What's the significance of something like baptismal regeneration or the perpetual virginity of Mary?

I've been posting a lot on both subjects lately, but people often dismiss such issues as insignificant. A recent post I wrote about baptismal regeneration focused on one of the reasons why that issue is important. And I linked another post that discusses thirteen problems with baptismal regeneration, which provides other reasons for considering the subject significant.

Another reason for thinking more highly of these issues is how they're connected to other topics. Whatever significance the perpetual virginity of Mary has when considered in isolation, it takes on more importance when you consider how it has implications for claims about church infallibility, papal authority, the nature of extrabiblical tradition, and so on. Similarly, something like whether Mary was assumed to heaven doesn't have a lot of significance in isolation, but it becomes more significant when it's attached to other things, like papal infallibility and the infallibility of one institution or another.

There's also the issue of Biblical precedent. Many of the arguments used to underestimate the significance of baptismal regeneration could also have been used to underestimate the significance of adding circumcision as a means of justification, for example. Yet, the apostles treated the adding of circumcision as a major issue. (They also applied that reasoning more broadly, since they refer at times to the broader subject of adding "works", "conditions", etc. They didn't think circumcision was the only thing that couldn't be added.) As I've argued elsewhere, Peter probably was criticizing the concept of baptismal regeneration in 1 Peter 3, which is why he framed things so similarly to how Josephus did when addressing that sort of misconception of baptism in the context of John the Baptist.

And an issue doesn't need to have maximal significance in order to have some. I do a lot of work on Christmas issues. There's some value to knowing whether Jesus had siblings, the nature of his relationships with those siblings, and so forth. Though those aren't foundational issues or highly significant in some other way, they do have some significance. It's the type of information people often look into when studying the background of any historical figure, writing biographies, etc. It's information that tells you something about how the person's character was shaped, what experiences he had in life, how reliable certain people are (like siblings) as witnesses of his life, and so on.

I'm not trying to be exhaustive. These are just some examples of reasons why these issues are important.

Truth, Faith, And Confidence

"And faith is produced by the truth; for faith rests on things that truly are. For in things that are, as they are, we believe; and believing in things that are, as they ever are, we keep firm our confidence in them." (Irenaeus, The Demonstration Of The Apostolic Preaching 3)

Does the unbelief of Jesus' brothers support Mary's perpetual virginity?

I recently heard somebody make that claim. If Jesus' brothers grew up in the same house as Jesus, which would have included having a large amount of information about or even witnessing miracles associated with him, for example, why weren't they believers?

That's just a variation of an objection that's been raised for a long time in other contexts. See my response to Raymond Brown's formulation of it here and here and my response to Bart Ehrman's version of it here, for instance. There's no reason to think there were as many or more miracles occurring in association with Jesus in his home prior to his public ministry than during that ministry. But his brothers were unbelievers during that latter timeframe. The typical non-Christian argument pertaining to Jesus' miracles at the time wasn't that there weren't any miracles, but rather that they didn't come from God. It wasn't an absence of miracles that was motivating the unbelief.

And though children of Joseph from a previous marriage and cousins would be further removed from Jesus than children born from Mary, we'd still expect children from a previous marriage and cousins to have had a lot of contact with Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. Look at how often they're in close proximity to Jesus and Mary in the gospels and elsewhere. That probably occurred prior to Jesus' public ministry as well. Just as there isn't much difficulty in reconciling the unbelief of Jesus' brothers with their being step-brothers or cousins, there isn't much difficulty in reconciling their unbelief with their being brothers in the most common sense of that term.

Distancing the brothers from Jesus makes their unbelief less difficult to explain in some ways, but not in every context. If the brothers were children from a previous marriage, then they lived through the events of the infancy narratives, as Joseph and Mary did. By contrast, children later born from Mary didn't. Children from a previous marriage also would have been more mature during Jesus' childhood, more capable of handling evidential contexts like having conversations with Joseph and Mary about the relevant issues. In some ways, the unbelief of Jesus' brothers is easier to explain if they were children born from Mary after Jesus' birth or cousins born later rather than earlier.

Even if somebody concludes that a perpetual virginity scenario offers a better explanation of the brothers' unbelief, I don't think it would be much of an advantage. As I said in an earlier post, an advantage for a particular view of the brothers in one context can be accompanied by a disadvantage in another context. What we're after is the best explanation of the evidence as a whole. As the post just linked argues, the view that Mary gave birth to other children is the most efficient explanation on balance, even though it's not the best explanation of every piece of evidence. A Joseph who was older at the time of his marriage to Mary better explains his death prior to Jesus' public ministry, and the perpetual virginity view was held by more of the church fathers, for example, but the advantages of a perpetual virginity view are accompanied by more numerous and weightier disadvantages.

External Evidence For Jesus' "I Am" Statements

It's become popular to reject the historicity of Jesus' "I am" statements in the gospel of John ("I am the light of the world", etc.). Much of the evidence for their historicity has been neglected, including a lot of external evidence.

I've argued for the historicity of the statements in previous posts, like here. One of the lines of evidence I've brought up is the history of interpretation, including how Irenaeus and some earlier sources he cited interpreted the passages. I've also argued for similar material in the Synoptics and for far more agreement in general between the Synoptics and John than is typically acknowledged. See my collection of posts on the topic here, which I've been periodically updating over the years.

Slouching Toward The Minimal

"And I recall times of them wanting to do something I disapproved of. They would ask, 'What's wrong with it?' With this text in my mind, I would say, 'Don't ask about your music, your movies, your parties, your habits, 'What's wrong with it?' Ask instead, 'Does it help me run the race? Does it help me to run with all my focus and energy and love for Jesus? Does it help me to be the best Christ-exalting marathon runner I can be?'' Don't set your sights on the minimal standard of avoiding cheating. Set your sights on the maximal standard: 'How can I be the most devoted, Christ-exalting runner possible?' So, the main point of this text is this: Run! Get rid of all the sins that you can. Get rid of all the weights and hindrances that you can. Take hold of the marathon of your life, and don't just set the pitifully low standard that asks, 'What's against the rules?' But rather: 'How can I train, and eat, and think, and dress to be the best runner possible? How can I live my life and finish my course with maximal, Christ-exalting faith and sacrificial love?'" (John Piper)

Baptismal Regeneration As A Gateway To Other Forms Of Justification Through Works

Adding baptism to faith makes it easier to add other things. Just as many ancient sources viewed baptism as a means of obtaining things like regeneration, the forgiveness of sins, and the reception of the Holy Spirit, many ancient sources also saw other rites as a means of obtaining those things (prebaptismal anointing with oil, postbaptismal anointing with oil, the laying on of hands, foot washing, the eucharist, etc.). See here for a discussion of many examples. It's probably not merely a coincidence that such views of justification through works (or sacraments, rites, or whatever other term you want to use) became popular around the same time. Since baptism predates these other rites in the context of Christianity, is a valid part of the Christian life, and is one that occurs early on, and the other rites I'm referring to were often closely associated with baptism, a misunderstanding of baptism probably was more responsible than anything else for the misunderstanding of these rites in general.

And if you're going to add works at the start of the Christian life, why not add them later as well? It's probably not just a coincidence that the large majority of people who have accepted baptismal regeneration have also rejected eternal security. They don't just add works in the context of what you could call initiatory rites or initiatory sacraments, but also in other contexts, making other works a means of justification as well.

My point isn't that adding baptism always leads to the adding of one or more other works. It doesn't. And my point isn't that the adding of baptism is the only factor that facilitates the adding of other works when others are added. Rather, my point is that the adding of baptism has a lot of potential, among other factors, for facilitating the addition of other works and that it seems to have often had that sort of facilitating role.

Many people acknowledge that baptismal regeneration is false, but think or act as if it's an error that doesn't have much significance. One way to appreciate the significance of it is to think of it as the sort of gateway I've described above. If adding a work to the gospel doesn't concern you much, though it should, you ought to also consider how the adding of that work facilitates the adding of more.

For an overview of some of the other problems with baptismal regeneration, see here.

The Evidence From Origen Against Prayer To Saints And Angels

The mainstream view during the Biblical era and among the earliest extrabiblical sources was that we should pray only to God, not to saints and angels. See my collection of articles arguing for that conclusion, along with discussions of ongoing opposition to praying to saints and angels in later generations of pre-Reformation church history, here.

Origen is an important extrabiblical source on the topic. He's significant for more than one reason. He wrote a lot of material that's extant. He wrote an entire treatise on prayer. He addressed prayer many times in other contexts. The subject of who we should pray to came up a lot in his response to Celsus, a second-century pagan who consulted one or more Jewish sources when studying Christianity. So, Origen's treatise against Celsus reflects how a variety of sources perceived Christian views of prayer at the time.

I've written too many posts about Origen's material on prayer for me to link all of them here. You can use something like a Google search to find the relevant posts or see our collections of posts under post labels like Origen and Prayer. The post here goes into a lot of depth in response to some common arguments about Origen put forward by advocates of praying to saints and angels. And here's one about some material in Origen's Homilies On Ezekiel that's sometimes misused to make it appear that Origen supported prayer to angels. There are many other relevant posts in our archives, including some in comments sections of threads and in posts that don't have the Origen label, for example. If you're interested in an issue related to Origen and praying to saints and angels, there's a good chance you can find some relevant material somewhere in our archives.

It's important to go into discussions of this topic with some distinctions in mind. Supporters of praying to saints and angels will often change the subject, as if support for other prayer practices implies support for praying to saints and angels when it actually doesn't. They'll bring up passages in Origen about whether angels pray with us, even though that's a distinct issue from whether we should pray to angels. Or whether saints in heaven pray for us will be cited, as if it implies support for praying to those saints, which it doesn't. You have to be careful to consistently maintain such distinctions. Otherwise, your thinking about these issues and the discussions you have about them will go off track.

What if the brothers of Jesus were younger cousins?

My last post discussed some evidence for the consistency and historicity of what the New Testament reports about the siblings of Jesus. That material is relevant to the issue of whether Mary was a perpetual virgin, but that wasn't the focus of my last post. I do want to focus on it here and expand on what I said earlier.

Some Agreements Among The New Testament Documents About Jesus' Siblings

I've been discussing the perpetual virginity of Mary in some of my recent posts, and one of the issues I've brought up is how often Jesus' brothers are referred to as being together (Matthew 12:46, John 2:12, 7:3, 7:10, Acts 1:14). I think they probably were Jesus' youngest siblings, born well after him (with his sisters and any brothers who didn't survive born earlier), and were still living in the same house after Jesus left. They probably were in their teens to twenties at the time of Jesus' public ministry, with the oldest brother (likely James) having taken over the leadership role Jesus had in the home after Joseph's death. Since Jesus' brothers were still in the same house, they often did things together. The sisters of Jesus are consistently not mentioned in these contexts, even though they are mentioned elsewhere (Matthew 13:56, Mark 6:3). They probably had moved out of the house, whereas Jesus' brothers were still there.

But whatever reason you'd propose for why they're together so often, and whatever view you hold of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the fact remains that the brothers are often referred to as being active together. Later on, the brothers are referred to as being active individually, later in Acts and in Galatians and the letters of James and Jude. The contrast between their acting together earlier and acting individually later can be seen within a single author in the case of Luke. He refers to the brothers' acting together (Luke 8:19, Acts 1:14), but refers to James' acting individually in later passages in Acts. This is another line of evidence for the historicity of the gospels and other parts of the New Testament. The gospels and the opening of Acts all agree that the brothers were active together, with the sisters not being mentioned in those contexts, and the parts of the New Testament discussing later history agree in portraying the brothers as being active in a more individual manner.

One way to appreciate the value of such agreements is to think of how easily the sources could have disagreed. Why agree that Jesus had any brothers? Or more than one? Or that they acted together so often during the timeframe the gospels and Acts 1 cover? Or that they were more individually active later? The sources could easily have been less harmonious and probably would have been if the New Testament were as unhistorical as critics sometimes suggest.

Encouragement Coexisting With Discouragement

Paul refers to how opposites often coexist, such as joy and sorrow existing together (2 Corinthians 6:10, 7:4). If you do something good, and it gets a bad response or less of a good response than it should, that's discouraging. But there's a sense in which that poor response should be encouraging, if it reflects how much the work you've done is needed. When there's a widespread problem, you typically won't see a major change for the better as a result of the work of one person. Usually, any improvement that occurs as a result of one person's work, especially in the short term, will be of a lesser nature. It's important to judge your work (and the work of others) objectively. If you've done something that should get a particular type of positive response, that's a different issue than whether it will get that response. If there's a problem you're addressing, how surprised should you be if the people perpetuating the problem (e.g., through their apathy) don't respond well when you try to solve that problem? If your work passes the test of being objectively valuable, the poor response to that work should remind you of the fact that your work is needed and perhaps even needed more than you previously realized. That should encourage us, though I'm not denying that the situation is simultaneously discouraging in other ways. It's a mixed situation. The point I'm making here is that we shouldn't think of it as solely discouraging.

The Suspicious Early Silence About Later Marian Dogmas

In a recent post, I discussed some of the evidence against concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and assumption. Something to keep in mind when issues like those come up is that the lack of reference to those beliefs among the earliest sources carries some evidential weight against them. Think of the writings of Luke, for example. He wrote the longest gospel we have, said the most about Mary among the earliest Christians, and gave us our earliest church history. That church history doesn't end until the early 60s. Not only does he say nothing of concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, sinlessness, assumption, praying to individuals like Mary, venerating images of such people, etc., but he even repeatedly uses language that most naturally suggests that he opposed some of those concepts. See here for a discussion of some examples. Or see here for many other examples of early opposition to later Marian beliefs and practices. My main point here, though, is that we should keep in mind that there's a double problem for the advocate of something like a modern Roman Catholic or modern Eastern Orthodox view of Mary. There's a suspicious lack of reference to their view, a view they claim to be so important, accompanied by so many apparent contradictions of it. And that's in a context in which they claim to belong to the one true church founded by Jesus, passing on all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history, providing unity, providing doctrinal clarity, etc.

Baptismal real presence?

We're frequently told that we should hold a highly efficacious view of baptism or the eucharist because the church fathers and other pre-Reformation sources often expressed such a view. As I've mentioned before, we also find other views among the pre-Reformation sources, so we need to take those other views into account as well. Another problem with appeals to highly efficacious language in these sources is that they also used such language in many other contexts, including contexts in which modern proponents of a highly efficacious view of baptism or the eucharist don't hold such an efficacious view of those other things. See the many examples discussed in my post here on pre-Reformation views of initiatory rites. That post cites a book by G.W.H. Lampe, and here are some other comments he made in that same book:

He [Melito of Sardis] strongly emphasizes the theory of the Spirit's presence in the [baptismal] water, which, though quite unscriptural, becomes a commonplace in the Fathers and is developed by some ancient authors into a doctrine approximating to that of a 'Real Presence' of the Spirit in the font....

Again, on the other hand, the doctrine of a sort of 'Real Presence' of the Spirit in the water of Baptism is clearly expressed in the Homily on the Blessing of Jacob [attributed to Hippolytus]...

Zeno of Verona describes the baptismal water as 'aqua viva Spiritu sancto et igne dulcissimo temperata', and Gaudentius connects the miracle of Cana with the presence of the Spirit in the water and its reception by the baptized. These are, no doubt, expressions of pious rhetoric, but Cyril has a genuine doctrine of the Spirit's 'real presence' in the water, a theory amounting almost to a conception of the transubstantiation of water into Spirit, John of Damascus explains that the Spirit comes upon the water through epiclesis, and we must not ignore the significance of the common practice of dipping torches into the font

(The Seal Of The Spirit [Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2004], 115, 144, 211-12)

An Easy Way To Date Opposition To Mary's Perpetual Virginity Before Helvidius

Advocates of the perpetual virginity of Mary sometimes acknowledge that there was opposition to the concept before Helvidius. They'll sometimes acknowledge that Tertullian didn't think Mary was a perpetual virgin, for example. However, some of them claim that Helvidius was the first source we know of who held that view. What I want to do in this post is discuss a line of evidence that can be brought up against that claim, some evidence that they'll likely accept more easily than they'd accept an argument that somebody like Luke or Irenaeus denied Mary's perpetual virginity.

Are Protestants underestimating Mary?

Ben Merritt of Cleave to Antiquity recently produced a video in which he interviewed an eyewitness of the Zeitoun Marian apparitions and concluded that he accepts the apparitions as appearances of Mary. In the comments section, Sean Luke of Anglican Aesthetics said that he holds a similar view. Other commenters also said that they're Protestant and accept the apparitions as appearances of Mary. In another recent video, Myles Christian of Canon & Creed provided "a historical survey of giants in Protestant history who held Mary in high esteem". He cites their belief in concepts like Mary's perpetual virginity, her becoming sinless after conception, and her assumption. Elsewhere in the video, he refers to a problem with Protestants "overcorrecting" errors about Mary. He asks at another point, "Are we possibly missing something that they [earlier Protestants] saw from scripture?" One portion of the video refers to an argument for Mary's assumption based on fetal microchimerism, but doesn't explain how it allegedly leads to the conclusion that Mary was assumed. He ends the video by commenting, "But if men like the reformers, who were radically committed to sola scriptura, sola fide, and the purity of the gospel, if they could hold Mary in high esteem without compromising their convictions, then maybe we can too."