Triablogue

Healings In UFO And Other Non-Christian Contexts (Part 1)

2026-07-16T06:02:49.839-04:00

Because Christians have been so negligent about paranormal issues for so long, they're poorly prepared to address a large number and variety of the topics involved. I've discussed some examples in my most recent posts, in response to the release of Jonathan Kendall's The Metaphysics Of UFOs (Woodbury, Minnesota: Llewellyn Publications, 2026).

One of the subjects Christians tend to handle poorly is the existence of healings and some other miracles in non-Christian, and sometimes more specifically non-Protestant, contexts. Healings affiliated with UFOs are part of that category.

I follow UFO issues to some extent, but it isn't one of my primary areas of research. I've occasionally heard about healings in the context of UFOs. For example, Jacques Vallee wrote in one of his books I've read, "What happens if we examine the files of sightings with an open mind regarding such psychic components? We find that phenomena of precognition, telepathy, and even healing are not unusual among the reports, especially when they involve close-range observation of an object or direct exposure to its light." (Dimensions [San Antonio, Texas: Anomalist Books, 2008], approximate Kindle location 2767) In my experience, however, people tend to not go into much detail about healings. Vallee didn't in the book just cited, as far as I recall. But maybe he has elsewhere. To whatever extent others have, it seems to be somewhat unusual for people to go into a lot of detail about the topic. I came across more information about it in Jonathan Kendall's recent book than I remember seeing anywhere else. I'll get into the details in my next post, but I want to address some other background issues first.

I've argued that the Bible implicitly and explicitly refers to and allows a large number and variety of non-Christian miracles, including healings. I've written about some implications to that effect from God's love for people in general (common grace), for example. In the context under consideration here, healings, think of the placebo effect, a form of mind over matter, something that isn't limited to Christians. That sort of thing could easily exist (and does exist) on a larger scale. Another factor is indirect influence, such as how a miracle in the life of a non-Christian grandparent could be used as a means of helping a Christian grandson. Or think of prayer. We're told to pray even for our enemies, which implies supernatural activity in their lives to some extent, as I've written about elsewhere.

Roman Catholics often bring up alleged miracles in Catholicism as an argument against Protestantism. We've responded to that argument many times, like here. I've said a lot over the years about the evidence for miracles among Protestants, phenomena like stigmata and eucharistic miracles among non-Catholics, etc. I've written about Marian apparitions, like the Zeitoun case, including healing miracles and other miracles affiliated with those apparitions. In the thread just linked, here's part of what I wrote:

Regarding healings, yes, I think healings can occur through something like human psi. There are reports of healing in paranormal contexts outside of Christianity. That could take on various forms, like a capacity to heal that somebody has had throughout his life or something that was acquired at some point by whatever means (e.g., through a paranormal experience). Similarly, Luke 11:19 likely refers to exorcisms performed by unbelievers. Revelation 13:3 refers to a demonic healing. There are some significant problems with Coptic Christianity, but I agree with them on most issues. There's a lot of common ground. So, in a Coptic setting, I would allow for some Divine miracles as well, whether performed directly by God or indirectly through somebody who had been given a power to heal by God.

So, though Catholics and others often appeal to miracles like healings in their circles and claim that nothing other than attributing those miracles to God is plausible, there are multiple plausible alternatives. If you take the evidence as a whole into account, the conclusion that makes the most sense is that the miracles are occurring in spite of the errors of Catholicism, not as a vindication of Catholicism. I've argued for that conclusion at length on many occasions, such as in my posts on Zeitoun (e.g., the one linked above and this one about the weaknesses of the Zeitoun apparitions).

Though we often hear about alleged miracles in contexts like the Catholic eucharist or Marian apparitions (whether Catholic or non-Catholic), advocates of those belief systems often ignore and probably are often unaware of healings and such in contexts like UFOs. Jonathan Kendall, in his book referred to above, notes:

Ufologist Preston Dennett details three hundred reported claims of healing as a result of UFO/alien encounters. Among the reports are alleged supernormal healings of a great variety of medical illnesses including musculoskeletal injuries; infections; disorders of the eye; heart, liver, and kidney problems; and even cancer. These cases are of mixed evidential quality. In collaboration with Dr. Joseph Burkes, however, Dennett examines ten alleged healings within the context of close encounters in detail, accompanied by professional medical commentary. Sometimes, the effects of such encounters seem to provide a curious mixture of benefit and harm. (approximate Kindle location 889)

The book also occasionally mentions healings in other non-Christian paranormal contexts. Anybody who's done much research into the paranormal ought to be familiar with some accounts of that nature and should know that it's unreasonable to dismiss every such account. They're not all true, but it seems highly unlikely that they're all false.

Regarding UFO healings in particular, the evidence is mixed, as Jonathan said. I can only provide some preliminary thoughts at this point, since I haven't yet looked into Jonathan's sources much. But I have come across UFO healing claims occasionally in other contexts, and I've read the book chapter by Preston Dennett and Joseph Burkes that Jonathan referred to, which is chapter 6 in Rey Hernandez, et al., edd., Beyond UFOs (United States: The Dr. Edgar Mitchell Foundation, 2018).

Before I get to that book chapter, in my next post, I want to provide an overview of some of my early impressions about UFO healings. Since they're early impressions, I could easily change my mind later. But providing early impressions is more important in this context than it is in others, unfortunately, because Christians have neglected the topic so much. There's more of a need than there should be for Christians to address the subject, even if it's only in the form of preliminary thoughts.

In comparison to reports of healings in Christian contexts, the reports of UFO healings seem to be much smaller in quantity and involve a much lower quality of evidence. I don't know of any UFO equivalent of, say, Craig Keener's two-volume work on miracles or the work the Roman Catholic Church has done on the subject. From what I know of Preston Dennett's work on UFO healings at this stage, it looks to me like his material falls well below the best work that's been done in Christian circles. And given the diversity of UFO-related beliefs, including the diversity of sources UFO healings are attributed to, the Christian network of miracles seems significantly more unified than the UFO network. And the Christian belief system more broadly has better evidence supporting it, for reasons we've gone into in many other posts here.

Having said all of that, I want to look at the Dennett/Burkes chapter I referred to above. I also want to say more about some broader issues. I'll do that in my next post.

Does ending UFO experiences by appealing to Jesus prove that the experiences were demonic and provide evidence for Christianity?

2026-07-14T05:08:30.848-04:00

My last post cited some material from Jonathan Kendall's new book on UFOs. I want to quote another part of the book that's relevant to a different topic I've addressed before. I'll quote my comments in an earlier post, then quote Jonathan's book.

From my post here:

Coulthart mentions the reports, which have been circulating for years, that invoking Jesus stops a UFO encounter. He also mentions reports that invoking Mary stops the experiences. Vallee goes on to mention an episode in Saudi Arabia in which a man was showing signs of what would often be classified as possession and was thought to be possessed by a jinn. An Islamic holy man delivered the individual from his condition by reading from the Quaran....

The ability to stop a UFO experience (seeing a UFO in the sky, an abduction experience, or whatever) by invoking Jesus, invoking Mary, or some other such means is compatible with multiple views of UFOs. If UFOs are human paranormal activity (my view), then a wide variety of religious practices or other efforts could bring about a psychological change that would make an experience stop or reduce the amount of activity involved. Even if the individual producing the phenomena is a deceased human, he could be influenced by religious invocations, be intimidated by a living human who has some paranormal capabilities (like an exorcist or medium), and so on. Those kinds of factors could even be relevant to an interaction with an alien, for those who accept the alien hypothesis. We can reach some conclusions about alien psychology based on what we know, but we're largely ignorant about the subject. We don't know much about what an alien would respect, what he'd be intimidated by, what would cause him to be compassionate, and so forth. And just as Jesus can cast out demons, he can also cast out other evil spirits (e.g., deceased humans), psychological problems people are having, aliens, etc.

We need to be careful to not have a simplistic mindset that takes reports of UFO experiences ceasing when Jesus is invoked as proof that UFOs are demonic. Invoking Jesus can end a lot of things, not just demonic activity, and it seems that some UFO experiences have been brought to a stop by other means, not just by invoking Jesus.

And there's no reason to think that you can end every paranormal event that isn't of a good nature, every paranormal event that involves a demon, or some such thing by calling on Jesus (Mark 9:14-29, 2 Corinthians 12:7-10, etc.).

Here's the relevant part of Jonathan's book:

Druffel investigated more than two hundred alien abduction accounts and found numerous subjects had successfully resisted alleged abductions via a litany of methods: nine methods, to be precise. These include mental techniques (“mental struggle”), physical techniques (“physical struggle”), metaphysical techniques (such as mentally wrapping oneself in a sheet of “protective” white light), and calling out to religious figures such as Jesus Christ or the Blessed Virgin Mary. (The Metaphysics Of UFOs [Woodbury, Minnesota: Llewellyn Publications, 2026], approximate Kindle location 1982)

Druffel's book tells us:

Many UFO abduction victims believe in some religion. Appeal to Spiritual Personages connected with their religion is commonly reported both by experiencers who were fully awake and by those who were already paralyzed. This technique requires firm faith in a spiritual realm peopled by compassionate and caring forms of otherworldly life. One of the main advantages of it is that experiencers do not have to be fearless to use this technique, nor do they need a strong sense of themselves as Persons with Rights. Nor do they need metaphysical training. They only need strong faith in a spiritual realm. Christ, Mohammed, the Lord God, guardian angels, the Archangel Michael, and other spiritual personages in which the experiencer has faith have been appealed to successfully. Religious artifacts also seem effective, provided the witness has faith that they hold some form of protective power....

The technique is readily available to a majority of people, of all religions and walks of life.

(Ann Druffel, How To Defend Yourself Against Alien Abduction [New York, New York: Three Rivers Press, 1998], approximate Kindle locations 1916, 1923)

When we come across claims about this sort of thing, we don't have much evidence to go by the large majority of the time. There can be some evidential significance to the experience for the experiencer. And there might be some degree of evidential significance for those who aren't experiencers, depending on the circumstances (e.g., because of some verifiable details involved in a particular case or because of a cumulative effect of multiple cases). I'm not denying that some UFO experiences have been ended supernaturally by appealing to Jesus, that such things can provide evidence of some type for Christianity, or anything like that. But there are non-Christian methods for ending UFO experiences, sometimes involving non-Christian religious figures, that have to be accounted for as well. My point is that these issues are larger and more complicated than people often suggest and need to be handled more carefully than Christians often handle them.

The Humanness Of UFOs

2026-07-12T07:20:40.562-04:00

Jonathan Kendall just published The Metaphysics Of UFOs (Woodbury, Minnesota: Llewellyn Publications, 2026). I'm agnostic about or disagree with some portions of it, but it has a lot of useful information. I want to cite some parts of the book in the coming days.

He repeats an account from Michael Grosso that I've heard before, but haven't written about. I'll use this as an opportunity to post about that account. It's a good case to use to illustrate my view of UFOs (that they're produced by human psi, as I've discussed here and elsewhere). Jonathan thinks the human psi hypothesis is a good explanation of some UFO phenomena, but also appeals to other explanations. Here's the part of the book about Grosso's account:

Philosopher Michael Grosso relates an experience he had while listening to a jazz composition by John Coltrane, "The Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost." Through the window of his sixth-floor New York City apartment in Greenwich Village, Grosso and his companion, Jane, saw a collection of lights materialize seemingly from nothing. The lights made "impossible movements." Most remarkably, the movements seemed to literally be dancing in tune with the music of Coltrane! At a certain point, the lights shot due north and hovered for a short time over a Catholic church, Our Lady of Pompeii. At this point, the lights "stopped and beamed, on and off, clearly (to our minds) signaling us." Finally, the light cluster zigzagged further north and vanished over the Empire State Building. At least three people witnessed the spectacle, including Michael’s neighbor, Louie, who was on the roof of the apartment building at the time.

Grosso’s interpretation of the event echoes mine:

"What did we see that night? Could it have been a flying saucer? The idea that some aircraft should travel light years across galaxies to interact with me, Jane, and Louie, while listening to John Coltrane for a few seconds—is, in my opinion, not credible. I’ve gradually come to suspect that we somehow unwittingly evoked this strange display, unconsciously, of course. Whatever it was, I’m inclined to believe it came from another dimension of reality, perhaps from the unknown depths (or heights) of our own minds. And it felt more spiritual than extraterrestrial."

(approximate Kindle location 3053)

There have been many other instances of UFO reports aligning with human psychology in one way or another, and Kendall's book discusses some other examples. UFOs have a lot of weaknesses (frivolity, not seeming to serve much of a purpose, seeming to be nonsensical, being fragmentary, etc.) that make more sense coming from a human than coming from a source like aliens, interdimensional beings, or demons.

Matthew 7 And Eternal Security

2026-07-09T05:42:11.343-04:00

During his recent debate with Ryan Hemelaar, Trent Horn commented:

"Jesus even warns people who claim they will be saved because they call on his name or trusted him, but engaged in grave sin. He says in Matthew 7:21, 'Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.'"

And when advocates of eternal security put forward the idea that an alleged believer who commits apostasy may have never been a believer, that view is often dismissed as absurd, desperate, and so forth.

While Trent ended his citation of Matthew 7 at verse 21, we should go on to verses 22-23. As I noted in a post (not about eternal security) several years ago, "People often associate the thinking behind 1 John 2:19 with the fourth gospel, but some of the same concepts are found in Matthew 7:21-23." In addition to the agreement between such diverse sources as the gospel of Matthew and 1 John, there's also the fact that Judas was involved in so much apostolic work while being "a devil" (John 6:70).

I'm not citing such examples to argue that believers never commit sins that some people consider mortal or never go through lengthy periods of unrepentant sin. They do sometimes (e.g., David).

My point is that the first scenario I referred to not only isn't absurd, desperate, and such, but is even explicitly advocated by multiple Biblical authors in multiple contexts. The Judas material is about one individual, but the other two passages I've cited use the plural. Matthew 7:22 even uses the term "many". So, it isn't just some extremely rare scenario. Furthermore, the Matthew 7 passage has a significant number, variety, and quality of nominally Christian works being done, presumably over a long period of time. Yet, Jesus says he never knew the individuals involved. And 1 John 2:19 puts forward "they would have remained with us" as the normal scenario. John is putting forward perseverance as the norm (as he does elsewhere, in 1 John 5:18, etc.).

Trent refers to "people who claim they will be saved because they call on his name or trusted him". Who claims that you can just "call on his name" in the sense of saying "Lord, Lord" to Jesus and be saved by doing so? And where does Matthew 7:21 say that the individuals involved trusted him in a relevant sense? It doesn't. One of the biggest themes of the gospels is Jesus' commenting on the lack of faith of the people around him, even how small the faith of his closest disciples was at times. We shouldn't be starting with a default assumption that people have genuine faith or even faith of any type, and nothing in Matthew 7:21 justifies the conclusion that people who said "Lord, Lord" without doing the will of God had faith.

Raising Hypotheticals Against Eternal Security

2026-07-07T05:13:58.705-04:00

A post I wrote last week addressed some problems with the claims Trent Horn has made about the history of belief in eternal security. Not only were there individuals who believed in some form of eternal security before the Reformation, but there were movements involving such beliefs spanning multiple regions of the world over multiple generations. Not only was there a mercyist movement that Augustine responded to in his day (see here and here), but he also thought that such beliefs were held as far back as the time of the apostles, even though he disagreed with the mercyists, and he acknowledged that some of them were Christians. Or, to cite an example from the medieval era, think of Gottschalk and his allies and the people who held similar views around the same time. These and other examples illustrate that Trent and others (e.g., his supporters in the comments section below his video) have highly inaccurate views of the historical theology on this subject.

What I want to focus on in this post is Trent's use of hypothetical scenarios to argue against eternal security in his debate with Ryan Hemelaar. It's often an effective tactic, especially in a context like the cross examination section of a debate, with a timer running and the questioner steering the discussion. That sort of context creates a certain atmosphere, certain expectations, impressions, and emotions. And it can be, and often is, misleading. There's especially potential for it to be misleading in a culture that's as immature in religious and moral contexts as ours is. And people who are inordinately dependent on sources like YouTube for their information, with all of the shallowness, emotionalism, laziness, and other problems that go along with that, are particularly likely to reach false conclusions.

When people haven't thought much about matters like theology and ethics, they're more liable to overlook or underestimate certain factors involved in evaluating something. One person is aware of and has given a lot of thought to five different reasons for avoiding a particular sin, and he's given a lot of consideration to the theological issues involved and the problems with making good behavior a means of justification. By contrast, somebody else hasn't given much attention to any factor other than his fear of losing his salvation if he commits that sin and his dependence on that fear to keep motivating him if he's to avoid the sin under consideration. The latter individual and his position are less mature, but he and his position will often be mistaken for being more mature. He allegedly takes the sin under consideration more seriously, his position supposedly is more likely to benefit society by giving people more motivation to avoid the sin in question, etc. Many of the factors involved - like a higher degree of love, joy, peace, security, and willingness to risk on the part of the first individual - will get overlooked or underestimated while people evaluate the situation in a lopsided manner that gives too much attention to certain things and too little to others.

Hypotheticals like Trent's can focus on one issue while excluding or distorting another. The hypothetical can assume the existence of one or more things that we have reason to believe wouldn't exist. They're hypotheticals of Trent's choosing, which Ryan has to respond to off the top of his head on short notice and without much time, knowing that an audience is watching and will likely be evaluating him and his position based on a wide variety of factors, including many that shouldn't be getting so much attention, if any (his facial expressions, his tone of voice, etc.).

Life is large and complicated. Any belief system worth taking seriously can have difficult questions asked of it or questions asked of it that seem difficult under certain circumstances (if the audience is making some false assumptions, for example). So, questions similar to what Trent posed to Ryan could be asked of Trent. Ask him about borderline cases regarding the distinction between venial and mortal sins. Ask him about somebody who keeps committing venial sins, especially ones that people often think are close to being mortal or that some people think are mortal, but others don't. Ask him how he supposedly knows that anybody who commits what he considers a mortal sin is walking away from Christ, whereas people who commit a large number of venial sins, even the worst of venial sins, allegedly aren't. Ask him a series of hypotheticals about deathbed conversions and ask him if they involve "cheap grace", a phrase he used in the debate. Ask him about how to judge hypothetical disputed claims regarding apostolic succession, whether certain individuals were a Pope or an antipope, whether a baptism or penance was performed validly, etc. In some contexts, issues like those are relevant to whether you possess salvation, what you would need to do to regain salvation if you lost it, and other matters that could be brought up in a way similar to how Trent questioned Ryan's position. And Trent could be asked all sorts of historical questions (e.g., the Biblical passages that seem to refer to people as saved while in a state of mortal sin; the widespread disagreements among pre-Reformation sources about issues pertaining to eternal security; why people like Trent have systems of penance so different than those of earlier figures, like Basil of Caesarea; what he makes of modern Catholic ecumenism as it relates to soteriology, not just ecumenism toward Protestants and other professing Christians, but also ecumenism toward followers of non-Christian religions and atheists, for example). Since Catholicism involves a larger means of justification, there are more such questions that could be asked of somebody like Trent than of somebody like Ryan.

George Washington And Christianity

2026-07-04T12:41:27.760-04:00

Mary Thompson, a research historian at Mount Vernon:

Having pulled together both George and Martha Washington’s writings relating to religion, I can say that Martha Washington, who is generally considered a very devout, orthodox Christian, refers most often to “God,” occasionally to “Providence,” and never to Jesus. On this question, as well as on so many others, the critics seem to expect Washington to sound like a modern, evangelical Christian, when he was an 18th century Virginia Anglican....

I do believe that the evidence suggests that George Washington was a true Christian, but would remind everyone that he was a rather typical 18th century Anglican. The Anglican/Episcopal Church in Virginia did not come under the influence of evangelicalism until about the last decade of George Washington’s life. When you read the letters of the members of the extended Washington/Custis families in the 19th century, they sound very different from George and Martha Washington, when discussing topics related to religion. That difference relates directly to evangelical influence.

Having said that, I would also say that there were changes in Washington’s life and in the Anglican Church in his lifetime, that led him to change his religious practice, but there is no evidence that he changed his core beliefs.

Here's George Washington in his own words, in his Circular Letter To The States on June 8, 1783:

When we consider the magnitude of the prize we contended for, the doubtfull nature of the Contest, and the favorable manner in which it has terminated, we shall find the greatest possible reason for gratitude and rejoycing—This is a theme that will afford infinite delight to every benevolent & liberal Mind, whether the event in contemplation be considerd as the source of present enjoyment or the parent of future happiness; and we shall have equal occasion to felicitate ourselves, on the lot which Providence has assigned us, whether we view it in a natural, a political, or a moral point of light....

The free cultivation of letters, the unbounded extension of Commerce, the progressive Refinement of manners, the growing liberality of sentiment, and, above all, the pure and benign light of Revelation, have had a meliorating influence on Mankind and encreased the blessings of Society. At this Auspicious period the United States came into existence as a Nation, and if their Citizens should not be completely free & happy, the fault will be entirely their own....

according to the System of Policy the States shall adopt at this moment, they will stand or fall, and by their confirmation or lapse, it is yet to be decided whether the Revolution must ultimately be considered as a blessing or a curse: a blessing or a curse, not to the present Age alone, for with our fate will the destiny of unborn Millions be involved....

It remains then to be my final and only request, that your Excellency will communicate these sentiments to your legislature at their next meeting and that they may be considered as the Legacy of one who has ardently wished on all occasions to be usefull to his Country and who even in the shade of Retirement will not fail to implore the divine benediction upon it.

I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination & obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large and particularly for their brethren who have served in the field—and finally that he would most graciously be pleas’d to dispose us all to do Justice, to love mercy and to demean ourselves, with that Charity, humility & pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristicks of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion & without an humble immitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.

Catholics Contradicting Each Other About Eternal Security

2026-07-02T20:33:39.467-04:00

I recently saw a Catholic claim that no Christian believed in eternal security before the Reformation. Supposedly, only Gnostics believed in it during that timeframe. See the comments section of the thread here. And Trent Horn repeatedly denied that there was any pre-Reformation support for eternal security in his debate with Ryan Hemelaar (of NeedGod.net). Go here to watch Trent say that no "notable" Christian held to eternal security before the Reformation. He goes on to refer to how the concept is "absent" before the Reformation. And here he refers to how "nobody" held the view during that timeframe. Later he asks Ryan to name "any individual" from the second to the fifteenth centuries. Near the end of the debate, Trent comments that even "named heretics" didn't hold to eternal security, and he refers to it as a "radical, novel" concept.

There are some occasions when Trent frames the discussion around whether people during the pre-Reformation era believed in eternal security "as you [Ryan] believe". But there are other occasions when Trent seems to be referring to belief in eternal security in general (the topic of the debate), not just Ryan's view in particular, such as when he cites scholars commenting on the subject. Furthermore, Trent objected to Ryan's bringing up the details of Catholic soteriology in particular, wanting to focus on the rejection of eternal security more broadly, not just the Catholic form of rejecting it. So, if Trent doesn't want the debate narrowed to all of the details of his view in particular, it wouldn't seem to make sense for him to want to narrow Ryan's side of the debate to all of the details of his view in particular. It seems, then, that Trent's denials of any belief in eternal security before the Reformation are meant to cover more than just Ryan's position. And many other Catholics have expressed such sentiments, as the Twitter thread I linked at the start of this post illustrates, and the comments section below Trent's video illustrates it. Some of the commenters there made remarks similar to the ones I've cited from Trent above.

See here for a discussion of many pre-Reformation sources who advocated some form of eternal security. The posts linked there include citations of Catholic scholars acknowledging the doctrine's existence among Christians before the Reformation, including named individuals, church fathers, etc.

And notice that the Catholic I cited in a Twitter thread above claims that only Gnostics believed in eternal security before the Reformation, whereas Trent repeatedly says that "nobody" believed in it, no "named heretics" believed in it, etc. That's another apparent contradiction among the Catholics who have discussed this topic.

Trent also seems to be contradicting himself. Go here to watch him acknowledging, in a video a couple of years ago, that some pre-Reformation Christians believed in eternal security. He underestimates the support for the doctrine in that video, but he acknowledges that there was some support for it. He cites some unnamed figures Augustine refers to and cites a named individual, Jovinian, who apparently would be a heretic by Trent's standards. He tells us that he doesn't know of any "prominent" individuals who believed in eternal security before the Reformation. That may be why he includes some qualifiers in his more recent debate with Ryan, such as referring to "notable" Christians and "named" heretics. Yet, at other points in the debate, he uses language that goes beyond such qualifiers. I don't know if he was wavering, choosing his words poorly, or whatever else, but there are at least some portions of his debate with Ryan that contradict what Trent said in the earlier video. In that earlier video, he acknowledged that he may have misrepresented the history of belief in eternal security in the past by saying that nobody held the view before the Reformation. It's commendable that Trent offered that correction, and I initially planned to only cite those comments from him in this post. I later saw his debate with Ryan, though, and decided that more needed to be said.

And what's the significance of the qualifiers Trent has brought up (in his earlier video and in the more recent debate), such as referring to "notable" Christians and "named" heretics? As I mentioned in a recent post on the perpetual virginity of Mary, Catholics frequently appeal to anonymous, apocryphal, schismatic, heretical, and non-prominent sources when arguing for their beliefs. The Bible does the same, as Ryan pointed out with the example of the 7000 Elijah needed to be informed about who didn't bow the knee to Baal.

It should also be pointed out that there are many disagreements among those who reject eternal security, including among Catholics, concerning the theology involved, not just concerning church history. See here regarding how much the opponents of eternal security have disagreed with each other about matters like what would cause the loss of justification and what would need done to regain it.

It could be objected that Protestants also disagree among themselves about such issues. But Protestants make different claims, so they have a different burden of proof. Catholics claim that they're so much more knowledgeable about church history, that the church fathers were part of their church that was handing down all apostolic teaching in unbroken succession throughout church history, that they have so much unity with each other, that it's so advantageous for them to have an infallible church to settle their disagreements, etc.

The Evidence For Fulfilled Prophecy In Revelation

2026-07-02T05:24:59.459-04:00

I've occasionally been posting about evidence for the book of Revelation (here and here, for example). Another line of evidence for the book is fulfilled prophecy. I'm a futurist and premillennialist, so I think most of the prophecies in the book haven't been fulfilled yet. Somebody who holds a different view, like some form of preterism, could argue for the fulfillment of a larger portion of the book. But what I want to do here is discuss a line of evidence that Christians in general should agree about.

Some of the prophecies in Revelation are supposed to have been fulfilled near the time of the writing of the document even under the most futurist sort of perspective. I'm thinking of some predictions in chapters 2-3 about the churches to whom the book is addressed. And those churches would have been in a good position to know whether the predictions had been accurate. The stronger the evidence for the early acceptance of Revelation in those regions of the world, the more likely the accuracy of the predictions is.

See my post here that discusses the early reception of Revelation. Irenaeus refers to how "those men who saw John face to face" had commented on a textual issue in Revelation, which suggests that those eyewitnesses of John held the book in high regard and continued discussing it after its initial circulation (Against Heresies 5:30:1). The post linked above also discusses how some comments of Tertullian suggest that the seven churches addressed in Revelation 2-3 accepted the book. The evidence for Revelation's early acceptance, including among the seven churches addressed in the book, is early, comes from sources who were well positioned to judge the subject reliably, and is widespread.

That situation is best explained if the prophecies of Revelation 2-3 were accurate.

Papias' Acceptance Of The Synoptics And John

2026-06-30T05:06:01.578-04:00

Another early example of what I discussed in my last post, though a less significant example, is Papias. It's well known that he thought highly of the Synoptics, as cited in Eusebius, Church History 3:39:15-16. Something that gets discussed much less is how various phrases and concepts found in the Johannine literature are found in Papias' writings as well, including in forms very unlikely to be merely coincidental. In all likelihood, Papias was familiar with the Johannine documents in the New Testament and thought highly of them. As I wrote in a post several years ago, "I've already noted Papias' use of 'the elder', a term that John applied to himself. In most lists of the apostles, Peter's name appears first. But in Papias' list, Andrew comes before Peter, followed by Philip. That order (Andrew, Peter, Philip) is identical to the order in which Jesus calls the disciples in John's gospel (John 1:40-41, 1:43). The same passage in Papias uses the phrase 'truth itself' (3 John 12), which is somewhat unusual." For a discussion of some other evidence for Papias' high view of both the gospel of Matthew and the gospel of John, see the sixth paragraph here. Just after discussing Papias' high view of the gospels of Mark and Matthew, Eusebius noted that Papias "uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John" (Church History 3:39:16). And he was a premillennialist and is reported to have corroborated the book of Revelation in some sense (see section E2 here). The sort of high regard for the writings of John suggested by all of these lines of evidence is furthered by Papias' reference to an elder named John who seems to have still been alive for some part of Papias' life and whose testimony Papias is interested in (Eusebius, Church History 3:39:3-4). For an argument that the John Papias refers to there was the son of Zebedee, see here. And see my recent post here for evidence that Irenaeus likely had the son of Zebedee in mind when he referred to Papias as an eyewitness of John (Against Heresies 5:33:4). Papias was a bishop in Asia Minor, the region where the seven churches of Revelation resided. He and the audience for whom he wrote provide further examples of what I referred to in my last post, people who seem to have held views that harmonized what's found in the Synoptics and the fourth gospel. Papias was closely associated with John in a variety of ways (as an eyewitness of John, as somebody who lived in an area of the world where John lived and had a lot of influence, as somebody who thought highly of the New Testament's Johannine documents, etc.), and he held a high view of the Synoptics.

How The Book Of Revelation Corroborates The Synoptic Gospels And John's Agreement With Them

2026-06-28T06:58:17.080-04:00

Critics of the fourth gospel often fault it for its differences from the Synoptics. But there's a long history of Christians arguing that John wrote with a knowledge of and agreement with the Synoptics and an intention to supplement them.

For example, though John has much less material on the theme of the kingdom of God than the Synoptics do, he does mention it occasionally. It's not as though he was unaware of the concept, denied that Jesus spoke about it, or anything like that. Most likely, he agreed with what the Synoptics reported on the subject, but thought the earlier gospels had covered the topic adequately and decided to give it less attention than the other gospels had.

A few years ago, I put together a collection of posts on the overlap between John and the Synoptics, and I've updated the post occasionally since then. John has much more in common with the other gospels than people typically suggest. And my post earlier this year on the Jesus of the book of Revelation provides some examples of overlap between Revelation and the Synoptics.

Notice that the presence of Synoptic themes in Revelation provides further evidence for the Synoptics' portrayal of Jesus and for the apostle John's agreement with the Synoptics. And the presence of Synoptic material in Revelation that wasn't included in the fourth gospel adds credibility to the idea that John was intentionally avoiding some Synoptic material in his gospel, even though he agreed with that material. To cite a couple of examples, my post on Revelation linked above mentions how Jesus uses the language and themes associated with knocking and the language and themes associated with keys in the Synoptics and in Revelation in ways in which they're not found in the fourth gospel. When John wrote his gospel, he was free to leave out Jesus' comments in the Synoptics on themes like knocking and keys. Maybe it was material John wanted to leave out because the other gospels had already covered it (multiple times and in multiple contexts), which would allow him to give more space to other material. Or he may have left it out without noticing or for some reason not having to do with the knocking or keys material in particular. But when he wrote Revelation, he was under constraint to record what Jesus and others (e.g., angels) said in that context, and Jesus and the others involved repeated Synoptic themes like the ones I referred to above (knocking, keys). So, the parallels between the Synoptics and Revelation add weight to the notion that in his gospel, John was supplementing the Synoptics while agreeing with them rather than leaving out Synoptic material he was unaware of or disagreed with.

Casting doubt on the authorship attributions of the documents involved isn't an adequate response. Even if you think Revelation was written by somebody other than John the son of Zebedee, the author presumably is still somebody other than any of the Synoptics' authors. So, we'd still have a source other than the Synoptics' authors corroborating what the Synoptics report. And even if you think the author of Revelation is different than the author of the fourth gospel, it would still be likely that Revelation is an early document produced by and/or for individuals who thought highly of the apostle John and the fourth gospel. For an argument that the Beloved Disciple of the fourth gospel is most likely John the son of Zebedee and an argument against the view that there was a second prominent John, often referred to as John the Elder, see here. The fourth gospel and Revelation are both Johannine documents: both are attributed to a prominent John who's likely the son of Zebedee, and they use similar concepts and language (Jesus as the Word, Jesus as the Lamb, Jesus as the fulfillment of Zechariah 12:10, etc.). A difference of authorship between the fourth gospel and Revelation would diminish the significance of Revelation's agreements with the Synoptics, but the agreements would still have some evidential value, since they would reflect the views of some early sources who held a high view of John and the fourth gospel. Revelation provides evidence that early sources, most likely first-century ones, with views like those of the fourth gospel thought highly of Synoptic material not included in the fourth gospel. That increases the plausibility of the acceptance of such Synoptic material on the part of the fourth gospel's author.

And notice the significance of Revelation's audience. It was directed to seven churches, including a couple of the most prominent ones in early Christianity (Ephesus and Smyrna, whose prominence is reflected in what sources like the rest of the New Testament, Ignatius of Antioch, and Irenaeus say about those cities and those churches). So, the acceptance we see in Revelation of both Synoptic and Johannine views of Jesus is something the author expected such a wide and significant audience to accept.