Triablogue

Interacting With The Dead

2026-05-10T07:06:00.002-04:00

Greg Koukl addressed the issue of interacting with the dead on a recent podcast. Start listening at 50:16 here. He was responding to a Christian caller whose parents have recently been having some allegedly paranormal experiences that they've interpreted as contact from their deceased daughter. I suspect ninety-some percent of the Evangelicals who would typically listen to a program like Greg's would agree with the answer he provides. But I want to address some problems with it. In addition to addressing what Greg and the caller said, I want to talk about some other misconceptions I suspect many people have about these issues.

- These are important topics in multiple contexts. They're relevant to how we interpret certain Biblical passages, what we make of some extrabiblical events (e.g., apparitions of the dead, which many people experience), the nature of the afterlife, paranormal research, etc. Think of a widow who experiences an apparition of her deceased husband, for example. Do you dismiss all such experiences as delusional or demonic, or do you consider other explanatory options? What are the implications of your approach for that widow and others involved?

- We shouldn't expect the Bible to exhaustively address every issue involved here, nor should we reject good reasoning and evidence on these issues just because the reasoning and evidence are extrabiblical. Similarly, the Bible gives us some information about God's work as creator without telling us everything he created, why he created what he did, and so forth. We often accept reasoning and evidence about God's creation from extrabiblical sources (e.g., a video of an animal we previously didn't know about). To cite another example, we take what the Bible says about prayer into account, but we don't expect the Bible to answer every conceivable question about prayer, and we frequently reach conclusions about the subject based on extrabiblical evidence (e.g., evidence for an answer to one of our prayers). Sola scriptura is about public and special revelation. It's not a claim that all religious information is found in scripture or anything like that.

- We've addressed issues pertaining to interacting with the dead in other posts, like mine here that provides an overview of the afterlife and the paranormal from a Christian perspective. Go here for a discussion of the circumstances in which interaction with the deceased would be acceptable. For some examples of the harm that can be done by attributing too much to demons, see here.

- Greg mentions some of the relevant Biblical material, but leaves a lot out. He doesn't address the passages supporting the existence of ghosts in the gospels and Acts. As I explained in one of my posts linked earlier, "Scripture suggests that there are ghosts. Translations like the New King James and the New American Standard render Matthew 14:26 and Mark 6:49 with the term 'ghost'. I think they're right. The Greek term in question isn't used elsewhere in the New Testament. Different terminology is used to describe demons in both gospels. And when somebody sees a spirit who looks like a human, the most likely interpretation is that a ghost is being seen. It could be a demon making itself look like a human, but that's a more complicated and, thus, inferior interpretation. The most straightforward interpretation of Matthew 14:26, Mark 6:49, and Luke 24:37-39 is that ghosts are in mind. The same is true of Acts 12:15. On that passage, see here and here. Notice how widespread and persistent the early Christians' belief in ghosts is in these passages. Apparently, Jesus never corrected that belief in any of the contexts in question or in any other context. In the Luke 24 passage, he even seems to go along with the belief, focusing on proving that he isn't a ghost without attempting to disprove the disciples' belief in ghosts." Greg mentions the Mount of Transfiguration, but then doesn't bring it up again when it's relevant later in the discussion. He mentions the appearance of Samuel to Saul in 1 Samuel 28, but doesn't address some of the relevant details. As I discuss in one of my posts linked earlier, Samuel's expecting Saul to listen to him and asking questions of him after Samuel had returned to life on earth suggest that it would have been acceptable for Saul to listen and to respond. So, we not only have somewhat widespread Biblical support for the appearance of the dead on earth, but also have some reason to think being around the dead and listening and speaking to them is acceptable.

- What, then, do we make of the Biblical passages condemning attempts to contact the deceased? I've discussed that material many times, especially in the context of addressing prayer to saints and angels. I just mentioned angels, who aren't among the dead, but there is some overlap between trying to contact angels and trying to contact the dead. You can see my page just linked on prayer to saints and angels for more about prayer in particular. But the point I want to make here is that one area of overlap between contact with the deceased and contact with angels is that who initiates the contact is likely significant in both contexts. I agree with the distinction one of the earliest church fathers, Hermas, made when discussing angels. He said that we're not to try to initiate contact with them, but that we can respond to them if they initiate the contact (e.g., Gabriel's appearances to Zechariah and Mary in Luke 1). You can read my post on Hermas here for further details. So, in the 1 Samuel 28 context, Saul was wrong to initiate contact with Samuel, but it was permissible for him to interact with Samuel once Samuel had reentered the earthly realm.

- One of the words I just used, "permissible", is important. I see no reason to think we're obligated to speak to the deceased, seek to be around them, remain around them when they come near, etc. Rather, doing such things is allowed, but not required. Whether it makes sense to do such things depends on the context. And sometimes the most sensible approach is to be agnostic on the subject. Sometimes we don't have enough information to go by. The individual who called Greg's podcast knew more about his situation than Greg did. And the caller's parents presumably knew more than the caller did. Given how little information the caller provided and how ambiguous the information he did provide is, it seems likely that either agnosticism or only leaning a little in one direction or another would be the best approach under those circumstances.

- The caller cited the thief on the cross, who would be with Jesus in heaven on the day of his death, and the caller referred to that situation as if it's universal. But there can be general rules that allow exceptions (e.g., Hebrews 9:27 refers to how "it is appointed for men to die once", but allows for exceptions who didn't die, like Enoch, Elijah, and people alive at the time of the second coming, and people who died more than once, like the Lazarus of John 11). This is an area where the Bible and paranormal research align well. In both contexts, there's evidence for some people appearing on earth after death, but only a minority of people. The most sensible way to interpret the Biblical evidence seems to be that most people, perhaps even the large majority, go to heaven or hell after death without returning to earth in any relevant way, but that some minority do return to earth. I don't know of any Biblical passage that would disallow a return to earth by a minority of the deceased, and Biblical passages like the ones I discussed earlier (1 Samuel 28, the ghost passages in the gospels, etc.) provide evidence for some degree of a return to earth by the deceased.

- While Greg is right that an alleged deceased individual could be a demon, there are problems with concluding that demons are involved where they aren't, as one of my articles linked earlier discusses. Some apparitions are of a trivial, repetitive, and noninteractive nature, for example, so that they seem more likely to be a place memory than a demon, deceased individual, or any other sort of personal agent. Or God could give a grieving widow an apparition of her deceased husband to comfort and encourage her. Suggesting to her that she was deceived by a demon without evidence that warrants that conclusion would be problematic. And so on. We do need to try to avoid assigning too little to demons, but we also need to try to avoid assigning too much to them.

How John's High Christology Is Connected To Other Historical Events

2026-05-07T05:58:00.007-04:00

I've argued elsewhere that Jesus' high claims about himself in the fourth gospel can't be dismissed as easily as critics often suggest. I've argued for the historicity of Jesus' "I am" statements in general. I've argued especially for the historicity of John 8:12, such as how it's connected to so many aspects of the surrounding context in John's gospel and material outside John, meaning that removing 8:12 would cause a ripple effect that would go beyond that one verse. See my comments on 8:12 in the post linked above and my lengthier treatments of the subject here and here, for example.

Another example of that kind of thing is John 11:8. Jesus' disciples refer to how there had just been an attempt to stone him. That occurred in 10:31, in response to Jesus' high claim about himself in 10:30. So, removing 10:30 would affect 10:31 and 11:8, meaning that 10:30 doesn't exist in isolation. Even in the distinct context of 11:8, involving a different sequence of events in a different location, 10:30 is treated as historical.

Seth Kasten's Video Series Against The Invocation Of Saints

2026-05-05T05:19:00.002-04:00

I've mentioned Seth Kasten's book against prayer to saints in the past. He started a video series on the topic at Scholastic Lutherans in 2023, but it hasn't been updated in a while. I was going to wait until the whole series was out to link it, but I'll go ahead and link what's already available: part one, part two, and part three.

How much were the Zeitoun Marian apparitions associated with Coptic Christianity?

2026-05-03T07:44:00.004-04:00

The subject is important not only because of the use of Zeitoun by Roman Catholics, but also because of how positively other non-Copts view the apparitions. Given the closeness of Coptic Christianity and the Zeitoun apparitions, how do non-Copts reconcile an acceptance of the apparitions as Marian with their rejection of Coptic Christianity?

The problem doesn't have to be maximal or even close to maximal in order to have some significance. We're making probability judgments, and non-maximal evidence can be a substantial part of a cumulative case.

And a cumulative case allows for different evidence to point in different directions. The issue is the overall balance of evidence. Even if you think the overall evidence favors a Catholic Marian interpretation of Zeitoun or a Protestant Marian interpretation, for example, the affiliation with Copticism I'm addressing in this post can still go against your non-Coptic conclusion.

I see no reasonable way to deny that from a non-Coptic perspective like Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, or Eastern Orthodoxy, the association of the apparitions with Coptic Christianity is evidence against their being appearances of Mary. What's more debatable is the extent to which that association provides such evidence. What I want to do in this post is expand upon what I've said before about the extent of the apparitions' association with Copticism.

Before I do that, however, I want to address another issue that occasionally comes up. People sometimes claim to be taking something at face value and cite that as an advantage of their position. That often happens in paranormal contexts, including with Marian apparitions. It's true that all other things being equal, we prefer a simpler explanation. But other things aren't always equal. And the claim to be accepting all Marian apparitions at face value is dubious, as a comparison of cases like Zeitoun and Fatima illustrates. If you're taking a non-Coptic view of Zeitoun, that can undermine an appeal to taking the case at face value, an appeal to how easy it supposedly is to see that your position is correct, etc. There's no quick, easy way to make sense of Marian apparitions as a whole. If you don't like that fact, too bad. You have to live with it.

Marian apparitions have been less common in Copticism than in Catholicism, but there were some Marian apparitions in Coptic circles prior to Zeitoun. See Travis Dumsday's discussion in section 2 of chapter 2 of his book The Marian Apparitions At Zeitoun (Yonkers, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2024). He cites Otto Meinardus' discussion of an apparition in which somebody "was instructed by the Holy Virgin to rebuild the [Coptic] Monasteries of the Wadi'n-Natrun." (approximate Kindle location 302) Dumsday goes on, later in the same chapter, to discuss some alleged prophecies of the Zeitoun apparitions, and those supposed prophecies, like the earlier apparition I just cited, are closely affiliated with Copticism. For example:

The Coptic Orthodox Church of St Mary in Zeitoun was constructed in 1924 and consecrated a year later. It has been widely reported that the construction of the church had earlier been prompted by a religious dream or vision experienced by Ibrahim Pasha Khalil, a Copt who donated the land on which the church was built. Supposedly the Virgin Mary appeared to him in 1918 or 1920 (different authors give a different year) and instructed him to help establish a church on the site dedicated to her, and that if this was done, she would return to bless it (with some authors specifying a fifty-year timeline for the return). This story was apparently circulating widely soon after the major public apparitions began, and it is commonly recounted. However, I have not been able to discover whether any documentation of this prophecy exists prior to the start of the apparitions in 1968. If so, that would be potentially significant. However, if future researchers are unable to come up with such written sources, one might worry that this could be an instance of ex post facto "prophecy." At present it is difficult to say....

[quoting Pearl Zaki] "The first appearance of the Virgin Mary on April 2, 1968, began as a public revelation. No one person was singled out or unique in receiving a 'special' message. All received according to the measure given by God. It was reported and well known among the faithful that prior to this first public appearance, the Virgin Mary appeared privately to the holy priest of the church, Reverend Father Constantine Moussa. It was said, 'On one evening she met him on the steps in the church by the altar, she spoke to him, he fainted and fell to the floor.' Father Constantine, a very modest and humble priest, felt urged not to reveal what was said to him at this visit, at least not until after his death so as to bring no attention to himself. He died in June of 1984. Before his death His Grace Bishop Gregorious, Chairman of the [Coptic] Papal Committee sent by His Holiness Kyrillos VI to investigate the events at Zeitun Church, asked Father Constantine 'what was the message that was given you?' Father Constantine told His Grace that the Virgin Mary revealed to him the nature of her impending appearance at St Mary's Church and told him to 'BE READY'!! They were."

(424, 440)

Whatever you make of those alleged predictions and their alleged fulfillment, the source behind the apparitions chose to appear at a Coptic church. There were many other options available.

It then chose to keep reappearing there as its primary location for years on end.

It sometimes went further by going inside the church or showing regard for the church by other means, such as bowing before a cross at the top of it. An early report from Coptic officials referred to how Mary appeared "on and in the domes of the church" (Jerome Palmer, Our Lady Returns To Egypt [San Bernardino, California: Culligan Publications, Inc., 1969], 40). Some other examples:

[quoting a Coptic committee's report] "Then she appeared in her complete form, moving on the domes, then bowing before the cross and at the end, she blessed the multitudes."...

[quoting a statement read by a Coptic official] "Occasionally, the apparition came through the opening in the church's domes, and sometimes it appeared outside the dome. The apparition walked above the altar and bowed before the upper cross of the church."...

[quoting Helen Naguib Louis] "And then, from the chapel (of the church), from the side of the little alley, we saw a light which was not normal: something like the sun, orange, then a halo like in an icon: it was the image of the Virgin and that of a young Jesus, who came out of the dome."

(Travis Dumsday, The Marian Apparitions At Zeitoun [Yonkers, New York: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2024], approximate Kindle locations 701, 758, 1796)

Palmer wrote that "Feasts of Our Lady in the Coptic Calendar, of which there are thirty-two, seem to be favored [by the apparitions]." (Our Lady Returns To Egypt [San Bernardino, California: Culligan Publications, Inc., 1969], 15) He wrote that while the apparitions were still going on. I don't know how accurate his assessment regarding alignment with the Coptic calendar was at the time when he wrote or whether that trait, if authentic, continued during the remainder of the apparitions.

Even without that alignment with Coptic Christianity, there were a significant number, variety, and quality of alignments in other contexts. As I said before, the evidence doesn't have to be maximal, or even close to maximal, in order to have some significance.

Objecting to the nonverbal nature of some of the evidence I've cited above is an inadequate response. Nonverbal evidence is still evidence, even if it's less explicit than a verbal alternative would be. Paranormal phenomena range across the spectrum, from strictly nonverbal to highly verbal, with a lot between those two. Near-death experiences (NDEs), for example, are frequently highly or entirely nonverbal. That doesn't prevent people from reaching conclusions about the identity of the figures they see in NDEs (recognizing relatives by their appearance, recognizing Jesus by nail prints around his hands, recognizing the gods of indigenous religions by various traits, etc.). And the activities of the figures in NDEs are often interpreted by nonverbal means. The same occurs with Marian apparitions. Often, the figure is identified as Mary by nonverbal criteria. As my citations of the books I quoted earlier illustrate, the Zeitoun apparitions and their activities were often identified by nonverbal means (the clothing of the figure seen, bowing before a cross, a gesture interpreted as a blessing of the crowd, etc.). Healings, for example, are often interpreted by means of their timing or other nonverbal aspects of the surrounding context, not something like a statement from an apparition. Advocates of Marian apparitions can't have it both ways. They can't base their conclusions about the apparitions on so much nonverbal evidence, then turn around and claim that nonverbal evidence has little or no significance when it leads to a conclusion they dislike.

This post has been focused on the issue of how much the Zeitoun apparitions were affiliated with Coptic Christianity. My focus on that issue in this post isn't meant to imply that the Coptic association is my only argument against a Marian interpretation of the events. I've discussed other lines of evidence against a Marian view in other posts. See here, for example.

The Resurrection Debate Between Alex O'Connor And Trent Horn

2026-04-30T19:06:00.006-04:00

You can watch it here. Trent made some good points against Alex's position during the debate, but I want to supplement what he said with some of my own responses to Alex. And I want to respond to Trent to some extent. I've responded to Alex on resurrection issues in the past, and some of what he said in his discussion with Trent covers the same ground. I'll link to some of my previous responses to Alex, since what he said in this recent discussion doesn't advance his side of the argument in any significant way. I also want to add some further comments to what I said in response to him in the past.

Both of them brought up extrabiblical miracle claims, such as some miracles surrounding early Mormonism and Marian apparitions. As often occurs, the discussion was framed as if the explanatory options consist of normal causes, the Divine, and the demonic. But there are other options (paranormal activity from living humans, paranormal activity from deceased humans, place memories, etc.). For a discussion of some problems with neglecting those other explanatory options, see here.

Regarding Marian apparitions, see my post earlier this week, which addresses two apparitions Trent cited, Zeitoun and Fatima. In the years ahead, it's probably going to become significantly more popular to use Marian apparitions in a manner like Trent did. That's not just because of the influence of Trent, but also because of the influence of others who are promoting that sort of argumentation (as discussed in my post earlier this week, for example). It's a significant trend. Protestants and other non-Catholics need to be better prepared to address it.

Concerning Alex's appeal to extrabiblical miracles, there are many posts in our archives addressing skeptical arguments of that sort, such as here. Or you can search our archives for material about particular miracle claims, if you have something specific in mind. Christianity has more than enough explanatory options to adequately address extrabiblical and non-Christian miracle claims, including the ones Alex brought up.

Whether Jesus rose from the dead and how his resurrection fits in with other alleged miracles are related, but distinct issues. There's no need for an argument for Jesus' resurrection to address everything that needs to be addressed about every other miracle claim. His resurrection is one line of argument among others for Christianity. The resurrection of Christ has a foundational role, but it doesn't exist in isolation. It's part of a larger network of miracles, philosophical considerations, etc.

On the alleged evolution of the gospels over time, how the later gospels supposedly say suspiciously more than the earlier ones, see here.

Regarding the objectivity of, physicality of, and evidence for the resurrection appearance to Paul, see here. A couple years later, I wrote an article about the evidence for the appearance to Paul in Acts.

Alex cited John 21:24 against the "we" passages in Acts and Luke's authorship of Luke/Acts and against John 21's testimony about the death of Peter. But first-person plural language can be used for more than one reason. Alex didn't offer an argument that Acts and John are using the language in the same manner. (See here for a discussion of the evidence pertaining to the "we" passages in Acts. Trent is right.) And John 21:24 affirms authorship by the Beloved Disciple rather than denying it. Even if we were to take the "we" in that verse as distinguishing between the Beloved Disciple and the author(s), the verse would still be saying that the Beloved Disciple wrote the large majority of the document, what leads up to 21:24, including the anticipation of Peter's death. And Alex is wrong about 21:24. See my citation of Charles Hill on the subject and my own comments about it here. Just after verse 24, verse 25 uses the first-person singular. There are multiple, converging lines of evidence for the conclusion that the fourth gospel and 1 John claim that the fourth gospel was written by an eyewitness of Jesus. See my recent posts on the subject here and here, for example. And Alex's suggestion that John 21 was added to the gospel later is something he didn't offer any supporting argument for, it contradicts the internal and external evidence (e.g., the manuscript record), and a later date for chapter 21 could still leave us with an early source on Peter's death. If John 21 was added in the late first or early second century, for example, it would still be a significantly early source supporting Trent's argument.

Trent responded to Alex with the possibility that the fourth gospel came from another disciple of Jesus named John, not the son of Zebedee. But the evidence suggests authorship by the son of Zebedee, not some other John. See here, among other relevant posts in our archives.

Alex suggested that the appearance to Peter in 1 Corinthians 15:5 might be based on the Mount of Transfiguration account in the Synoptics. But the two events are substantially different, making Alex's explanation far from the simplest, 1 Corinthians 15:5 singles out Peter rather than including James and John, and Luke mentions both events and distinguishes between them (Luke 9:28-36, 24:34).

There are too many other problematic claims made by Alex for me to respond to all of them here. He frequently put forward possible scenarios without arguing for their probability, often suggesting multiple potential explanations for one thing without arguing for one explanation over the alternatives (e.g., when discussing the empty tomb). Trent didn't have time to respond to all of that, and Alex didn't provide us enough reason (or any in some contexts) to believe the explanations he was putting forward.

Following The Chain Of Joy

2026-04-30T05:29:00.002-04:00

"Now, if you love what He made, what must He be who made it? If the world is beautiful, what must be the Author of the world?" (unknown source, in Mary Magdeleine Mueller, trans., St. Caesarius: Sermons, Volume I [1-80] [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004], Sermon 21:5, p. 110)

Problems With Roman Catholic Apparitions Of Mary

2026-04-28T06:22:00.005-04:00

Fatima has been getting an unusual amount of attention lately, largely because of a recent debate on the subject between Ethan Muse and Sean Luke. The Zeitoun apparitions got a lot of attention last year. I don't know enough about Fatima to address it as much as I have Zeitoun. But I want to discuss some of the factors involved in evaluating Marian apparitions in general.

Fatima is affiliated with Catholicism, whereas Zeitoun is associated with Coptic Christianity. Those are rival belief systems, including in how they view Mary. And there's a lot of evidence that Zeitoun came from a source other than Mary, a source of a lower nature, who behaved differently than Mary would likely behave. So, Zeitoun provides some precedent for Marian apparitions that involve much of what Catholics appeal to in the context of their own apparitions (large crowds claiming to have witnessed paranormal phenomena, conversions, healings, etc.), yet seem to be non-Catholic and non-Marian.

You can find a collection of some of my posts on Zeitoun here. The principles I discussed in those threads have some application to Fatima.

There are major historical problems with the Catholic view of Mary. Any Marian apparition connected to Catholicism has a series of credibility problems accordingly. Similarly, if there were an apparition supposedly involving some other historical figure, and the apparition was associated with a series of claims about that figure that go contrary to a large amount of historical evidence we have about him, those problematic historical claims would be evidence against the credibility of the apparition.

You can find a collection of some of my posts on the relevant topics here. Or go here for an archive of our posts about Mary. (Keep clicking Older Posts in the lower right to see more.) Notice how numerous and diverse the problems with the Catholic Mary are. There's widespread Biblical and extrabiblical evidence against Mary's perpetual virginity, her sinlessness, her assumption, praying to her, and venerating images of her, for example. Even well into the medieval era, we find Popes and Catholic saints denying or being agnostic about certain aspects of the modern Catholic view of Mary. Those kinds of historical problems with Catholic Mariology are widely acknowledged by Catholic scholars, not just non-Catholics. The Biblical evidence against a Catholic view of Mary is significant and has to be addressed, but there's a large amount of extrabiblical evidence against the Catholic Mary as well.

I don't hold a demonic view of Zeitoun or Fatima. I've explained why I think Zeitoun is more likely a case of human psi. To the extent that something like healing claims affiliated with a case like Zeitoun are credible, I wouldn't attribute those to demons, but instead to healing through human psi, Divine healings to some extent, and so forth. Again, see my Zeitoun posts for more discussion of the subject. However, the demonic view of miracles like healings is less problematic than many Catholic critics have been suggesting. I discuss the subject in my Zeitoun posts. Even Catholic Saints have argued for demonic miracles, including healings (e.g., Caesarius of Arles, Mary Magdeleine Mueller, trans., St. Caesarius: Sermons, Volume I [1-80] [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2004], Sermon 50:1, p. 254).

My Zeitoun posts also discuss the justification for viewing miracles like Jesus' resurrection and prophecy fulfillment as Divine while viewing some other miracles as non-Divine. All of us, including Catholics, have to address such issues and make such distinctions. This isn't something that only critics of a case like Fatima have to do.

Prayer to saints and angels in Revelation 5:8 and 8:4?

2026-04-26T07:01:00.003-04:00

Because prayer to angels and saints is so absent from and contradicted by the Biblical sources and the earliest extrabiblical ones, advocates of the practice resort to unverifiable appeals to passages like Revelation 5:8 and 8:4. Neither passage suggests prayer to angels or saints, just as the angels' carrying bowls of wrath elsewhere in Revelation doesn't lead us to conclude that the angels are the recipients of that wrath. And the earliest interpreters of those passages in Revelation refer to how the prayers are directed to God. There's no mention of praying to angels or saints. For some documentation of that fact, as well as a discussion of the Biblical evidence against the abuse of Revelation 5:8 and 8:4 to support prayer to angels and saints, see here.

I came across another example while reading Tom Schmidt's translation of Anonymous Greek Scholia On The Apocalypse. In a passage about Revelation 5:8 that seems to have come from Origen, we read:

"Somewhere it is said, 'Let my prayer be directed as incense before you [God].' [Psalm 141:2] Bowls full of these incenses are the guides of those who genuinely pray to Christ." (Francis Gumerlock, et al., translators, Cassiodorus, St, Gregory The Great, And Anonymous Greek Scholia: Writings On The Apocalypse [Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022], 131)

Psalm 141:2, which is about praying to God, is cited, followed by a reference to those who "pray to Christ". Origen makes similar comments, including the citation of Psalm 141:2, in section 8:17 of Against Celsus.

For a collection of resources on the evidence against prayer to saints and angels, see here.

Why is the discussion starting here?

2026-04-23T05:55:00.002-04:00

One of the most important steps you can take in evaluating the issues that come up in life is to ask what assumptions are being made at the beginning of a discussion. Is the conversation starting where it ought to? Are people beginning their reasoning with some false assumptions, in terms of a false concept of what happened in a certain historical context, false priorities, or whatever else?

For example, when critics of Christianity try to cast doubt on something like the authorship of the gospels or their genre, and they object to how few sources Christians are citing in support of their position or how late the sources are, how does the critic's position compare? How many and how late are the sources supporting his position? If there's an assumption that the skeptic shouldn't be expected to show any support for his positions among the ancient sources, is that a valid assumption?

Or when there's a controversy surrounding a Marian apparition or a paranormal case of some other type, what explanatory options are people starting with? Are they taking the relevant factors into account?

Or when an advocate of baptismal regeneration begins a discussion with a large number of exceptions in mind to the rule of baptismal regeneration that he's advocating (people who lived in the Old Testament era, people who lived during Jesus' public ministry, Cornelius, martyrs who died without being baptized, catechumens who died without being baptized, etc.), should those exceptions be granted without supporting arguments? If supporting arguments are offered, are they adequate? Even if it's popular to allow the advocate of baptismal regeneration to assume a lot of exceptions to the rule without arguing for them, should you be going along with that popular practice?

It's important to think through issues like these. Be cautious about how discussions are framed and how they proceed.

Where are the laborers?

2026-04-21T04:04:00.002-04:00

One of the issues I've often discussed here over the years is who we should pray to. Should we pray to saints and angels or only pray to God? And I've sometimes mentioned that the issue of who we should pray to is unusually difficult to discuss, because advocates of praying to saints and angels so often behave so poorly (category confusions, the use of forgeries, poor handling of the dating of sources, etc.). You can find a discussion of some examples here.

But another problem that makes the situation even worse is how apathetic, ignorant, misinformed, and uninvolved the large majority of opponents of prayer to saints and angels are. The people on that side of the argument who even come close to handling it well are few and far between. The neglect of the issue has never made sense to me.

And there are similar circumstances in a lot of other contexts. For example, advocates of baptismal regeneration and opponents of eternal security can make highly inaccurate claims about the historical theology relevant to those doctrines, as they often do, and rarely get much of a response from the other side.

The few people who handle the issues well shouldn't be expected to do more and more. There ought to be more people doing the work.

"The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest." (Matthew 9:37-38)

"Here am I. Send me!" (Isaiah 6:8)