first post linked above.

How Problematic Acts 10 Is For Baptismal Regeneration

Jordan Cooper recently released a video that's partly an argument for baptismal regeneration. I've already interacted with the large majority of the points he makes (e.g., here on the alleged parallel between Acts 2:38 and 16:30, here on 1 Peter 3:21, here on the extrabiblical sources). What I want to do in this post is say more about Acts 10.

They Kept Hearing

The early impact of Jesus' resurrection is sometimes divided up between two phases, the initial witnesses and the much later appearance to Paul. Not only are the two separated by a significant amount of time, but Paul is arguably the foremost apostle, at least in some contexts and probably overall.

Put yourself in the place of a Christian who was alive at the time of the appearance to Paul. The last resurrection appearance was years earlier. You weren't expecting any further appearances. You wouldn't have expected Saul of Tarsus to become a Christian, much less by means of a resurrection appearance. But "they kept hearing, 'He who once persecuted us is now preaching the faith which he once tried to destroy.'" (Galatians 1:23) Ananias "heard from many about this man" (Acts 9:13) and was hesitant about the report of his conversion, like the Christians in Jerusalem who "were all afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple" (9:26).

They didn't uncritically accept Paul's conversion. But Ananias was given some evidence in the form of a vision followed by the healing of Paul. And Paul would later perform "the signs of a true apostle" (2 Corinthians 12:12).

It's significant that the Christians in those earliest years were so well informed that Ananias had "heard from many" (Acts 9:13) about Paul and others "kept hearing" (Galatians 1:23) about his conversion and subsequent activities. That's not an atmosphere in which somebody like the author of Acts or his sources could make up an account of Paul's conversion that differed substantially from what the Christians at the time of the conversion heard so often and from so many sources. (It's also not the sort of atmosphere in which nobody would have gone to Jesus' tomb, nobody would have verified reports that it was empty, etc.) There was a large network of communication, and word often spread fast, as Paul's letters and other lines of evidence illustrate.

I want to return to something I said near the beginning of this post, to make another point. Most likely, none of the Christians at the time were expecting anything like a resurrection appearance to Saul of Tarsus. We're so accustomed to it now, after having two thousand years to get accustomed to it. We should keep in mind God's wisdom and generosity in doing it.

Jesus' Use Of Mountains In The Easter Context

I've written before about agreements among the gospels concerning some language Jesus used in the Easter context. In a post last year, I wrote about agreement among the gospels and Acts regarding Jesus' use of mountains. Something I didn't note in that post is that a couple of those passages are in the context of resurrection appearances. And they're in different documents written by different authors (Matthew 28:16, Acts 1:12). Something else they have in common is that both mountain settings seem to be ones Jesus chose ahead of time for some highly significant purpose (the Great Commission, the ascension) rather than just being a setting he chose for some lesser purpose (e.g., as a place to rest). So, these two resurrection accounts agree about that sort of behavior by Jesus, and similar behavior is seen in many non-resurrection contexts in all four of the gospels. Those characteristics add credibility to the accounts.

The Diversity Of The Empty Tomb Sources

I've argued elsewhere that the empty tomb was affirmed not just by the early Christians, but also by both their early Jewish opponents and their early Gentile opponents. In the post just linked, I argue for Justin Martyr's citation of a first-century Jewish source corroborating the empty tomb, and I discuss some other significant material in Justin. I've also written, here, about the tenacity of the Jewish corroboration, so that it persisted well beyond the time of the apostles and adapted to ongoing circumstances. The original Jewish explanation of the empty tomb, that Jesus' disciples stole the body, made far more sense early on than it did later. So, though some Jews continued to use the explanation that the disciples stole the body, others developed another argument, that a gardener took the body.

Not only are these large groups affirming the empty tomb diverse (Christians, non-Christian Jews, pagans), but there had to be a diversity of individuals within each of these groups. Paul was a former Pharisee and persecutor of Christians, and he would have had a substantial amount of knowledge of what non-Christian Jews knew about and were saying about the empty tomb. James would have had the knowledge of a family member who had close connections to other relatives of Jesus. If Jesus had received some other sort of burial than what the early Christians reported, such as being placed in some kind of family tomb, James would have been in a good position to know it. The Jewish leaders who had spent years working against Jesus and had arranged to have him crucified surely would have monitored what was going on and would have formulated a response to ongoing circumstances. Or think of Pilate's involvement in the events surrounding Jesus' death, including the entombing of the body and what happened immediately thereafter. Pilate not only had an opportunity to shape both Jewish and Gentile non-Christian views on these subjects, but also may have kept a relevant written record of some kind.

Even if one or more sources like the ones just mentioned were apathetic, careless, or some such thing, it's unlikely that all of them were and that they all erred in the same direction. The best explanation for such widespread affirmation of the empty tomb is that the tomb was empty.

Why only one appearance to Paul?

I mentioned the resurrection appearance to Paul in my last post, citing 1 Corinthians 15:8. It's noteworthy that Paul only refers to one appearance and calls it "last of all". That's harmonious with what Luke reports in Acts. The appearance to Paul is narrated three times in Acts, but it's limited to one appearance. By contrast, there were a few appearances to Peter mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15, and some of the other apostles also saw the risen Jesus more than once. We're often told that the apostles were highly disunified, that their followers competed with one another, etc. So, why did neither Paul nor Luke claim more than one appearance to Paul? As N.T. Wright commented in another context, concerning James:

"In particular, if it is true that stories of people meeting Jesus were invented in order to legitimate leaders in the early church, it is remarkable that we hear nothing, throughout the gospel stories, of James the brother of Jesus….Why does he, too, not run a race against Peter [as in John 20:3-8]? Would that not have been a convenient fiction to clothe early ecclesial power struggles?" (The Resurrection Of The Son Of God [Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2003], 610)

The fact that Paul only claimed one appearance also goes against the notion that he was prone to hallucinations, delusional, overly imaginative, etc.