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.