How Diversely John 3:5 Was Interpreted Before The Reformation

The claim is often made that everybody agreed about the meaning of John 3:5 before the Reformation. Supposedly, there was universal agreement that the passage teaches baptismal regeneration.

Crushing Our Sluggishness And Arrogance

"On the one hand, we know, men are often so dull that when they hear that grace is offered them through Christ and that they may enjoy it through the gospel, the message is brushed off as if it were worthless. On the other hand, we are not easily persuaded to abandon our silly pride: we fancy we can find some way or other of pleasing God and of winning his favour. Something strong is needed to excite our sluggish spirits and to remedy, or rather crush, our arrogance....How often, instead, are we excited by the trivia and nonsense of this passing world, and by our own sinful pleasures, so that we fail to glorify God as he deserves, and speak so feebly of his grace that it is clear we would suppress it if we could." (John Calvin, in Robert White, trans., Songs Of The Nativity [Carlisle, Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth, 2008], 124-25)

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.

The Timespan Of The Resurrection Appearances

Much is made of alleged inconsistencies among the New Testament resurrection accounts. Their common ground is often underestimated. One thing they have in common that doesn't get discussed much is the shortness of the period when the large majority of the appearances occurred. I'm allowing an exception for the later appearance to Paul, but he acknowledges that his experience was unusual (1 Corinthians 15:8). Paul has the other appearances occurring before the one to him. And the gospels and Acts align well with what Paul reports. Luke puts the pre-Pauline appearances within a forty-day timeframe (Acts 1:3). John refers to multiple weeks of appearances (John 20:26), but doesn't exceed the forty days referred to by Luke. They're consistent. Matthew and Mark don't set down a timeframe, but the modest amount of appearance material in both gospels (Mark does anticipate the appearance in Galilee, though he doesn't narrate it) lines up well with the sort of shorter timespan found in the other sources.

A good way to appreciate this agreement among the sources is to think of how easily they could have disagreed and what motives they could have had for doing so. Reports of later resurrection appearances could have been used by later church leaders to get more authority or attention. Even among the original apostles, if there wasn't much concern about accuracy, carefulness, and such, then why think all of the sources would end up with the same timespan? Why wouldn't one or more of them extend the pre-Pauline appearances out to several months, a few years, or whatever other length of time?

There isn't maximal evidence of agreement among the sources on these issues. There is some ambiguity. But there is substantial agreement in a context in which they could easily have disagreed a lot instead.

Arguing For Resurrection Accounts

We should argue for Jesus' resurrection by appealing to multiple lines of evidence, including the general credibility of the sources. One of the approaches we can take, among others, is to argue for individual accounts. Argue for Matthew's credibility in general, as I've done here, for example, but also argue for the resurrection account in Matthew 28:9-10. Argue for Luke's credibility in general, as I've done here, for instance, but also argue more narrowly for the material on the appearance to Paul in Acts. Argue for the general credibility of Paul, such as his willingness to suffer and die as a Christian, which gives us reason to trust what he reported about the resurrection appearance to James in 1 Corinthians 15:7. But we should also argue more narrowly for the appearance to James.

Using Other Miracle Claims To Argue Against Jesus' Resurrection

It's common for critics of the resurrection to argue against it by means of other alleged miracles, such as Marian apparitions. The argument will take on a variety of forms. For example, it will be assumed that such-and-such a miracle didn't happen, yet it has comparable evidence or better evidence than we have for Jesus' resurrection, so we should conclude that both the other miracle and the resurrection didn't happen. Or it will be suggested that since a Christian wants to attribute the other miracle to demonic activity, the resurrection could be considered demonic as well, and Christians have no way to justify viewing the resurrection as Divine while viewing the other miracle as demonic. And so on.

We've written a lot about that kind of objection over the years. See this recent thread (including the comments section) on the Zeitoun Marian apparitions, for example, for brief overviews of many of the issues involved (the explanatory options for miracles, whether the resurrection needs to have better evidence than other miracles, how to evaluate how the evidence for one miracle compares to the evidence for another, why we shouldn't think the resurrection and Christianity as a whole are demonic, why we shouldn't think the resurrection and Christianity as a whole are the result of human psi, etc.). I also wrote a couple of other posts on Zeitoun recently, here and here. Steve Hays wrote some posts about the Fatima Marian apparitions, such as here and here. He and I wrote about the miracles affiliated with the Salem Witch Trials in chapter 8 of the e-book here (pages 102-24). I wrote a post a decade ago that responded to a book that discusses religious miracles, and that post addresses many of the issues involved in comparing Christianity's miracles to the miracles of other religions. That post briefly discusses Sai Baba's miracles, a subject sometimes brought up by critics of Christianity. See here for some brief comments from Steve about Sai Baba. On UFOs, see here for an overview and our archive of posts on the subject here. These are just several examples of what we've written about miracles skeptics often bring up when discussing Jesus' resurrection. You can find a lot of other relevant material in our archives.

These skeptics often don't have sufficient reason to reject any of the miracles they're discussing. Frequently, when they suggest that we know that such-and-such a miracle didn't happen, they're bluffing. Their assumption shouldn't be granted. And they're typically substantially ignorant of the breadth and depth of explanatory options Christianity has for miracles. (Many Christians are highly ignorant as well.) These skeptics also don't know much or act as if they don't know much about the justification Christians (and others) have for placing different miracles in different categories and ranking them in a hierarchy. Sometimes the best response to a skeptical appeal to another miracle is that their miracle doesn't seem to be historical, whereas the resurrection is. But it's often the case that the Christian shouldn't deny that the other miracle occurred, and there isn't much difficulty in reconciling it with the historicity of the resurrection and the truthfulness of Christianity.

Go On To Chapter 16

Don't stop at 1 Corinthians 15 when you're reading that chapter or discussing it in the context of the Easter season or whatever other context. Go on to chapter 16. Notice all of the references to greetings, showing love, rejoicing, etc. Those things are often accompanied by physical interaction: "Greet one another with a holy kiss." (verse 20) The resurrection appearances were, by their nature, meetings among individuals, and meetings, by their nature, frequently involve things like greetings and embracing. The idea that none of the resurrection appearances involved anything more than sight is extremely unlikely, especially given how many resurrection appearances were reported.

For a lengthier discussion of these issues, including more argumentation and documentation, see here.

The Empty Tomb And Affirmation Of It Didn't Occur In An Apathetic Context

I've sometimes come across people who argue that the early corroboration of the empty tomb by non-Christian sources doesn't have much significance, since they may have corroborated it out of apathy. They uncritically accepted what Christians told them.

One of the problems with that sort of explanation is that the context surrounding Jesus' placement in the tomb isn't one of apathetic opposition to Christianity. How did Jesus' body get in the tomb to begin with? You don't arrange to get somebody crucified, then carry out the crucifixion, then proceed with the sort of persecution of Christians that we see reflected in Paul's life (his initial life as a persecutor and the persecution he experienced later as a Christian) if you're apathetic about that crucified individual and his followers. Apathy doesn't sit well with the crucifixion or other aspects of early Christian history. One way to summarize this point in your thinking is to consider the empty tomb as in the middle of a chronological spectrum. Just before it, you have the crucifixion. Just after it, you have the early persecution of Christians, as illustrated in the life of Saul of Tarsus. It doesn't make much sense to think there was apathy in the middle of the spectrum, surrounded by so much non-apathy on both sides.

Furthermore, it's not as though affirmation of the empty tomb would be the only option for people who were apathetic, lazy, or some such thing. You could just be agnostic (e.g., Matthew 21:27, John 9:29).

The best explanation for why the empty tomb was affirmed by both the early Christians and their early opponents (both Jewish and Gentile opponents, as my article linked above argues) is that the tomb was empty.

A Resurrection Appearance To Jude

An Easter issue I've changed my mind about is whether Jude was an apostle in the fullest sense of the term, meaning that he had seen the risen Christ. I've become convinced that he probably was. See my discussions of the Biblical and extrabiblical evidence here and here.

That raises the question, then, of whether the appearance to Jude is mentioned in the New Testament (or elsewhere) and, if so, which one it is. I've argued elsewhere that it's likely that Jesus' brothers didn't convert until the latter half of the forty days referred to in Acts 1:3. There can be an inclination to place the appearance to James before any appearance to one or more of his brothers, since we often think of James as the foremost of the brothers of Jesus (he's listed first in Matthew 12:55 and Mark 6:3, etc.). But we need to be careful here, since a primacy in one or more contexts, such as James' being the oldest of the brothers, having the strongest personality, or having the most historical influence, doesn't mean he has to have had a primacy in every context. Jesus may have appeared to James before appearing to Jude, but not necessarily. My sense is that the appearance could have been as early as the one to more than five hundred in 1 Corinthians 15:6, or it may have been the one mentioned just after the appearance to James in 1 Corinthians 15:7. Or it may not be mentioned anywhere in the New Testament or elsewhere. If I had to choose one of the appearances mentioned, I'd go with the one in 1 Corinthians 15:7.

Then He Appeared To James

The resurrection appearance to James (1 Corinthians 15:7) doesn't get nearly as much attention as it should. That's probably largely because we're not given much information about it, including no narrative of the event. Still, more ought to be said about it.

Easter Resources 2025

For an overview of which evidence for Jesus' resurrection to focus on most, see my post here. Steve Hays wrote a lengthier post on how to make a case for the resurrection.

Here are some of the Easter issues we've addressed over the years, with many more in the archives:

The Weaknesses Of The Zeitoun Marian Apparitions

I've written about my overall view of the Zeitoun case elsewhere, such as here and here. What I want to do in this post is expand upon an aspect of the case I've previously addressed more briefly. The apparitions exhibited some weaknesses that make more sense coming from a source of a lower nature than God or Mary.

To what end is all this?

"The love of God and the love of the world are like the scales of a balance: as one falls the other rises. When our natural inclinations prosper, religion is faint and languishes. But when earthly objects wither away and lose their beauty, then the soul begins to cool and flag in its pursuit of them, the seeds of grace take root, and the divine life begins to flourish and prevail. It is therefore of great importance that we should convince ourselves of the emptiness and vanity of creature enjoyments, and persuade our hearts to relinquish our love for them. Let us seriously consider all that our reason, faith, experience, and observation of others can suggest to this end. Let us ponder these matters over and over and fix our thoughts on this truth till we become really persuaded of it. Amidst all our pursuits and designs, let us stop and ask ourselves: To what end is all this? What am I aiming for? Can the flagrant and garish pleasures of sense, or the esteem and affection of silly creatures like myself, satisfy an immortal soul? Have I not tried these things already? Will they taste better and yield me more contentment tomorrow than they did yesterday?" (Henry Scougal, in Robin Taylor, ed., The Life Of God In The Soul Of Man [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2022], approximate Kindle location 815)

The Broader Implications Of 2 Thessalonians 3:10

It's popular to apply the passage to something like a situation in which a man refuses to look for a job and wants to live off of government assistance instead. But the principle in 2 Thessalonians also has a broader application that tells us a lot about why the world is in the state it's in.

The Gospel That Would Go Throughout The World

Tertullian acknowledged that people were justified apart from baptism during Jesus' public ministry. But in response to critics of baptismal regeneration, he wrote, "in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord", whereas now "the law of baptizing has been imposed" (On Baptism 13).

A Reminder Of The Importance Of Josephus' Comments On Baptism

Josephus is an important source on some baptismal issues, but he often gets overlooked or underestimated. He refers to how John the Baptist's baptism wasn't meant to be a means of obtaining justification. Dismissing Josephus as a non-Christian isn't an adequate objection, since the significance of his earliness and his knowledge of recent Jewish history don't depend on his being a Christian. You can be a non-Christian, but still be right about something. And if the advocate of baptismal regeneration wants to acknowledge that John's baptism wasn't justificatory, then he needs to address some implications that follow. John's baptism is discussed and practiced alongside the earliest form of baptism administered by Jesus and his disciples (John 3:22-4:2), and that overlap between the two makes more sense if there was more rather than less continuity between the two. In all likelihood, both John's baptism and the earliest baptism administered by Jesus and his disciples were non-justificatory. So, that gives us a double precedent for non-justificatory baptism. That's another problem the advocate of baptismal regeneration has to address. Furthermore, Peter uses language about baptism similar to the language used by Josephus, which adds further evidence for the conclusion that Peter rejected baptismal regeneration. See here for further discussion of that issue. So, Josephus' comments are relevant to multiple baptismal issues and provide multiple lines of evidence against baptismal regeneration.

Problems With Citing 2 Thessalonians 2:15 Against Sola Scriptura

When 2 Thessalonians 2:15 comes up in discussions related to the Christian rule of faith, we can begin by going several verses earlier and asking whether the oral teaching Paul refers to in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 has been preserved. It's a disputed passage that different people have interpreted in different ways.

Beyond the specifics of 2:6, 2 Thessalonians in general is in large part about eschatology. When we look at the early oral eschatological traditions, such as the ones found in Papias and Irenaeus, they're largely premillennial, even though the most prominent modern critics of sola scriptura reject premillennialism. Centuries after Papias, Jerome referred to "a very large multitude" of orthodox Christians who were premillennialists in his day (in Thomas Scheck, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary On Isaiah [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2015], pp. 820-21, section 18:1 in the commentary). Augustine was a premillennialist early in his Christian life. Wasn't the church infallibly maintaining the oral eschatological traditions Paul had given the Thessalonians?

And, aside from the teachings in 2 Thessalonians and its surrounding context, such as eschatology, we could ask about oral information in general. The Thessalonians knew a lot about Paul: what he looked like, what his handwriting looked like (3:17), what sort of work he did when he was among them (3:8), etc. Biographers of Paul and many other people would like to have that information. So, why don't these critics of sola scriptura produce it? Or has so much oral information across so many contexts been lost over time, to the point where critics of sola scriptura have to admit that they've lost a large amount of oral information that was part of the original context of 2 Thessalonians?

These considerations don't prove sola scriptura, and an advocate of something other than sola scriptura could avoid an appeal to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 or supplement it with whatever else. But factors like what I've mentioned above make it evident that appealing to 2 Thessalonians 2:15 alone isn't enough to make a case against sola scriptura, and 2 Thessalonians as a whole poses some difficulties for the most common alternatives to sola scriptura.

Joe Nickell's Death

I disagreed with him on a lot of issues, but, as with anybody who does the sort of work he did, there's a lot to agree with him about and appreciate as well. Since there's so much that's false and fraudulent in religion and the paranormal, anybody who gives so much of his life to opposing that sort of thing is going to do some good in the process.

One of my memories of him is an appearance he made on "The Sally Jessy Raphael Show" in the 1980s. He was part of a panel with Ed and Lorraine Warren, Ed sitting next to Joe. You can watch it on YouTube. Go here for a segment in which Joe commented, "I've not met a house that I thought was haunted. I think the Warrens have never met a house that they didn't think was haunted." That's hyperbolic as far as the Warrens are concerned, of course, but it's a memorable way of expressing something that's true. Ed and Joe both went too far, in opposite directions.

You can read my response to Joe on the Enfield Poltergeist here. He called the magician Milbourne Christopher "one of the greatest influences on my early career as a magician turned paranormal investigator". Christopher visited the house where most of the events of the Enfield case occurred, and he probably witnessed some paranormal events while he was there. Some of those experiences were recorded on audio tape. You can read about Christopher's visit to the house and his involvement in the case more broadly here. It's a lengthy article, but you can go to the shorter section focused on Christopher to read the most relevant material.

Nickell's prominence in skeptical circles is reflected in some comments Robert Price made fifteen years ago:

"In appealing to the universal facts of human experience, Hume is being neither deductive nor circular. He is merely appealing to what everyone knows: the frequent reports of the extraordinary we hear from UFO abductees, Loch Ness Monster fans, people who see ghosts or who claim psychic powers, always seem to turn out to be bunk upon examination. Ask Joe Nickell. Ask James Randi. Ask the evangelical stage magician Andre Kole, who exposed Filipino 'psychic surgeons.'" (John Loftus, ed., The Christian Delusion [Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010], 277)

Nickell, Randi, and Kole are all dead now. There was already good evidence for the supernatural before any of them were born. There's more evidence for the paranormal now than there was then. (See, for example, here and here.) Looking to such people to debunk the paranormal as a whole has always been a false hope.

When Protestants Handle Debates Poorly

I'm not just referring to formal debates, though they're part of the problem. The bigger problem is how Protestants in general handle certain debates in general, whether formal or informal ones.

Bede On Opponents Of Mary's Perpetual Virginity

I've written before about how opposition to the perpetual virginity of Mary persisted beyond the earliest centuries, into the late patristic and early medieval eras. Bede, writing in the eighth century, uses the present tense to refer to opponents of the perpetual virginity of Mary:

There's Not Much Apostolic Disunity In The Gospels

Critics of Christianity often allege that there was widespread disunity among the early Christians: Paul disagreeing with the Twelve, a Petrine community opposing a Johannine community, and so on. There's a large amount of evidence against such claims. I've written about the evidence for apostolic unity in 1 Corinthians 15:11, in the earliest patristic documents, and elsewhere. I've been struck lately, though, by how much material there is against these claims about disunity in the gospels. In John 13:10-11, for example, why would the author have Jesus commenting on how all of his rivals (or rival communities, etc.) are "clean"? Or think of the sitting on twelve thrones in passages like Matthew 19:28. That isn't just an expression of unity, but even unity in an eschatological context, which rules out a future falling away. (Judas is explicitly and repeatedly referred to as not being included in such comments in one way or another, whereas nothing comparable is said of any other apostle. The authors were capable of communicating that they had exceptions in mind if they wanted to, as their comments on Judas demonstrate.)

Look Beyond Your Contemporaries

A common mistake in the Christian life is to get overly focused on our contemporaries. Neglect of God is the most significant form that takes, but it's also relevant in other contexts. How we live affects past generations (e.g., preserving and advancing their work). It also impacts future generations. The psalmist referred to how he was writing "that a people yet to be created may praise the Lord" (102:18). Neither the people yet to be created nor the Lord are the contemporaries we're so often too focused upon. We're even told to be concerned about angels (Hebrews 13:2). And I see no reason to think that the only rational beings other than God are angels and humans. When you think of life more expansively like this, it heightens your view of life in general and provides more motivation to persevere in the face of opposition from your contemporaries.

Even as far as your contemporaries are concerned, you frequently don't know much about how you're influencing them. If you benefit, say, a hundred people in a certain context, you could easily only notice the benefit in a few of their lives or only be thanked by a couple of them, if any. That's the nature of this life, because of sin and other factors. But my main point here is that before we even get to these factors regarding how to evaluate our influence on our contemporaries, there are many other people and issues to take into account. In fact, our contemporaries are outnumbered by the others involved.

Another Reason To Reject The Baptismal Regeneration Interpretation Of John 3:5

In other posts, I've discussed some of the problems with taking John 3:5 as a reference to baptismal regeneration. The exchange between Jesus and Nicodemus is set in an Old Testament context, and baptismal regeneration isn't taught in the Old Testament. Even advocates of baptismal regeneration frequently admit that it wasn't in effect at the time when Jesus spoke to Nicodemus (thus explaining why so many people are justified apart from baptism in the gospels while nobody in the gospels is justified at the time of baptism). The claim that everybody agreed with the baptismal regeneration interpretation of John 3:5 prior to the Reformation is far from true. And so on. You can go here to find links to some of the relevant posts in our archives. What I want to do in this post is focus on another line of evidence.

The terminology of being born again is also used in 1 Peter. I've written elsewhere about how 1 Peter contradicts baptismal regeneration, including in 3:21. 1 Peter 1:23-25 tells us that people are born again in the context of preaching, which is distinct from the later context of baptism (1 Corinthians 1:17). I've discussed the importance of distinguishing between the preaching context and the baptismal context at length elsewhere, like here. So, not only is John 3:5 poorly explained by a baptismal regeneration interpretation in its own context, but such an interpretation also poorly explains the other New Testament passage that uses the language of being born again.

Protestants Are Being Consistent About Canonical Issues

I recently came across a critic of Protestantism who made the common assertion that we need an infallible source to tell us what canon of scripture to follow. Apparently, we're supposed to think that fallibly applying some general principles from an infallible source in order to arrive at a canon isn't enough. This critic of Protestantism seemed to be suggesting that we need an infallible source to do something like list the canonical books for us. Supposedly, it's too difficult to discern a canon without such guidance. And so on.

Part of what we should keep in mind when issues like those come up is that the manner in which Protestants handle those canonical issues is substantially the same as how they handle canonical issues in contexts other than scripture and how such critics of Protestantism handle canonical issues in many contexts in their lives. We all accept canons for the writings of various historical figures (Tacitus, Justin Martyr, George Washington, etc.) without any sort of infallible ruling on the subject, for example. There are ongoing disagreements among critics of Protestantism about which extrabiblical traditions are part of the Christian rule of faith and which aren't, such as which papal teachings qualify as an exercise of papal infallibility and which don't. Those non-Protestants aren't relying on an infallible list, just as they arrive at a lot of other canons in other contexts in life without any infallible list. For further discussion of topics like these, see here and here, among other posts.

More About Zeitoun And The Resurrection

Cameron Bertuzzi just posted a video responding to Gavin Ortlund regarding the Zeitoun Marian apparitions. I want to address several of the issues involved.

Three Problems With Baptismal Regeneration

There are more than three, but here's an easy way to remember three of them. Baptismal regeneration is inconsistent with:

- The freeness of justification (the exclusion of works).

- The immediacy of justification (you can be justified at any moment through a means you always have access to).

- The context of justification (the prebaptismal context of believing while hearing the gospel proclaimed).

You can click the three links above for further discussion of each.

Bede On Jesus' Opposition To Mary In Luke 8:19

"Allegorically this text [Luke 8:19] harmonizes with the one above, where it is said of the Jews who attend only to the letter of the Law: And whoever has not, that also which he thinks he has, will be taken away from him. For the Synagogue from whose flesh he was begot is the mother and brothers of Jesus and the Jewish people. Because the Saviour is teaching inside they are unable to enter in, even though they come, since they neglect to understand his sayings spiritually. The crowd in anticipation enters his house, because, with Judea abandoning him, the Gentiles flocked to Christ, and being more mentally receptive the nearer they were in faith, they drank in the inward mysteries of life, in accordance with what the Psalmist says: Come to him and be enlightened." (Bede, Calvin Kendall and Faith Wallis, translators and editors, Bede: Commentary On The Gospel Of Luke [Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press, 2023], 324-25)

I've written elsewhere about Bede's ignorance of the assumption of Mary.

Exercising The Soul

"For as inactivity hurts the body, so also inactivity as to what is good renders the soul more supine and feeble." (John Chrysostom, Homilies On Hebrews 10:5)

What should we make of the Zeitoun Marian apparitions?

I've discussed the subject in other threads over the years, but only briefly, and the Zeitoun case has been getting a lot of attention lately. So, I want to expand upon my previous comments.

How many ways are there to be justified?

There are some Biblical passages that can seem to support justification through something other than faith if the passages are taken in isolation. For example, Matthew 19:16-21 could be taken as evidence for salvation through selling your possessions and giving the money to the poor. John 6:53, if it's thought to refer to the eucharist, could be taken to prove justification through participation in the eucharist. John 13:8 teaches salvation through foot washing. Acts 2:38 teaches baptismal regeneration. Acts 8:17 teaches that we're justified through the laying on of hands. Etc.

Early Interest In Mark's Authorship

When critics of the traditional gospel authorship attributions discuss the subject, they sometimes distinguish between the two earlier gospels, which they consider to be Mark and Matthew, and what they take to be the latter two, Luke and John. They'll concede that there are significant internal indications of authorship in the latter two sources, such as the "we" passages in Acts and the reference to the author of the fourth gospel in John 21:24. But it's suggested that we don't have anything like that for the other two gospels.

Where's the fulfillment of Mark 10:39?

In my last post, I referred to how John 21:18-19 lines up well with what other sources report about Peter and Mark's use of Peter as a source. Something similar can be said of the apostle John, but with another element that adds further credibility to what's reported about him.

The Gospel Authors' Witness To Each Other

We often think of the evidence for the authorship of the gospels in terms of internal evidence and external sources of the patristic era, like Papias and Irenaeus. But we should also think in terms of the testimony of earlier sources, including the evidence the gospel authors provide for each other.

The Parallels Between Acts 10 And Galatians 3

When Cornelius' justification apart from baptism in Acts 10 is discussed, the focus tends to be on verses 44-48 and the timing of the reception of the Holy Spirit. But we should also include verse 43 and notice some other issues in verses 44-48.

Verse 43 refers to how "everybody" is justified by "believing". Peter isn't anticipating that his audience will be some kind of exception to the rule ("everybody"), and he mentions faith without saying anything about baptism. What happens in verse 44 seems to be what Peter was anticipating and what's normative, not exceptional.

In verse 44, we're told that Cornelius and those with him received the Spirit while "listening". That should sound familiar. Paul refers to how the Galatians were justified through "hearing with faith" in Galatians 3:2. That's further evidence that what happened to Cornelius, in terms of being justified and receiving the Spirit before baptism, is normative. The "listening" and "hearing" in Acts 10 and Galatians 3 are references to a prebaptismal context. You hear the gospel message being proclaimed, and you believe while hearing it. Baptism doesn't occur until later. And that helps explain why Paul distinguishes between preaching and baptizing (1 Corinthians 1:17). He was the spiritual father of the Corinthians through the proclamation of the gospel to them (1 Corinthians 4:15), even though he didn't baptize many of them. The preaching context of justification is another among many lines of evidence against baptismal regeneration, and it's another way in which Cornelius' justification is normal rather than exceptional.

Why is there prebaptismal justification in Acts 10?

An explanation often put forward for why Cornelius and those with him were justified prior to baptism in Acts 10:43-48 is that the prebaptismal reception of the Holy Spirit was offered as proof of God's acceptance of Gentiles. But that acceptance had already been revealed to Cornelius by an angel and to Peter in his vision. And a reception of the Spirit at the time of baptism would also have been proof of the acceptance of Gentiles. Changing the timing of the reception of the Spirit wasn't needed. The best explanation for the prebaptismal timing of the reception of the Spirit is that that's the normal scenario. Its normativity is further evidenced by how Cornelius and those with him are cited as being justified in the same way as others in Acts 11:17-18 and 15:7-11.

Updated Recommendations For Bible Study Resources

Here's the 2025 update for Denver Seminary's Old Testament bibliography. Here's the update for their bibliography for the New Testament. You can go here to access Steve Hays' bibliography, which he updated shortly before his death a few years ago. The Best Commentaries site also has a lot of useful information.

Has there been enough of an increase in apologetic work?

It's often suggested that more apologetic work isn't needed in a certain context, since there are so many web sites that have addressed the topic, there are so many books discussing it, etc. And people will sometimes make such comments about apologetics in general, not just a particular subcategory. Look at how many YouTube channels there are that address apologetic issues. Look at all of the books that have been published. And blog posts. And articles in academic journals. And radio programs. Sometimes somebody will even cite one source, as if the fact that one book has addressed a topic is sufficient. After all, anybody who's interested in the topic could go to that book to find the relevant information.

Orbs In Paranormal Contexts

I've written about parallels between UFOs and other paranormal phenomena, like poltergeists and mediumship. See, for example, here and here. I want to note another parallel, which I haven't investigated much. But the subject should get more discussion than it does and should be researched further.

The Prominence Of Sola Fide In Acts

One of the factors to take into account when judging the small number of passages in Acts that are cited against justification through faith alone is how often only faith or repentance (two sides of the same coin) is mentioned as the means of receiving justification: 2:21, 3:16, 3:19, 4:4, 9:42, 10:43-44, 11:17, 11:21, 13:39, 13:48, 14:1, 14:27, 15:9, 16:31, 16:34, 17:34, 19:2, 26:20.

I'll expand on some of those passages, to clarify why I've cited them. Acts 3:16 refers to a healing, but it's probably the sort of double healing passage I've discussed elsewhere. The healed man is referred to as praising God after the healing and is described as following the apostles (3:8, 3:11). Both of those make more sense if he had converted than if he hadn't. And Peter and John don't say anything to the man about a need to do anything else in order to be reconciled to God, which also makes more sense if the man had already been reconciled to God. Furthermore, Peter refers to the healed man's faith as "the faith which comes through [Jesus]" (3:16). A reference to "the faith" makes more sense if it's a faith that people in general are supposed to have, not just people seeking a healing.

Some of the passages I've cited mention faith without mentioning justification (4:4, 9:42, 14:1, 17:34), but the passages make the most sense if faith is viewed as bringing about justification. If something more was needed for reconciliation to God, then it would make less sense to highlight faith so much and not mention more. Seeing these passages as referring to justification also aligns them better with the rest of the material in Acts, like the other passages cited above.

Enfield Miscellany (Part 11)

It's been more than two years since I posted the last entry in this series. I have enough material to justify another one now, so I'm picking up where I left off.

Some Agreements Between Paul And The Gospels On Miracles

In a recent post, I discussed the double healing passages, which involve incidents in which people are healed both physically and spiritually. Notice that those passages provide more examples of agreement between the Synoptics and the fourth gospel. And notice that Paul corroborates some of what we see in those passages. In Galatians 3:5, he refers to how miracles are often received through faith, as we see in the double healing passages in the gospels. And he compares that reception of miracles through faith to receiving justification through faith, as in the double healing passages.

How difficult is it to discern the evidence for Christianity?

One of the recurring themes in Joe Rogan's program with Wesley Huff was the idea that it's so difficult to discern the truth about some of the issues they discussed, including the evidence for Christianity. Rogan repeatedly brought the subject up, but I don't think he ever put it in the form of a question.

When that kind of sentiment comes up, a good way to respond is to mention one or more counterexamples. It's not difficult to discern Jesus' prominence in history, for example, which increases the plausibility of his being a source of Divine revelation. Or you could mention the significance of hostile corroboration of Jesus' resurrection, which is something unusual and widely acknowledged (James' claim to have seen Jesus risen from the dead, Paul's claim, non-Christian corroboration of the empty tomb, etc.). Or bring up some events involved in prophecy fulfillment that are widely accepted (Jesus' death by crucifixion, the timing of the crucifixion, the Romans' destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, etc.). For further discussion of issues like these, see here, among other relevant posts in our archives.

Another point worth making is that people give a lot of time, attention, and other resources to their general education, their career, sports, music, and other things in life. Why think they don't have the resources needed to adequately discern the issues relevant to Christianity?

The Double Healing Passages

One of the reasons why the evidence against baptismal regeneration is underestimated is that much of that evidence is overlooked. An example of that is a category of passages that could be referred to as involving double healing. An individual is healed both physically and spiritually. But the physical healing tends to get more attention, sometimes even to the point of not noticing or forgetting the accompanying spiritual healing.

How Luke 3 Sheds Light On Acts 2

I want to comment on one of the issues involved in the controversy over Acts 2:38 and the relationship between justification and baptism. Sometimes the question of verse 37 will be highlighted, and it will be suggested that baptism shouldn't be mentioned in verse 38 if it isn't a means of obtaining justification.

The assumption seems to be that the question of verse 37 is equivalent to the one in 16:30. But the "to be saved" qualifier of 16:30 isn't present in 2:37.

Furthermore, there's a parallel between Acts 2 and Luke 3. The question of "what shall we do" comes up a few times in Luke 3:10-14. And John the Baptist keeps answering by mentioning actions that go beyond obtaining justification. He's addressing what should be done in general, which goes beyond acquiring justification (the "fruits" he had referred to earlier, in verses 8-9). Similarly, Acts 2 seems to be addressing a broader rather than narrower context.

Peter goes on to provide them with many other words and to tell them to be saved from "this perverse generation" (verse 40). It seems that more than justification is in view.

Did prayer to saints and angels develop in a way comparable to the development of the canon?

When the historical evidence against a Roman Catholic belief is brought up, a common Catholic response is to compare the development of that belief to the development of the canon of scripture or Trinitarianism. Here's something I recently posted in a YouTube thread about the subject. YouTube has had a problem for years with some people's posts sometimes not appearing. Many of my posts don't appear after I submit them, and I still haven't found a way to determine which posts will go through and which won't. The one below didn't go up. Here's a link to the YouTube comment I was responding to. You can read that comment and the surrounding context if you want more information about what led up to my response below.

Cameron Bertuzzi's Backfiring Cannon

Cameron Bertuzzi recently put out a video about the New Testament canon. I've addressed the subject many times, such as in a lengthy 2009 series here that discusses the issues raised by Cameron. Or see here for a more recent overview that addresses some of the issues more briefly. For a listing of all of our posts under the "canonics" label, go here (keep clicking Older Posts in the bottom right to see more).

What I want to do in this post is briefly address some of the problems with Cameron's video. You can read our earlier posts for more.