Triablogue

Isaiah's Greater Servant

2026-07-26T07:07:04.483-04:00

I've written a lot over the years about Isaiah's Messianic prophecies. See here on Isaiah 9:1-7 and here on the Servant Songs, for example.

One of the most common objections to a traditional Christian view of the latter, the Servant Songs, is that Israel or a remnant in Israel could be the Servant or is referred to as the Servant elsewhere in Isaiah. Why not interpret the Servant Songs that way? Why think they're about Jesus or have any kind of significant secondary application to him?

One answer is to highlight something in the objection that's being raised. Why refer to Israel or a remnant within Israel? Partly because different Servant passages seem to be referring to different entities. So, the idea that there's one entity the other Servant passages are consistently referring to, and we therefore should assume the passages Christians apply to Jesus are also about that one other entity, is false. A good way of illustrating that fact is to cite the reference to Isaiah as "my [God's] servant" in 20:3 (or the reference to David in that manner in 37:35, etc.). The Servant theme is prominent in Isaiah (which is more evidence for the unity of the book), and it's undeniably applied to at least a few different entities.

I've argued for Jesus' fulfillment of the passages often referred to as the Servant Songs elsewhere, like in the posts linked above. I won't repeat all of the details here, but something I want to highlight is how stark the differences are between the Servant Songs, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the Servant passages immediately surrounding the Servant Songs. Notice the plural "men" in 41:14, the plural "people" in 42:22 and "we" in 42:24, the references to the sinfulness of the Servant in 42:18-25, the same characteristics in 43:8-28, 44:21-23, 45:4-5, etc. In fact, the Servant Songs refer to some other Servant who will redeem the Servant referred to earlier (e.g., 49:5-7), as I've argued in posts like the ones linked earlier.

The title of this post is meant to allude to the concept of the Messiah as David's greater son. Isaiah has a concept of a Servant who's greater than the others.

Late Medieval And Reformation Sources On The Perpetual Virginity Of Mary

2026-07-23T05:12:36.327-04:00

TurretinFan and Dan Chapa recently produced a video discussing the diversity of views of the perpetual virginity of Mary held by sources of the late medieval and Reformation eras. It draws on some of the material in my recent posts here, here, and here.

Graham Morris On The Reliability Of His Levitation Photographs

2026-07-22T10:03:22.358-04:00

My last post discussed some significant comments Graham Morris made about his famous photographs of Janet Hodgson allegedly levitating in the context of the Enfield Poltergeist. I want to quote some of his relevant comments here.

Aside from the importance of his comments in the context of his levitation photos, there's the issue of the general quality of Maurice Grosse and Guy Playfair's investigation of the case. They've been criticized a lot over the years - by Anita Gregory, Tony Cornell, and others - for allegedly handling the Enfield case poorly. You can click on the links just provided for responses to their criticisms. (And I've written other responses.) Some of the criticisms have had some validity, like what I've discussed here and in other posts, but the criticisms have been largely inaccurate. Many of the best aspects of Grosse and Playfair's work have been overlooked or underestimated. See my discussion with David Robertson about the scientific documentation they gathered for Janet's paranormal abilities, for example, such as testing her ability to bend metal at the Hodgsons' house in 1977 (as described in the video clip here) and a weight gain experiment conducted at Birkbeck College (part of the University of London) in 1982. Skeptics often object to the lack of video evidence, but Grosse and Playfair arranged for a video team from Pye Business Communications to come into the house the same month the investigation of the case began. Go here to listen to Ron Denney of Pye describing how their camera equipment malfunctioned in apparently paranormal ways while they were in the house, ways he describes as "absolutely impossible" and "one chance in a million". And Stewart Lamont's video captured what seems to be the poltergeist's knocking occurring elsewhere in the house while the Hodgson girls were being filmed sitting on a couch (with the other Hodgson children also accounted for), contrary to the typical skeptical argument that they faked all of the phenomena. I've discussed other examples of the quality of the investigation here. Graham Morris' recent comments about how they handled photography issues, quoted below, are worth adding to the list.

I'll be quoting his comments from two different sections of the podcast he appeared on, the first starting here, the second starting here:

The first I saw of that [levitation photograph] was the following day. It was all taken on color transparency, which needed to go to a professional lab, be processed, and I would pick it up sort of late afternoon the following day, and that's the first I saw of that. I'd normally pick it up on my way back up to Enfield, where either Maurice or/and Guy would be there waiting. And we all sort of looked at it together, really. I'm not the expert. I just press the button, you know. I'm there to photograph it. I can't tell you what's happening [in the photographs]. I don't know....

Well, [my impression of what the photos show is] slightly clouded by the SPR [Society for Psychical Research] guys that were there who were so excited that, "Oh, my God! You've got this picture of a levitation!", and, you know, various other things. And, all right, I was young, so I'd believe them. But it is what it is, you know. It, but the argument there is the sequence from her not just sort of clambering out of bed and then jumping and flying through the air. It's the sequence of a motor-driven sequence of pictures where in every one - there probably half a dozen frames of each one - she is in exactly the same position right the way. So, she's up [in the air] already and going across the room. And that's the bit that everybody finds hard to believe....

Well, I think I wouldn't say impossible [is the term to use to describe what the photo shows], but I think what sort of proves it to me is Janet is, not just that expression on her face, and the fact that she flew across the room, hit the headboard of this bed on the right, which you can see there, white with that piece of wood missing. She'd hit that, she'd hit the floor, she'd hit the door, the door handle, she'd hit all sorts of things. Why would she do that? Why would anyone who, you know, for no reason? You don't, you're not, you don't crave publicity that much that you damage yourself. And, also, talking to her, days, she just frightened to death by everything that was happening....

There was far too much over eighteen months [for everything to be faked]. Far too much happened. The first night you have things flying around the room. Then from there on, you know, we'd sit there. We were, it all actually got to the point where we were bored when the [drinking] glasses started moving around [paranormally] and things like that....

What you're not seeing [when you look at an isolated photo of Janet in the air] is the start of the sequence. I mean, you never see that, because you only ever see the spectacular picture of her flying through the air. But the sequence starts with just her head above the [bed covers], and then it's within a very, very short space of time [a sixth of a second or less] she is there. She's up there [in the air] from that prone position, with her tucked in the bed. And that is seen on most, if not all, of the sequences that I've done. Right from the start. They [the photo sequences] start off with her lying down. But, that said, that the only way that I can, I'm not in the room. I'm downstairs. I'm listening to a tape. We tried to devise all sorts of different things without upsetting the family or kids or whatever. Different switches that would trigger the camera without us having to hear for sound. I mean, the sound that we heard the first, that first thing we heard was a scream normally or, you know, a crash as she hit something. So, we're trying to work backwards, but we were putting in photosensitive beams, pressure switches under the bed, so that when the bed springs started to go, when the bed, there was no pressure on the bed, that would trigger the camera off and all sorts of other things. But it started off with her flat out and covered up....

[Asked whether one of the levitation photos was a hoax:] Certainly not a hoax. She wouldn't put herself through that.

Since an audience member asked about Janet's bed covers being tucked in, and Morris commented on the subject, I want to address that issue briefly. It's something Maurice Grosse did from time to time. You sometimes hear it discussed on the tapes. It makes sense, since tucking in the covers after Janet has gotten into the bed makes some forms of faking more difficult. It's another example of how well Grosse handled many aspects of the case.

But getting back to Morris, I agree with him that Janet's getting hurt during these throwing incidents has some significance. The bigger issue, though, and what I'm focused on here, is the use of so many means of recording what happened and preventing hoaxing (the use of tape recorders, tucking in the covers of Janet's bed, a camera controlled remotely that the children didn't have control over, taking multi-photo sequences at a sixth of a second apart or faster, "photosensitive beams, pressure switches under the bed", and "all sorts of other things").

A Skeptic's Concessions About The Enfield Poltergeist

2026-07-21T05:13:45.265-04:00

The Uncanny podcast recently did an episode on Enfield. The podcast is hosted by Danny Robins and includes analysis from a couple of paranormal researchers, Ciaran O'Keeffe (representing the skeptical perspective) and Evelyn Hollow (representing belief in the paranormal). There was a segment with Graham Morris as well, a photographer who covered the Enfield case for the Daily Mirror and witnessed some paranormal events. He made some significant comments, including ones I hadn't heard before, from him or any other source.

I'll be responding to several aspects of the program and other people's responses to it, but I want to begin where the video linked above does. It begins with a clip of some of O'Keeffe's concessions. He didn't even come close to offering a good skeptical explanation of the case, and he made some significant concessions about the quality of the evidence for it.

The video starts with O'Keeffe's comment about how he "defies other skeptics" to offer an explanation for the October 26, 1977 incident involving a fireplace being ripped out of a wall it was cemented into. Hollow is nodding her head while he makes that comment. They're not the only paranormal researchers who have brought up the significance of that event, including how difficult it is to explain from a skeptical perspective. If you click on the link above, you can read an article I wrote several years ago that analyzes the event, based on the audio recording of it produced by Guy Playfair, which I've listened to, and other evidence. That article cites some comments on the event from other paranormal researchers. It's not the most famous event in the case, but it's probably the one skeptics respect the most.

Near the beginning of the episode, there's a discussion of the significance of Enfield. Go here to watch Robins, O'Keeffe, and Hollow discussing how important it is. Keep that in mind when you read the typical contemptuous and dismissive comments skeptics make when Enfield comes up, such as in the comments sections of YouTube videos or on Facebook or Twitter. Because the behavior of Enfield skeptics is so bad, I put together a collection of responses to skeptical myths about the case. Go to any discussion of Enfield on YouTube, a message board, Facebook, or wherever else, and you're likely to find the same kind of ignorance, misinformation, bad argumentation, and other forms of bad behavior repeated again and again and again. Part of the problem is that believers in the case's authenticity are themselves so ignorant and unwilling to speak up and, if they do speak up, unwilling to persist in carrying through with discussions rather than abandoning them prematurely. The next time you see skeptics making their usual comments about Enfield on YouTube, in a skeptical magazine, or wherever else, remember what O'Keeffe acknowledged (to his credit) about how pleased his fellow skeptics would be if he could offer a good skeptical explanation of the case, which he can't. At least he's more honest about it than skeptics usually are. How did O'Keeffe get the impressions he has about his fellow skeptics (how they view Enfield) if the skeptics are as confident in dismissing Enfield as they often suggest they are?

But he goes on to make some dismissive comments about certain parts of the case elsewhere in the program, and he puts forward potential skeptical explanations of what happened in certain contexts. I want to interact with some of those comments. There are other issues I want to address before that, though.

Be careful about what O'Keeffe said here. He speaks highly of the testimony of the police officers who went to the Hodgsons' house on the night of August 31 to September 1. Go here to read an article I wrote about those officers and other officers involved in the case. It's good that O'Keeffe speaks so highly of them. But he seems to have gotten his information about the male police officer from a book that's apparently incorrect in what it reports about that officer. For a discussion of the subject, go here.

Robins asked the audience what they thought of some famous photographs of Janet Hodgson in the air in her bedroom in the context of some throwing incidents (allegedly being thrown across the room by the poltergeist). Unsurprisingly, as you can see played out in so many internet forums over so many years now, the skeptics in the audience were more vocal than the believers in response to the photos. There seems to be a widespread skeptical mindset that looks for something to latch onto in order to quickly and easily dismiss any paranormal case, and the levitation photos are often used to that end in the Enfield context. What skeptics seem to be doing is isolating the photos from their surrounding context and judging them by an initial impression of whether the photo could be faked by doing something like jumping off a bed. But you can't ignore the surrounding context. And you have to go beyond initial impressions. I've written multiple posts over the years arguing for the authenticity of the levitation photos, and I won't link all of them here. But go here for a representative example. There are several lines of evidence that need to be addressed, and I've never encountered a single skeptic who's even come close to taking all of the relevant evidence into account, much less has offered a good skeptical explanation of that evidence. I saw some people on Facebook asking to see Graham Morris' multi-photo levitation sequences in their original form, side by side. If you go to my page linked above, you'll see two of his original photos side by side, two that he said were taken one-sixth of a second apart.

The issue of Maurice Grosse's biases came up, as it often does. Supposedly, the death of his daughter shortly before he started on the Enfield case would have motivated him to want to find evidence of an afterlife. There's some truth to that. But the objection is usually overdone. Grosse already had what he considered significant evidence of an afterlife, including the postmortem survival of his deceased daughter. He had what he considered a series of paranormal experiences related to her shortly after her death, before he began his Enfield work. From his perspective, he wasn't in need of such evidence. He already had it. And, like other participants in the Enfield case, Grosse's views of the likely source behind the poltergeist changed over time. There was no one view he held consistently. The earliest view he expressed that I'm aware of was put forward on a radio program on which he appeared on September 10, 1977, less than a week after he started on the case. Grosse explained that he currently held a living agent psi view of the poltergeist, meaning that it was being produced by the mind of one or more living individuals. Here are his exact words in response to a caller on the program: "In other words, I don't believe, at the moment, that it is a discarnate entity or a spirit, as you would like to call it. I believe that this is one of the cases where the power is coming from the people involved themselves." (0:41 on tape 35A in Playfair's collection of tapes) Yes, Grosse was biased. No, that's not an adequate response to his testimony or his Enfield work in general.

Predictably, the poltergeist voice got a lot of attention during the Uncanny program and among those who responded to it. And the embodied form of the voice got the attention, while the disembodied form was ignored. But the evidence suggests that the voice was genuinely paranormal, both in its disembodied form and in the embodied form. I've written multiple articles on the subject, the primary one being here. No, it wasn't Bill Wilkins. And, no, there isn't much evidential significance to what the voice knew about the events surrounding Wilkins' death. My article linked above is divided into many different sections, so you can scroll for what you want or do a Ctrl F search for whatever you're interested in if you don't want to read the whole thing. For another article I wrote about the voice, see here.

Go here for Uncanny's discussion of the November 10, 1977 couch levitation. O'Keeffe asks how we know how far the couch rose up, and he appeals to the potential for faulty memories. We know how far the couch went up because of what was reported by the witnesses, how far they said it went up and the distance needed for the couch to turn over as reported. In the original edition of Playfair's book, he comments, "Thanks also to John and Sylvie Burcombe and to Vic and Peggy Nottingham who, with [Peggy Hodgson] and Mr Grosse, have read the manuscript of this book and signed a statement to the effect that it is true." (This House Is Haunted [London, England: Souvenir Press, 1980], 11) That book discusses the couch levitation under consideration here (88), and it mentions that Grosse saw the event happen. He was one of the individuals who signed the statement saying that Playfair's book is accurate. Three of the others who signed that statement were also present on the occasion when the couch levitated. The incident was recorded on Grosse's tape 20Ai. The couch levitation occurs around 4:31 on that tape, when you hear a loud bang, which corroborates the claim that the couch rose high enough to make that much noise when it landed. At 6:32 on the tape, eight people are mentioned as being present: Maurice Grosse, Peggy Hodgson, Janet Hodgson, Margaret Hodgson, Billy Hodgson, John Burcombe, Paul Burcombe, and Peggy Nottingham. Those eight are mentioned about two minutes after the couch levitation, so maybe not all of them were present two minutes earlier. And just because somebody was in the room, that doesn't mean he was looking at the right place at the right time. But Grosse comments on what just happened on the tape, and Playfair's book says Grosse saw the event. Just before and just after Grosse commented on the event on the tape, you hear some people screaming or expressing distress about what just happened in some other way (4:32, 4:37), and it sounds like a minimum of two people other than Grosse did so. The screaming sounds female, and you can hear Paul Burcombe making a comment suggesting he was upset by what just occurred. Go here to watch him commenting in a 2023 interview about seeing the couch levitate. Notice the extent to which Paul says the couch moved, which involves more than just going up a fraction of an inch or some such thing. And you can go here for my discussion of the evidence that Paul's father, John, also saw the levitation. Do a Ctrl F search for "couch" to find the relevant section. That article also discusses some evidence that John Burcombe's testimony on the subject is likely honest and trustworthy. Grosse's comment about the event right after it happened (at 4:33 on the tape) refers to how the couch went up "in front of us all in the room here". Nobody on the tape corrects him. They did correct him on other occasions, when they thought he was wrong about something. Grosse and John Burcombe go on to try to calm down the people in the room, which also makes more sense if a larger rather than smaller number of people saw the event. It looks like at least a few people saw it, probably more. And even those who didn't see it had opportunity to judge the situation reliably. A couch is a large object. Turning it over would take significant time and effort. If the event was faked, there isn't much time from the banging sound at 4:31 to the screaming at 4:32 and Grosse's comment at 4:33. Wouldn't the person or people (it probably would take more than one) who faked the event be seen next to the couch at the time, with their bodies in the unusual positions they would be in just after moving such an object? The idea that nobody noticed such a faking of the incident or that one or more individuals did, but never commented on it, is absurd. And O'Keeffe's suggestion that faulty memories may be involved is likewise problematic. We have a recording of the event. That isn't just a matter of memory. As Guy Playfair told another skeptic, "My tape recorder was on practically all the time, and you can't accuse tape recorders of having false memory." And the memories of this particular event come from multiple individuals who remembered the same event in the same place at the same time. Were they all mistaken in the same series of ways? Yes, one person's faulty memory could influence what another person came to believe, but it's unlikely that multiple people would lose so much of their own memory of the event and so uncritically adopt the same other person's memory in the same way. The possibility of such a scenario doesn't make it the best explanation. And we have evidence that John Burcombe's memory of the incident was significantly independent of Grosse's, as discussed in my article on Burcombe linked above. Given that evidence of one of the witnesses' independence from Grosse, why think multiple other witnesses were so dependent on him (or that there was some other dependence scenario)? O'Keeffe says he can "easily" explain the couch incident from a skeptical point of view. Not really.

Graham Morris' comments during the program (the segment with him starts here) are well worth listening to. He mentions a lot of details I don't recall having heard from anybody else before (e.g., what he and Vic Nottingham did when they first went into the Hodgsons' house after Morris arrived for his initial visit). It makes me wonder how many interviews, documentaries, and such over the years have left out significant comments he and other witnesses have made. Often, a witness will be interviewed for a long time, but only a small percentage of what he said will be aired.

Morris spends some time discussing the levitation photos (click here for the relevant part of the program), and he comments that "every" multi-photo sequence of a levitation has Janet either lying in bed or in the air (57:03). He comments on the subject again at 1:05:11. It seems that he's denying that Janet was ever caught in the process of getting up in bed or in the process of jumping, for example. That's highly significant. As I've explained elsewhere, the Hodgson children didn't have control over when the camera would go off, and the camera was sometimes triggered at random or in some other unpredictable way, so the failure to capture Janet faking a levitation on camera, if she did fake the events, is much harder to explain accordingly. At 1:05:58, Morris refers to pressure switches that were used to detect when the bed springs were released, which apparently is how some of the photos were taken at the appropriate time. Remember, the typical skeptical argument is that Janet faked every one of these events. But the camera (often filming at one shot every sixth of a second or faster) just happened to keep missing the points in time when the photos would have revealed faking? And how can moving from being horizontal on a bed to being vertical in the air in a sixth of a second or less be accomplished by normal means? It's undeniably paranormal. It seems that skeptics, if they're to maintain their position, will have to accuse Morris (and the multiple witnesses who saw some of these levitations occur, etc.) of lying, having highly inaccurate memories, using equipment that happened to malfunction in a way that makes it seem that something paranormal occurred, or some such thing.

Morris mentioned that Janet sometimes got hurt in the process of these levitations. One of the photos I've posted here shows Janet apparently landing on her head at the conclusion of one of these levitation (throwing) incidents.

Since the issue of the condition of Janet's bed covers in the photos came up, I want to briefly address it again. The levitation episodes sometimes involved teleporting through objects. When Janet levitated several times on May 30, 1978, both she and her mother reported that Janet's body passed through the bed covers rather than moving them with her (12:40 on Grosse's tape 87A). The levitations reported on December 15-16 of 1977 involved teleporting through a wall. On November 14 of that year, Janet was thrown from a bed in the Burcombes' house while the Burcombes' cat was lying on the bed with her. The cat remained there, undisturbed, which seems best explained if Janet was teleported through one or more objects in the process, possibly even through the cat (11:15 on Grosse's tape 22A). In addition to the teleportation issue, some of the photos show Janet going up from the bed in the area of her pillow (a highly unlikely location if the incidents were faked, as I've explained elsewhere). It seems that the throwing incidents often involved teleportation or being pulled out of the bed in the area of the pillow.

At the end of the Uncanny program, Morris, O'Keeffe, and Hollow were asked to provide an assessment of the levitation photo they'd been discussing and the poltergeist voice. Morris was the only one to say the photo wasn't a hoax. Hollow was agnostic about it. O'Keeffe dismissed it as a hoax without hesitation. I doubt that O'Keeffe or Hollow had fully processed what they'd just heard from Morris (about the use of pressure switches when taking the levitation photos and other issues).

I saw some skeptics commenting on the program who faulted O'Keeffe for not being skeptical enough, not making enough of an argument against the case, etc. It's not as though those skeptics made a good case against Enfield themselves. They didn't, and they can't. O'Keeffe is overly skeptical of the paranormal and of Enfield, but at least he behaves much more responsibly than so many other skeptics. And some of his comments about Enfield probably reflect how much the case troubles a lot of skeptics, even if they won't admit it publicly. Give O'Keeffe credit for conceding as much as he did and for doing it in such a public setting.

Healings In UFO And Other Non-Christian Contexts (Part 2)

2026-07-19T06:58:33.982-04:00

Picking up where I left off in my last post, I want to respond to chapter 6 in Rey Hernandez, et al., edd., Beyond UFOs (United States: The Dr. Edgar Mitchell Foundation, 2018). The chapter was written by Joseph Burkes, a retired doctor and UFO researcher, and Preston Dennett, a UFO researcher, and it addresses alleged healings that occurred in the context of UFO experiences. They examine ten cases and discuss some other research on the topic.

The cases examined have a lot of diversity. Most of the experiencers are named, but some aren't. The healings are attributed to a wide variety of sources: grays, insectoids, Nordics, orbs, etc. The last case involves an unusual mixture of Catholic beliefs, prayer, attribution of the healing to an angel, and some elements that seem to be of a UFO nature. The alleged aliens range from apparently benevolent to seemingly ambiguous to apparently malevolent in their behavior. Some of the UFO activity is affiliated with some kind of message (e.g., a need to take better care of our environment) and some isn't, and the nature of the messages varies.

Most of the ten cases consist of only the testimony of one person, the alleged experiencer. The other cases involve corroboration by one or more other sources. The authors' research into one case seems to have included an interview with the experiencer's wife (approximate Kindle location 8898), for example, who's reported to have witnessed some of the paranormal aspects of the experience. The last case, involving one of the editors of the book, names his wife as a participant in the events under consideration, the healing of a dog, and names a veterinarian who's supposed to have examined the dog before and after the healing. I didn't notice any indication that there was documentation from the veterinarian, a discussion with him on the part of Burkes or Dennett, or anything like that. But the owner of the dog who was interviewed, Rey Hernandez, is referred to as living in the Miami area, and there is a veterinarian by the name he mentioned working in that area (Phil Cruz here), and he seems to have been working as a veterinarian at the time Hernandez refers to. It looks like medical documentation was provided in two of the cases. One involved documentation that the woman in question had Chronic Fatigue Immune Dysfunction Syndrome (9111), but I don't think any of the documentation provided demonstrates any kind of paranormal change in her condition. The other case with medical documentation will be discussed below.

There are some significant problems with the medical claims made and the lack of documentation in some of the cases. One of the experiencers, James Forsythe, referred to at least a few doctors who allegedly had medical evidence for multiple healings. He claimed, "They told me they have my case listed as miraculous and unexplainable." (8618) But he didn't provide any kind of documentation, as far as I can tell. I'll quote a portion of Joseph Burkes' analysis of Forsythe's claims:

This case demonstrates some of the challenges in evaluating claims of UAP [unidentified aerial phenomena] healings when there are no medical records available for review....

The same limitations for a medical discussion without records apply even more so to Jim’s complex clinical history relating to the surgical excision of a brain tumor. First of all, there is no medical term “hypopituitary brain tumor.” [a condition Forsythe apparently claimed he had]...Jim Forsythe’s statement that, “Usually when you cut the corpus collosum, it’s instant death…” [a claim Forsythe said he was told by multiple doctors] is generally not true. In other clinical settings, such as a treatment for severe uncontrolled epilepsy, the cutting of the corpus collosum has been an accepted medical procedure and doesn’t result in “instant death.”...

It should be pointed out that what is called “high strangeness” is not a topic that the medical establishment is prepared to address in any form whatsoever. Thus, when the medical staff express their astonishment and confusion to patients about the amazing outcomes associated with these cases, in my judgment, they would not dare to put such observations into a patient’s chart notes [contrary to Forsythe's claim that his healing was mentioned in such a way in the doctors' records].

(8633)

So, even a sympathetic doctor and UFO researcher analyzing Forsythe's case sees a series of substantial problems with it. And there are some aspects of Forsythe's testimony outside the medical context that are problematic. For example:

"Forsythe later learned that much of the knowledge he was being taught by the mantis beings corresponded with sacred Essene rituals, Masonic ceremonies, and the ancient Aramaic language. Like many contactees, Forsythe has worked hard behind the scenes to help a large number of people. However, he has also suffered bitterly at the hands of his family, who do not believe in the validity of his encounters, and actually attempted (and failed) to have him committed to a psychiatric institution." (8577)

Similar comments are made about the experiencer in another case:

"She called out her boyfriend, and he viewed the craft as it moved overhead and off into the distance. Amazed, Ek Mau [a pseudonym] told everyone about the craft, even calling the police to report it. To her shock, the police didn’t believe her and accused her of being crazy. Events quickly escalated, and Ek Mau found herself being carted off to a psychiatric hospital, where she was forcefully given anti-psychotic medication. Thankfully, she was released, but her reputation was damaged, and her troubles with authorities became an ongoing battle in her life." (8714)

As with Forsythe's case, the doctor analyzing these cases found problems with this experiencer's medical claims:

"It is unlikely in my opinion that the specialist, presumably an orthopedic surgeon, would initially recommend ballet as was reported by this contact experiencer. This is because ballet puts considerable stress on the hip joint and without definitive treatment, such intense exercise could be expected to make her hip dislocation worse." (8786)

Many of the claims made by the experiencers suggest that a large amount of corroboration should have been available (doctors and others who had evidence of the healings, X-rays, other people who allegedly saw a UFO the experiencer saw, etc.). So, the lack of evidence in most of the cases isn't due to circumstances that wouldn't allow the provision of evidence. Rather, evidence is frequently not offered where a lot should have been available. And some of the alleged evidence supposedly was lost. "She meant to save the object [something supposedly paranormal associated with an alleged UFO encounter], but for some reason, dropped it in the ashtray, never to be seen again." (8705)

The case that probably would stand out the most to readers from an evidential standpoint is the ninth one. The experiencer, Jim Schaefer, claims to have audio and video recordings of the encounters with the alleged alien(s), and he provided documentation. Burkes writes:

I received a two-page report dated 2-23-15 from CancerCare Manitoba written by a surgical resident “Dr. T” and co-signed by attending physician “Dr. A” in the Department of Surgical Oncology. The record indicated that there was a month-long history of a left-sided neck mass that was increasing in size. The CT scan of the neck showed “a few small nodes.” There is no indication when the CT scan was done. A short time later, despite this unimpressive X-ray report, on physical examination Mr. Schaefer had a 3-4 cm (2 inch) mass in his left neck that was only “slightly tender.” This supports the patient’s history that the mass was rapidly growing. From just “a few small nodes,” it had enlarged to a golf ball size mass. In Dr. T’s note, there is no mention of how hard the mass was, but the patient described it to Preston Dennett as being “bone-hard.” (It is significant to note that swollen lymph nodes that are caused by infections are usually softer and more tender than those caused by malignancy. This goes along with the strong clinical suspicion that Mr. Schaefer had cancer rather than merely some inflamed lymph nodes from an infection.)

After reviewing the CT scan with another physician, it was the surgical resident’s impression that the X-rays showed the presence of a cancer that had originated in another part of the body and had metastasized to lymph nodes in the patient’s neck. According to her note, the plan for Jim Schaefer was to do a fine needle aspiration of the tumor. She also scheduled endoscopy of both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tracts to look for a primary carcinoma that might had spread to the neck. According to the witness, five days later, a blue orb entered his abdomen, and eighteen hours after that the left neck mass disappeared. When surgery was done the following month, only necrotic (dead) tissue was found, with no cancer cells present. Although there was no tissue diagnosis of cancer, it is highly probable in my judgement that an underlying gastrointestinal malignancy had been present. Curiously, the orb entered the abdomen, the presumed site of a primary malignancy according to the medical plan outlined in the surgeon’s note.

(9210)

And Preston Dennett writes:

Schaefer’s case is perhaps the only UAP healing to be captured on film. The evidence in his case is persuasive. He is able to provide medical documentation of his condition, not to mention photographs, audio-recordings and an actual moving film showing the orb which healed him entering his body. Schaefer provided photographs of cuts and marks on his body that resulted following missing time incidents. Like the other people in this study, he reports a life-long history of strange encounters.

What’s unusual about Schaefer’s case (in addition to the quality of evidence) is that he has very little conscious contact, with a large number of missing time incidents and very few memories of what is being done to him. Schaefer’s experiences with ETs have been sometimes unpleasant, resulting in serious injuries following missing-time episodes. The healing he received was the unique outlier. Most of his reported physiological effects have not been beneficial. The cuts, bruises and other injuries are apparently the results of procedures and operations aboard UAPs whose purposes we can only guess at. Schaefer, unfortunately, has yet to receive communication from them regarding their interest in him. If these symptoms he suffers are for some benefit, I’m sure he’d like to know.

(9226)

The medical documentation seems evidentially significant at first glance, but should be scrutinized further. More information is needed about the video, since an orb in a video could so easily be faked or misinterpreted. It seems to be the video here, but perhaps not. I don't see any reason to think the light in that video is paranormal, and it looks like a normal light to me (such as from a laser pointer). Given how much the light in the video looks like it was faked (like somebody steadying a laser pointer on a wall, then moving it across the room), I think the video, if this is the one involved in Schaefer's case, provides reason to be suspicious of his claims rather than to trust him. Judging by the descriptions of his other video, photographic, and audio evidence in the Burkes/Dennett chapter, I think all of it could easily be faked or involve misinterpretations of normal phenomena.

Dennett has a YouTube channel. One of his videos is about what he considers the top twenty cases of UFO healings. The tenth case is Schaefer's. You can watch Dennett discuss it here. At 29:50, he shows a still shot of the blue orb video, and it seems to be taken from the video I linked above, the one that seems to be faked. Dennett doesn't play the video, but he goes on to say that he's seen it, that he has "no doubt" that the healing occurred, and that it's an "amazing" case.

On the other hand, the same video goes on to discuss some other cases that seem more credible, including some for which Denett says there was testimony about the change in the person's medical condition from medical professionals. See the discussion of the seventh case here, for example. I don't know much about the cases. Maybe they wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. My point is that there are other cases he and others have cited that allegedly involve confirmation of a healing from medical professionals and other forms of corroboration.

After discussing the ten cases in the book chapter I've been reviewing, Dennett cites some survey results about healing among people who think they've come into contact with some form of non-human intelligence:

"FREE SURVEY PHASE 2 Question 137: Do you believe that any of these ETs have performed a medical healing on either you or another member of your family? Answer: Out of 1534 respondents, 767 (50%) said yes." (9394)

That's a large percentage, but it's a large percentage of people from a particular group, people who think they've been contacted by non-human intelligence and are willing to participate in such a survey.

What we make of the sort of information I've discussed in this post depends largely on how we view some background issues. I've argued for my positions on such issues in other posts, like my last one. I believe in, and have argued for, the existence of the paranormal, including healings, among both Christians and non-Christians (Judas, Revelation 13:3, etc.). I've also argued that UFOs are paranormal. And there's some overlap between UFO phenomena and other types of phenomena, as some of Dennett's cases illustrate (e.g., the involvement of prayer; the perception that certain beings involved are angels; the involvement of orbs, which are common in multiple paranormal contexts and are ambiguous enough to be interpreted in a variety of ways). That overlap increases the potential for healings in UFO or UFO-related contexts (e.g., a healing that occurs in response to prayer, but is attributed to a UFO experience that happens in close proximity to that prayer). UFO experiences aren't limited to non-Christians. They can happen to Christians as well. Healings are reported somewhat often in UFO contexts, some of the foremost researchers in the field take the healing reports seriously as a category (while not taking every report seriously), and some of the reports involve sources with significant evidence supporting their credibility and no evidence overturning their credibility that I'm aware of. Given factors like the ones I've just mentioned, I think it's likely that healings do occur in UFO contexts to some extent.

We need to be careful to not be overly critical of the weaknesses in some UFO healing cases. The large majority of people, in UFO contexts and elsewhere, don't have much concern for and don't know much about things like documenting or arguing for something like a UFO sighting or a healing. People should have more concern than they do about such matters, but people in general, not just UFO experiencers, don't. And some circumstances don't allow for something like documentation, even for those who are interested in it (e.g., a lack of access to medical records in some parts of the world; an event that happens in front of only one person, so that no other witnesses can be appealed to). Just as many UFO healings don't have much evidence supporting them, many Christian healings aren't supported by much evidence. But the field of researching and arguing for healings is more mature in Christian circles than it is in UFO circles. That's partly because the UFO field is so young in some ways. That's a mitigating factor, but advocates of a UFO worldview and others who hold a high view of UFO phenomena need to think through the implications of how young their movement is. I'll say more about that below.

When I refer to a UFO worldview, I'm not suggesting that everybody who believes in the existence of UFOs or UFO healings in particular, for example, has a worldview that can be described that way. Some people incorporate something paranormal into their worldview (such as apparitions or mediumship) without having a belief system in which that phenomenon is so prominent as to justify describing the person's worldview by that phenomenon. But for those who, for example, think aliens are the highest beings in existence or who give aliens a certain level of prominence as the beings God is using the most to influence us, teach us, and so forth, I think it's appropriate to describe their belief system as a UFO worldview. People who hold what I consider a UFO worldview are just a subcategory of those who believe in UFOs, UFO healings, etc.

I mentioned in my last post that the Christian network of healings is superior to the network of healings in the UFO context. Dennett makes a comment relevant to that subject in his video I linked earlier about the top twenty UFO healing cases. Near the end of the video, he comments, "The cases reach back a hundred years." Elsewhere, he referred to cases from the middle of the twentieth century as happening early. I don't know if he's alluding to the idea that human contact with UFOs originated close to a century ago. Even if he thinks that contact existed earlier to some extent, he would have to concede that there's far less evidence for it earlier, including far less evidence of UFO healings. Either way, whether an advocate of UFOs thinks our contact with them originated more recently or further back, there's nothing comparable to or greater than Christianity's (and Judaism's before it) long history of healings. And in the most recent decades, the Christian system of healings has been better than the UFO system, including in terms of the evidence we have for the healings.

An advocate of a UFO worldview could go beyond healings to appeal to the non-healing aspects of UFOs (the number of UFO sightings; the quality of the evidence for those sightings, such as videos and the large number of witnesses; etc.). But if we're going to go beyond healings, we have to do so on both sides, meaning that a Christian can do the same (see here regarding the evidence for the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy; here regarding prophecy more broadly; here regarding modern apparitions of Jesus; etc.).

I think the best explanation for the major increase in UFO reports (in the healing context and in general) in recent decades is that UFOs are produced by human psi. It's often suggested that the increase in UFO activity is due to something like a concern over nuclear weapons or concern about harm being done to the environment. But the airship reports of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which I and many others consider UFOs, predate nuclear weapons. And the vast majority of UFO cases don't involve any communication or anything else that's discernably done to resolve the situation with nuclear weapons or the situation with the environment. The interactions of UFOs with nuclear sites don't seem to accomplish much, and aliens (or interdimensional beings or whatever) didn't do anything to prevent the use of nuclear weapons in World War II, haven't prevented some highly irresponsible nations from getting nuclear weapons, etc. If healing people is a significant concern to aliens (or whatever you think they are), why would that concern start or increase so much in recent decades? The issue isn't whether coming up with an explanation in line with the alien hypothesis (or the interdimensional being hypothesis or whatever) is possible. The issue is what's the best explanation, not just a possible one. An explanation more aligned with human psychology, such as human psi, seems better than something like aliens or interdimensional beings.

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.